SACRAMENTO RIVER BASIN

JANUARY 2001

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, AND

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

FINAL NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AND CEQA INITIAL STUDY

REFUGE WATER SUPPLY

LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENTS




State of California

The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

Amendment to the Negative Declaration

for the Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

The Project. The Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) proposes to enter into a longterm refuge water supply contract with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Reclamation (Reclamation), for the Gray Lodge Wildlife Area. This action is proposed

pursuant to Sections 3406(d)(1) and 3406(d)(2) of Title 34 of Public Law 102-575 of the

Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). These sections of the CVPIA require

the provision of firm water supplies to specified National Wildlife Refuges, State

Wildlife Areas, and private wetlands in the Grassland Resource Conservation District

(collectively referred to as “refuges”). Providing firm water supplies under this project

would allow for optimum habitat management on the existing refuge lands. CDFG is the

lead agency for the project under CEQA.

The Finding. This project, in conjunction with the implementation of the Gray Lodge

Management Plan previously considered by CDFG, will not have a significant negative

impact on the environment.

Mandatory Findings. Based on the information in the Initial Study (attached) in

conjunction with the previously approved Negative Declaration for implementation of the

Gray Lodge Management Plan, CDFG in its independent judgment finds:

• The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,

substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or

wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a

plant community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered

plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of California history or

prehistory.

• The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the

disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.

• The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but

cumulatively considerable.

• The project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial

adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly.

Basis for Finding. Based on the attached Initial Study and on the Initial Study prepared

for implementation of the Gray Lodge Management Plan, no significant impact will occur

as a result of this project.
Therefore, this Negative Declaration is filed pursuant to Section 15072 of the Guidelines

for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

All comments or questions should be directed to:

Mr. Jim Steele

California Department of Fish and Game

1516 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 653-1485

 

L. Ryan Broddrick Date

Chief Deputy Director

California Department of Fish and Game
SAC/155333\JAN 2001/SAC LETTER 1.DOC 

Caltrans Responses to ComResponse 1-1No facilities are proposed as part of this aResponse 1-2The refuges of the Sacramento NWR comLodge WA are near Interstate 5 and State 162. However, these roads do not cross alands. Conveyance of water to the refugejoint CEQA/NEPA documents that were Reclamation and DFG in 1998.Response 1-3See response 1-2 above.

1-11-21-3
SAC/155333\JAN 2001/SAC LETTER 1.DOC 
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180002 (SAC CONTENTS.DOC) III

Contents

Section Page

1. Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................1-1

1.2 History of Refuge Water Supply Planning..........................................................1-1

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action........................................................1-4

1.4 Public Scoping .........................................................................................................1-5

1.5 Relationship to California Environmental Quality Act .....................................1-6

2. Background ............................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge..................................................................2-1

2.2 Delevan National Wildlife Refuge........................................................................2-3

2.3 Colusa National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................................................2-5

2.4 Sutter National Wildlife Refuge............................................................................2-6

2.5 Gray Lodge Wildlife Area......................................................................................2-7

3. Summary of Previous Environmental Documentation..................................................3-1

3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement...............................................3-1

3.3 Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply for West and East Sacramento

Study Areas ...........................................................................................................3-24

3.4 Management of Wildlife Areas ...........................................................................3-29

4. Description of Alternatives.................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Water Supply Agreements.....................................................................................4-1

4.3 On-Refuge Management ........................................................................................4-3

4.4 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail .....................................4-16

5. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences...........................................5-1

5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Biological Resources ...............................................................................................5-2

5.3 Water Quality ........................................................................................................5-15

5.4 Agricultural Land Use..........................................................................................5-20

5.5 Recreation...............................................................................................................5-24

5.6 Regional Economics..............................................................................................5-27

5.7 Social Conditions...................................................................................................5-29

5.8 Cultural Resources................................................................................................5-31

5.9 Visual Resources ...................................................................................................5-34

5.10 Power ....................................................................................................................5-36
CONTENTS

IV SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180002 (SAC CONTENTS.DOC)

6. Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act............................................................................6-1

6.2 Endangered Species Act ...............................................................................................6-1

6.3 Cultural Resources Coordination................................................................................6-2

6.4 Indian Trust Assets........................................................................................................6-2

6.5 Environmental Justice ...................................................................................................6-2

6.6 Farmlands Policy ...........................................................................................................6-2

Attachments

Environmental Commitments

References

List of Preparers

Appendix

CEQA Initial Study Checklist

Tables

1-1 Annual Level 2 and Level 4 Refuge Water Supplies for

Sacramento River Basin Refuges ............................................................................................1-6

3-1 Refuge Water Supply and Delivery Assumptions in the PEIS No Action

Alternative .................................................................................................................................3-5

3-2 Refuge Water Supply and Delivery Assumptions in the PEIS for Level 2

and Level 4 Water Supplies in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.......................................................3-9

3-3 Refuge Water Supply and Delivery Assumptions in the PEIS for Level 2

Water Supplies in Alternative 1............................................................................................3-10

3-4 Summary of CVPIA PEIS Analysis ......................................................................................3-11

4-1 Quantities of Water to Be Provided to the Refuges of the Sacramento NWR

Complex and Gray Lodge WA under the No Action Alternative.....................................4-2

4-2 Summary of the Proposed Water Service Memorandum of Understanding

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Proposed Water Service

Contract with the California Department of Fish and Game .............................................4-4

4-3 Acres of Habitat Expected on Sacramento NWR Complex Refuges

under the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action .....................................................4-8

4-4 Acres of Habitat Expected on the Gray Lodge WA under the No Action

Alternative and Proposed Action.........................................................................................4-12

5-1 Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring on or

Downstream of Refuges of the Sacramento River Basin.....................................................5-6

5-2 Estimated Increases in Drainage from Individual Refuges with

Delivery of Level 4 Water......................................................................................................5-19

5-3 Recreation Use on the Sacramento NWR Complex...........................................................5-25
CONTENTS

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180002 (SAC CONTENTS.DOC) V

Figure

2-1 Sacramento River Basin Refuges............................................................................................ 2-1
Section 1: Purpose and Need
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180003 (SAC 001.DOC) 1-1

SECTION 1

Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) proposes to enter

into long-term water supply contracts/agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), pursuant to Sections

3406(d)(1) and 3406(d)(2) of Title 34 of Public Law 102-575 of the Central Valley Project

Improvement Act (CVPIA). These sections of the CVPIA require the provision of firm water

supplies to specified National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs), State Wildlife Areas (WAs), and

private wetlands in the Grassland Resource Conservation District (RCD) (collectively

referred to as “refuges”). Providing firm water supplies under this project would allow for

optimum habitat management on the existing refuge lands. Reclamation is the federal Lead

Agency for the preparation of this environmental document (EA) under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).1 The proposed federal action is for the execution of the

following water service agreements:

• A Memorandum of Understanding between Reclamation and the Service for delivery of

water to the Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter NWRs

• A contract between the Reclamation and the CDFG for delivery of water to the Gray

Lodge WA

Reclamation is also undertaking concurrent actions to enter into long-term water supply

agreements per the CVPIA for refuges in the San Joaquin River Basin and the Tulare Lake

Basin of the Central Valley. Separate environmental documents are being prepared for these

other two study areas.

1.2 History of Refuge Water Supply Planning

1.2.1 The Pacific Flyway and Central Valley Wetlands

The Central Valley lies at the southerly end of the Pacific Flyway migratory route. In presettlement times it provided ideal wintering habitat and attracted large numbers of

waterfowl. The Pacific Flyway is the westernmost of North America’s four flyways, or

migration routes, which are defined as definite geographic regions with breeding grounds

in the north, wintering grounds in the south, and a system of migration routes in between.

The Pacific Flyway encompasses territory in three countries: northern and western Canada,

Alaska and all states west of the Rocky Mountains in the U.S., and western Mexico.

The Service ranks Central Valley wetland habitat as one of the top five habitats in the U.S.

Historically, the Central Valley contained approximately 4 million acres of wetlands.

 

1 This EA determines that the project would not cause a substantial change in the human environment, and thus does not

require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.
SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

1-2 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180003 (SAC 001.DOC)

Approximately 1.5 million acres located in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta and the

Tulare Basin were permanent marshes, while the remaining 2.5 million acres were seasonal

wetlands created by winter rains and spring snow melt from the Sierra Nevada. Today,

approximately 300,000 acres remain; 100,000 acres are publicly owned (federal and state

refuges) and 200,000 acres are privately owned (including private duck clubs). The

remaining 300,000 acres provide wintering habitat for 60 percent of the Pacific Flyway’s

current waterfowl population, and migration habitat for an additional 20 percent of the

population. Altogether, approximately 10 to 12 million ducks and geese, along with millions

of other water birds, annually winter in or pass through the Central Valley each year.

However, the number of waterfowl using the Central Valley has declined 40 to 50 percent

over the last 30 years (Service, 1996). Maintaining the Pacific Flyway for waterfowl depends

largely on maintaining critical wetland habitat in the Central Valley.

The Migratory Bird Conventions of 1916 and 1936 provided some of the first protection for

waterfowl and other migratory birds. These Conventions, or treaties between the U.S. and

Canada, and the U.S. and Mexico, respectively, established protection for all species of

migratory birds in North America, except during regulated hunting seasons for game birds.

The Conventions also provided the basic foundation for cooperative waterfowl

management programs. In accordance with these treaties, and in recognizing the

importance of waterfowl and wetlands and the need for international cooperation to help in

the recovery of a shared resource, the Canadian and U.S. governments developed a strategy

to restore waterfowl populations through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement.

The strategy was described in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan for

restoring waterfowl populations by protecting and restoring wetlands throughout North

America. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan was signed in 1986 by the

Canadian Minister of the Environment and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, and was

updated in 1994 to include the Republic of Mexico.

The goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan are accomplished through

joint ventures composed of individuals, corporations, conservation organizations, and local,

state, and federal agencies. There are currently 11 habitat joint ventures in the U.S. and 3 in

Canada, including the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture, which established the following

six broad goals:

• Enhance the natural resource values on the remaining existing wetland areas

(approximately 300,000 acres)

• Enhance 443,000 acres of private agricultural lands for feeding and nesting waterfowl

• Protect 80,000 acres of existing wetlands through perpetual easement or fee title

purchase

• Restore and protect 120,000 acres of former wetlands

• Secure 402,450 acre-feet of water for NWRs and WAs in the Central Valley and the

Grassland RCD

• Secure Central Valley Project (CVP) power for the NWRs, State WAs, the Grassland

RCD, and other private and public lands dedicated to wetland management
SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180003 (SAC 001.DOC) 1-3

Central Valley Refuges identified in the

Report on Refuge Water Supply

Investigations:

• Sacramento NWR*

• Delevan NWR*

• Colusa NWR*

• Sutter NWR*

• Gray Lodge WA*

• San Luis NWR

• Kesterson NWR

• Merced NWR

• Los Banos WA

• Volta WA

• Grassland RCD

• Mendota WA

• Kern NWR

• Pixley NWR

* Considered in this EA.

1.2.2 Wetland Water Supply Planning

Securing a reliable water supply of sufficient quality has long been recognized as an

important component for sustaining wetland habitats in the Central Valley, as well as

providing for the waterfowl of the Pacific Flyway and other wildlife species that depend on

wetland habitat. As early as 1950, state and federal resource agencies started investigating

ways of maintaining wetland habitat, with a specific focus on providing reliable water

supplies to wetland habitat areas. Numerous federal and state planning efforts regarding

refuge water supplies followed and include:

• Waterfowl Conservation in the Lower San Joaquin Valley (Reclamation, 1950)

• Fish and Wildlife Problems, Opportunities, and Solutions: Total Water Management

Study for the Central Valley Basin, California (Reclamation, 1978)

• Water Availability Study for California Wetlands (Service, 1978a)

• Concept Plan for Waterfowl Wintering Habitat Preservation (Service, 1978b)

• A Plan for Protecting, Enhancing, and Increasing California’s Wetlands for Waterfowl

(CDFG, 1983)

• Central Valley Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Study: New Waterfowl Habitat

Potential within the Central Valley (Reclamation, 1986)

• Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture Implementation Plan (Service, 1990)

All of these documents describe Central Valley wetlands as having declined significantly,

and submit that reliable water supplies have not been completely or consistently available.

Two 1989 reports, described below, provided the basis for the water supply requirements

prescribed by Sections 3406(d)(1) and 3406(d)(2) of the CVPIA.

Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations

In the early 1980s, Reclamation initiated a refuge

water supply study to investigate and identify

potential sources and delivery systems for

providing dependable water supplies to

14 Central Valley refuges. With assistance from

the Service and CDFG, this investigation was

summarized in the Report on Refuge Water Supply

Investigations, Central Valley Hydrologic Basin,

California (Reclamation, 1989). The 1989 report

identified the historic average annual water

supplies and water supplies required for

optimum habitat management for each refuge.

The CVPIA adopted by reference the

dependable water supplies from the 1989 report as the specific quantities of water to be

provided to the refuges.
SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

1-4 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180003 (SAC 001.DOC)

San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan

The 1989 Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations identified the reliable water supplies

needed for several refuges in the San Joaquin Valley. Several of the refuge areas were also

discussed by Reclamation (1989) in the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation

Plan (Action Plan). The Action Plan discussed wetland restoration on several biologically

sensitive private lands adjacent to the state and federal refuges. The Action Plan was

prepared to implement the objectives of the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture in the San

Joaquin Valley (including providing reliable water supplies), and to meet the long-term

mitigation requirements for the selenium-contaminated Kesterson Reservoir. Pursuant to

the Action Plan, most of the private lands studied in the report have been acquired and

integrated into the existing federal and state refuge system. The water supplies necessary for

full habitat development and management on these acquired parcels were identified in the

Action Plan, and were adopted by reference into the CVPIA. The San Joaquin Basin Action

Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan is discussed in more detail in the Environmental Assessment

prepared for long-term refuge water service agreements in the San Joaquin River Basin.

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to execute long-term refuge water supply

agreements, pursuant to the CVPIA, for the Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter NWRs

(collectively referred to as the Sacramento NWR Complex) and the Gray Lodge WA.2 These

agreements will define the terms and conditions for annual water deliveries to the refuges.

The need for the Proposed Action is to provide firm, reliable water supplies of suitable

quality to the refuges to contribute to habitat maintenance and improvement efforts along

the Pacific Flyway.

In Section 3402 of the CVPIA, the purposes of the CVPIA are identified as protection,

restoration, and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in the Central Valley,

and achievement of a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of Central

Valley Project (CVP) water. CVPIA directives regarding wildlife refuges are found in

Section 3406(d) of the Act, which begins as follows:

In support of the objectives of the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture and in furtherance of

the purposes of this title, the Secretary shall provide, either directly or through contractual

agreements with other appropriate parties, firm water supplies of suitable quality to maintain

and improve wetland habitat areas on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System in the

Central Valley of California; on the Gray Lodge, Los Banos, Volta, North Grasslands, and

Mendota state wildlife management areas; and on the Grassland Resource Conservation

District in the Central Valley of California.

The proposed long-term agreements will be implemented in accordance with Sections

3406(d)(1) and 3406(d)(2) of the CVPIA. Section 3406(d)(1) requires the Secretary of the

Interior to immediately (that is, upon enactment of the CVPIA) provide specific quantities of

water to the refuges. The CVPIA indicates that long-term contractual agreements should be

developed for water provided under Section 3406(d)(1). For the refuges considered in this

 

2 The Sacramento NWR Complex also includes the Butte Basin NWR and the Sacramento River NWR. However, these

refuges were not considered in the Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations, so are not receiving water pursuant to the

CVPIA.
SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180003 (SAC 001.DOC) 1-5

EA, the water supplies required pursuant to Section 3406(d)(1) are for “Level 2” supplies.

These supplies were defined in the 1989 Report of Refuge Water Supply Investigations as the

average annual water supplies delivered to the refuge boundaries from 1977 through 1984

(Table 1-1). The CVPIA requires delivery of this water in all year types except critically dry

water year conditions, as determined by Reclamation for allocation of CVP water. In the

case of a critically dry water year, the Secretary of the Interior may reduce the Level 2 refuge

water supplies by up to 25 percent.

Section 3406(d)(2) of the CVPIA refers to “Level 4” refuge water supplies, which is the

amount of water required for optimum habitat management of the existing refuge lands

identified in the 1989 Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations (Table 1-1). The increment

of water above Level 2 to meet Level 4 supplies must be acquired from voluntary sources

(such as willing sellers). Section 3406(d)(2) requires that, upon enactment of the CVPIA,

Level 4 water be provided in 10 percent cumulative increments per year with provision of

full Level 4 supplies after 10 years. Reclamation has been acquiring incremental amounts of

Level 4 water on a short-term basis from willing sellers since 1992, and expects to acquire

and provide full Level 4 supplies to the refuges by 2002. The long-term water supply

contracts/agreements would provide for delivery of the total water supply, as required by

Sections 3406(d)(1) and 3406(d)(2).

TABLE 1-1

Annual Level 2 and Level 4 Refuge Water Supplies for Sacramento River Basin Refuges

Water Supplies

(acre-feet)

Refuge Level 2a Level 4 Incrementa Total

Sacramento NWR 46,400 3,600 50,000

Delevan NWR 20,950 9,050 30,000

Colusa NWR 25,000 - 0 - 25,000

Sutter NWR 23,500 6,500 30,000

Gray Lodge WA 35,400 8,600 44,000

a

 Levels 2 and 4 water supplies needed on the refuge per the Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations

(Reclamation, 1989). The amount of water diverted in order to meet these demands at the refuge boundaries will be

greater as a result of loss of water during conveyance.

1.4 Public Scoping

The three environmental documents for the Refuge Water Supply–Long-Term Agreement

project were the subject of a scoping process held from November 30, 1999, through January

7, 2000. On November 30, 1999, Reclamation published a Notice of Intent in the Federal

Register that notified the public of the proposal, announced the dates and locations of four

public meetings, and solicited public comments. Public notification was also made through

direct mailing of the Notice of Intent to about 80 stakeholders, and by issuance of a press

release. Interested parties were encouraged to attend the scoping meetings to provide verbal

comments, or to provide written comments. Given the nature of the project and the large

geographic area covered, scoping meetings were held in the general vicinity of the refuges
SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

1-6 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180003 (SAC 001.DOC)

(Willows and Los Banos) to attract local interest, and in metropolitan areas (Oakland and

Sacramento) to attract interest group and agency comments.

The comments provided during the scoping process and Reclamation’s responses can be

found in the Scoping Report prepared for the project (on file with Reclamation).

1.5 Relationship to California Environmental Quality Act

The federal action of entering into long-term agreements with the Service and CDFG is

subject to NEPA. This EA has been prepared pursuant to NEPA and determines that the

Proposed Action would not cause a substantial change in the human environment, and thus

does not require an Environmental Impact Statement.

Action by the CDFG to manage wildlife areas, which includes entering into water service

contracts, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CDFG has

prepared a Management Plan for the Gray Lodge WA. An Initial Study was performed

under CEQA, and a Negative Declaration was adopted in 1989 stating that implementing

the Management Plan would not have a significant effect on the environment. The resource

management activities expected on the Gray Lodge WA with full Level 4 water supplies

would be generally consistent with the existing Management Plan. However, in order to

fully evaluate and disclose the potential impacts of CDFG’s management activities in light

of the proposed long-term contracts, and to consider such impacts in combination with the

review of the long-term agreement between Reclamation and the Service, this document is

being prepared as a joint NEPA EA and CEQA Initial Study. In support of this evaluation, a

CEQA environmental checklist has been prepared (included in Appendix A).
Section 2: Background
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180004 (SAC 002.DOC) 2-1

SECTION 2

Background

The four NWRs evaluated in this Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS) lie in the

Sacramento River Basin, in Glenn, Colusa, and Sutter counties. These NWRs are managed

collectively by the Service as the Sacramento NWR Complex (Figure 2-1). Also within the

Sacramento River Basin, the CDFG manages Gray Lodge WA in Sutter and Butte counties.

Gray Lodge WA was also identified in the CVPIA.

These five refuges were created to provide habitat for migratory waterfowl of the Pacific

Flyway, and now serve a variety of wildlife and conservation objectives. The term “refuges”

is used collectively to refer to both federal NWRs and state WAs. The Sacramento Valley

supports approximately 44 percent of wintering waterfowl of the Pacific Flyway.

2.1 Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge

Sacramento NWR was created in 1937 and is located 5 miles south of the City of Willows.

This refuge extends into both Glenn and Colusa counties and encompasses 10,783 acres. The

refuge contains permanent ponds, seasonal wetlands, irrigated moist soil units, and

uplands. The wetlands support watergrass and invertebrate populations that serve as a food

FIGURE 2-1

Sacramento River Basin Refuges
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

2-2 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180004 (SAC 002.DOC)

source for migratory waterfowl. Upland areas of the refuge support large concentrations of

geese, upland birds, and other wildlife species (Reclamation, 1995).

The management objectives for the NWRs of the Sacramento Valley are:

• Provide a diversity of wetland habitats for an abundance of migratory birds, particularly

waterfowl and water birds

• Provide a natural habitat and management to restore and perpetuate endangered,

threatened, and proposed species, as well as species of special concern

• Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of flora and fauna

• Alleviate crop depredation on private lands by providing sufficient alternative food

sources for waterfowl on refuge property

• Provide opportunities for the understanding and appreciation of wildlife ecology and

the human role in the environment

• Provide high-quality wildlife-dependent recreation, education, and research

These goals are achieved through an ecosystem management approach that strives to

maintain a diversity of habitats that support and maintain a diversity of wildlife species.

2.1.1 Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

Water is used to maintain ponds and seasonal marshes and to irrigate watergrass for

waterfowl food on Sacramento NWR. Before passage of the CVPIA, habitat management on

the Sacramento NWR was affected by unreliable water supplies. Both the timing and

quantity delivered were extremely variable and were subject to annual water supply

agreements. As a result, the types and amount of wetland area varied annually with the

availability of water.

Before passage of the CVPIA, the refuge received CVP water from the Sacramento River

through Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) facilities. Under annual contracts with the

Service, GCID conveyed a maximum of 50,000 acre-feet of CVP water to the refuge. These

contracts specified that CVP water would be used to meet requirements of agricultural

contracts before water was delivered to the refuge. In some years, all available water was

allocated to agricultural users.

Additionally, GCID’s facilities were dewatered for maintenance and cleaning during the late

fall and winter months. As a result, the refuge received CVP water only from April through

the end of November. With no deliveries in the winter, when water is needed on the refuge

to maintain wintering waterfowl habitat, the refuge had to “stockpile” water. Stockpiling

water consists of flooding wetland areas 2 to 3 feet deep and holding the water through the

winter. This management strategy was necessary to ensure that habitat was available for

waterfowl throughout the winter. However, stockpiling water resulted in wetland areas

being flooded deeper than optimal levels for waterfowl feeding (that is, 1 foot or less). As a

result, while wetland habitat was available for waterfowl, its quality was impaired because

of the deep water that limited access to food sources (G. Mensik, pers. comm., December 13,

1999).
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180004 (SAC 002.DOC) 2-3

The Sacramento NWR also diverted agricultural return flows from Logan Creek under

appropriative water rights. The refuge holds four appropriative water licenses to divert up

to 60 cfs from Logan Creek to supply 4,575 acres of the refuge. Historically, the rights have

been subject to depletion by other rights with higher priorities, so that they are not

considered a dependable water supply. In addition, water was not always available from

Logan Creek during July and August (Reclamation, 1989). Typically, the refuge exercised its

water rights on Logan Creek only during the period when the GCID Main Canal was

dewatered for winter maintenance and there was natural flow in the creek (Reclamation,

1992).

One groundwater well exists on the refuge, but this well has not been used because of the

generally poor quality of groundwater due to high levels of arsenic and boron (G. Mensik,

pers. comm., January 13, 2000). As a result of the CVPIA mandate that Interior provide firm

water supplies of suitable quality, groundwater pumping is not a feasible alternative for

meeting water supplies required under the CVPIA.

Because of inconsistent availability and/or poor quality, none of the refuge’s water supplies

were considered reliable and of suitable quality for wetland habitat management.

2.1.2 Existing Water Supplies

Existing water supplies consist of the refuge’s appropriative water rights on Logan Creek

and water supplies provided for in the CVPIA. Just as it did before passage of the CVPIA,

GCID delivers CVP water to the refuge. With the completion of facilities modifications,

starting in March 2000, GCID was able to deliver water to Sacramento NWR year-round. In

previous years, GCID only delivered water to the refuge from April through November,

after which the GCID Main Canal was not used because of maintenance activities. As a

result, the refuge had to stockpile water as described above. Although the refuge has

received more reliable and increased water supplies since passage of the CVPIA, wetland

habitat management has not been optimal because water could not be delivered on a yearround basis.

2.1.3 Recent Water Acquisitions

In 1998, Reclamation acquired the permanent rights to 2,300 acre-feet of water from Corning

Water District, 2,000 acre-feet of water from Proberta Water District, and 2,000 acre-feet

from Thomes Creek Water District for a total of 6,300 acre-feet of water. This water is to be

used to partially meet the annual Level 4 water supply requirements for the refuges of the

Sacramento NWR Complex and Gray Lodge WA (Reclamation, 1998).

2.2 Delevan National Wildlife Refuge

Delevan NWR was authorized in 1962 under the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission,

and it encompasses 5,794 acres. The refuge is located in Colusa County, midway between

Sacramento NWR and Colusa NWR, approximately 4 miles east of the City of Maxwell. The

Delevan NWR consists of permanent ponds, seasonal wetlands, watergrass fields, and

uplands. The wetlands produce waterfowl food such as swamp timothy, watergrass, and

invertebrate populations. The upland areas of the refuge provide habitat for geese, upland
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

2-4 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180004 (SAC 002.DOC)

birds, and other wildlife species. Refuge goals and objectives are the same as those for the

Sacramento NWR.

2.2.1 Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

Water is used to maintain ponds and seasonal marshes, and to irrigate moist soil units for

waterfowl food on Delevan NWR. Before passage of the CVPIA, habitat management on the

Delevan NWR was affected by unreliable water supplies. Both the timing and quantity of

deliveries were extremely variable and subject to annual water supply agreements. As a

result, the types and amount of wetland areas varied annually with the availability of water.

The refuge has no firm water supply and no groundwater supply. Previously, the refuge

received water from Maxwell Irrigation District, but this water supply has not been used

since 1979 because of poor water quality (Reclamation, 1989).

The Delevan NWR received CVP water from the Sacramento River through GCID facilities.

Under annual contracts with the Service, GCID conveyed a maximum of 30,000 acre-feet of

CVP water to the refuge. GCID also conveyed agricultural return flows to the refuge.

Agricultural return flows delivered to the refuge are of poorer quality than are CVP

supplies, but are of adequate quality for refuge uses. GCID delivered water to Delevan

NWR only from April through November. As described for Sacramento NWR, this water

delivery pattern impaired wetland habitat management. The lack of other water supplies

from which to draw when GCID facilities were shut down further restricted habitat

management on Delevan NWR.

Because of inconsistent availability, none of the refuge’s water supplies were considered

reliable for wetland habitat management.

2.2.2 Existing Water Supplies

Before passage of the CVPIA, Delevan NWR received CVP water via GCID facilities, as it

does now. This water is conveyed by GCID facilities. With the completion of facilities

modifications, starting in March 2000, GCID was able to deliver water to Delevan NWR

year-round. In previous years, GCID delivered water to the refuge only from April through

November, after which the GCID Main Canal was not used because of maintenance

activities. As a result, the refuge had to stockpile water, as described above. Furthermore,

because Delevan NWR could not receive water year-round, the refuge did not take all of the

water (Level 2 plus the year-specific proportion of the Level 4 increment) it has been entitled

to since passage of the CVPIA. As a result, wetland habitat management has not been

optimal.

2.2.3 Recent Water Acquisitions

In 1998, Reclamation acquired the permanent right to 2,300 acre-feet of water from Corning

Water District, 2,000 acre-feet of water from Proberta Water District, and 2,000 acre-feet

from Thomes Creek Water District, for a total of 6,300 acre-feet of water. This water is to be

used to partially meet the annual Level 4 water supply requirements at the refuges of the

Sacramento NWR Complex and Gray Lodge WA (Reclamation, 1998). Some of this acquired

water has been delivered to and used on Delevan NWR.
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180004 (SAC 002.DOC) 2-5

2.3 Colusa National Wildlife Refuge

Colusa NWR was established in 1944 and currently occupies 4,507 acres, approximately

2 miles southwest of the town of Colusa in Colusa County. The refuge recently acquired an

additional 467 acres, which is reflected in the 4,507-acre total. This additional acreage was

not considered in determining the refuge’s water supply needs in the 1989 Report on Refuge

Water Supply Investigations (Reclamation, 1989), so, this acreage was not included in the

water supplies described in Sections 3406(d)(1) through (d)(5) of the CVPIA, and is not a

part of this EA/IS. Colusa NWR provides wintering habitat and resting areas for ducks,

geese, and shorebirds. The Colusa NWR consists of permanent ponds, seasonal wetlands,

watergrass fields, and uplands. The wetlands produce waterfowl food such as millet,

watergrass, and invertebrate populations. The upland areas of the refuge provide habitat for

geese, upland birds, and other wildlife species. Refuge goals and objectives are the same as

those for the Sacramento NWR.

2.3.1 Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

Water is used to maintain ponds and seasonal marshes and to irrigate watergrass for

waterfowl food on Colusa NWR. Before passage of the CVPIA, habitat management on the

Colusa NWR was affected by unreliable water supplies. Both the timing and quantity

delivered were extremely variable and subject to annual water supply agreements. As a

result, the types and amount of wetlands area varied annually with the availability of water.

Colusa NWR has no firm water supply. Although the refuge has one groundwater well, it

has not been used because of unacceptable water quality with high arsenic and boron levels,

as well as high pumping costs (G. Mensik, pers. comm., January 13, 2000). Before passage of

the CVPIA, the refuge obtained most of its water from Reclamation District (R.D.) 2047’s

Drain. Most of the water in R.D. 2047’s Drain during the irrigation season is from

agricultural return flows, which are of poorer quality than CVP water but are acceptable for

refuge use. The refuge has one appropriative water right for diversion from R.D. 2047’s

Drain. However, given prior diversions, water was generally not available for the refuge

during July and August. The refuge also received agricultural return flows from fields

outside the refuge through the “J” Drain (Reclamation, 1989).

These water supplies were supplemented with CVP water conveyed through GCID

facilities. Under annual contracts with the Service, GCID conveyed a maximum of

25,000 acre-feet of CVP water to the refuge. GCID's facilities are dewatered for maintenance

and cleaning during the late fall and winter months. As described for Sacramento NWR, this

water delivery pattern impaired wetland habitat management.

Given inconsistent availability and poor quality, none of the refuge’s water supplies were

considered reliable and of suitable quality for wetland habitat management.

2.3.2 Existing Water Supplies

Existing water supplies consist of the refuge’s appropriative water rights on R.D. 2047’s

Drain, agricultural return flows, and water supplies provided for in the CVPIA. Level 2

water supplies have been met through a combination of existing water supplies and CVP

water delivered by GCID. Level 4 supplies are the same as Level 2 water supplies. Because
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

2-6 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180004 (SAC 002.DOC)

this water is conveyed by GCID facilities, it has been subject to the same delivery constraints

as described above. As a result, wetland habitat management has not been optimal.

Modifications of GCID’s conveyance facilities have been recently completed, so that starting

in March 2000, GCID will be able to deliver water year-round to Colusa NWR.

2.3.3 Recent Water Acquisitions

Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies are the same at Colusa NWR, so no incremental Level 4

water supplies are required.

2.4 Sutter National Wildlife Refuge

Sutter NWR was established in 1944, and encompasses 2,591 acres in Sutter County, 8 miles

southwest of Yuba City. Most of the refuge is located within the Sutter Bypass, north of its

confluence with the Tisdale Weir. The refuge is the only publicly owned wetland habitat

area in the Sutter Basin. Historically, flood flows from the Sacramento River, Butte Sink, and

the Feather River inundated large portions of the Sutter Basin. However, most of this land

has been protected from flooding by levees and has been developed for agricultural

production. Water is used on the refuge to maintain ponds and seasonal wetlands. The

wetlands support waterfowl food sources such as swamp timothy, millet, and invertebrate

populations. Approximately 500 acres of the refuge provide habitat for geese, upland birds,

and other wildlife species. Refuge goals and objectives are the same as those for the

Sacramento NWR.

2.4.1 Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

Water is used primarily to maintain ponds and seasonal marshes on Sutter NWR. Before

passage of the CVPIA, habitat management on the Sutter NWR was affected by unreliable

water supplies. Both timing and the quantities of deliveries were highly variable. As a

result, the type and amount of wetland areas varied annually with the availability of water.

Located in the Sutter Bypass, the refuge is also inundated by flood flows bypassed from the

Sacramento River.

Before passage of the CVPIA, the Sutter NWR received surface-water supplies from two

sources: the Sutter Extension Water District (SEWD) and the Sutter Bypass. The SEWD

supplied the refuge lands located outside of the Sutter Bypass levees, approximately 450

acres at the southeast corner of the refuge, through the Sutter Extension Canal. The Service

and SEWD had an annual agreement that allowed the Service to purchase water at the

discretion of SEWD.

More than 85 percent of the water supply for the refuge has come from irrigation and return

flows in the East and West Borrow Ditches of Sutter Bypass if, and when, they were

available. Agricultural return flows provide the majority of the summer flows. Rainfall,

runoff, and flood flows provide the majority of winter flows. Sutter NWR also has three

appropriative water rights in the Sutter Bypass. License 4590 allocates 25 cfs from June 1 to

October 30 to be diverted from the East Borrow Ditch for irrigation of 1,000 acres inside of

the Bypass. License 3149 appropriates 5 cfs from April 15 to October 1 to be diverted from

East Borrow Ditch for irrigation of 270 acres inside of the Bypass. License 6996 appropriates

10 cfs of water from the main drainage canal on the east side of the East Sutter Bypass levee
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180004 (SAC 002.DOC) 2-7

between October 1 and January 1 for irrigation of 450 acres. These water rights do not have

high priority numbers, so reliable water supplies were not available to the refuge. Given the

lack of available water during most of the year, these sources cannot be considered to be

dependable water sources. The water right under License 6996 has not been used because of

poor water quality and limited availability (Reclamation, 1995).

The refuge has five groundwater wells to supplement surface-water flows under a

conjunctive use program. The groundwater has not been used because it contains high

levels of arsenic, boron, and, possibly, mercury (Reclamation and CDFG, 1997).

Because of inconsistent availability and poor quality, none of the refuge’s water supplies

were considered reliable and of suitable quality for wetland habitat management.

2.4.2 Existing Water Supplies

Existing water supplies consist of the refuge’s appropriative water rights, irrigation and

return flows, flood flows, and water provided for in the CVPIA. In recent years, Sutter NWR

has been inundated with flood flows from the Sacramento River given the wet hydrologic

conditions, and has not accepted all of the water to be delivered under the CVPIA.

2.4.3 Recent Water Acquisitions

In 1998, Reclamation acquired the permanent rights to 2,300 acre-feet of water from Corning

Water District, 2,000 acre-feet of water from Proberta Water District, and 2,000 acre-feet

from Thomes Creek Water District for a total of 6,300 acre-feet of water. This water is used

to partially meet the annual Level 4 water supply requirements at the refuges of the

Sacramento NWR Complex (Reclamation, 1998).

2.5 Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

Gray Lodge WA was established in 1931 and encompasses 9,200 acres in Sutter and Butte

counties near the City of Gridley. Only 8,400 acres of the refuge were considered in and

covered in the 1989 Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations. In 1997, the refuge added

800 acres consisting of 163 acres of rice field, with the remainder composed of irrigated

pasture. Refuge water supply needs in the 1989 Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations

(Reclamation, 1989) only addressed water supplies for the 8,400 acres. Historically, the

additional 800 acres were irrigated with surface water supplies under a junior water right. It

is anticipated that this historical water supply will continue to be used on the 800 acres and

the Level 2 and Level 4 will not be increased. However, Gray Lodge WA may use portions

of Level 2 or Level 4 supplies on the 800 acres during some years to allow water

management flexibility.

The WA is managed by CDFG. Gray Lodge WA is located adjacent to the Butte Sink, an

overflow area of Butte Creek and the Sacramento River, and supports ponds, wetlands,

crops, and pasture. Wetland areas support waterfowl food sources such as swamp timothy

and invertebrate populations, while upland areas support habitat for geese, upland bird,

and other wildlife species. According to CDFG (1998), Gray Lodge WA is managed in

accordance with the following objectives:

• Provide optimal habitat for wintering waterfowl species
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

2-8 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180004 (SAC 002.DOC)

• Provide relief from depredation by waterfowl of agricultural crops

• Provide recreational opportunity

2.5.1 Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

Water is used to maintain ponds and seasonal marshes and to irrigate moist soil units,

crops, and pasture for waterfowl food, cover, and nesting. Before passage of the CVPIA,

habitat management on Gray Lodge WA was affected by unreliable water supplies. Both

timing and quantity delivered were variable. As a result, the types and amount of wetlands

area varied annually with the availability of water.

Before passage of the CVPIA, Gray Lodge WA received water from a combination of surface

water and groundwater sources, just as it does now. As a landholder within of the BiggsWest Gridley Water District (BWGWD), Gray Lodge has both primary and secondary

surface water rights. Gray Lodge WA receives 8,000 acre-feet of dependable water from

BWGWD and Reclamation Districts 833 and 2054. Approximately 2,600 acres of the refuge

are within the BWGWD service area. The BWGWD has allocated 12,000 acre-feet of water

per year to the refuge, but only 8,000 acre-feet are available during the irrigation season,

from April to November. The refuge turnouts are located at the end of the BWGWD system

and cannot receive water when the BWGWD canals are dewatered, from November to April

(Reclamation, 1989).

The refuge has also diverted water from the R.D. 833’s Drain and R.D. 2054’s Drain. These

canals convey agricultural return flows. The return flows are only available during the

summer and early fall when the rice fields are drained. The R.D.s do not use or claim the

agricultural return flows, which are diverted by the refuge under appropriative rights

(Reclamation, 1989). Water may not be available in R.D. 833’s Drain after rice fields are

drained in the fall. Water is available from R.D. 2054’s Drain from April to November

(Reclamation, 1989). The amount of water available in these drains during the normal

irrigation season has been decreasing as area farms improve irrigation efficiency and

implement tailwater recycling programs. This is not considered a firm water supply for

Gray Lodge WA.

Historically, groundwater has been used to supply a portion of the annual demand on the

Gray Lodge WA. There are 21 deep groundwater wells used onsite, as necessary, to

supplement surface-water deliveries and to supply water to portions of the Gray Lodge WA

that cannot be reached by gravity flow from surface supplies. Other water supplies have

occasionally been obtained by purchases from the State Water Project (SWP) via the

Thermolito Afterbay.

Gray Lodge WA receives 8,000 acre-feet of dependable water from BWGWD. These

8,000 acre-feet are considered a firm reliable water supply.

2.5.2 Existing Water Supplies

Groundwater, in combination with the other water supplies, has been used to meet Level 2

water supplies and, in some years, groundwater has contributed to Level 4 water supplies.

Future use of groundwater to meet Level 4 water supplies at Gray Lodge is undetermined at

this time (Reclamation, 1998).
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180004 (SAC 002.DOC) 2-9

Gray Lodge WA has not taken any of its Level 4 increment in the past 2 years for two

reasons. First, Gray Lodge WA does not currently have the infrastructure to use the

additional water supply effectively and efficiently. Second, BWGWD does not currently

have the facilities necessary to convey the water to Gray Lodge WA during all of the time

periods when water is required by the WA.

With the firm water supply guaranteed by the CVPIA and increases in available water since

implementation of the CVPIA, Gray Lodge WA has been able to implement significant

improvements in the habitat management needed to manage the area at its optimum

potential. Habitat improvements have consisted of increases in the amount of irrigated

pasture and cereal grains and the amount of semi-permanent wetlands. The irrigated

pastures and cereal grains provide food for wintering waterfowl and nesting cover. The

semi-permanent wetlands and adjacent uplands provide nesting habitat and brood water.

2.5.3 Recent Water Acquisitions

In 1998, Reclamation acquired the permanent rights to 2,300 acre-feet of water from Corning

Water District, 2,000 acre-feet of water from Proberta Water District, and 2,000 acre-feet

from Thomes Creek Water District, for a total of 6,300 acre-feet of water. This water is used

to partially meet the annual Level 4 water supply requirements at the refuges of the

Sacramento NWR Complex and Gray Lodge WA (Reclamation, 1998).
Section 3: Summary of Previous

Environmental Documentation
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC) 3-1

SECTION 3

Summary of Previous Environmental

Documentation

3.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the results of the NEPA and CEQA documents

that recently have been completed for providing reliable water supplies for refuges and for

providing appropriate conveyance facilities for the water supplies. These documents

presented the results of evaluation of the alternatives, identified benefits and impacts,

identified mitigation measures, and determined that the impacts that could not be

reasonably mitigated would be acceptable due to the benefits received by the project.

The two documents completed for the Sacramento River region refuges include the

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the CVPIA and the Conveyance of

Refuge Water Supply (EA/IS) documents for West Sacramento and East Sacramento valleys.

It should be recognized that under each of the descriptions presented in this chapter,

references to " No Action Alternative" and other alternatives are specific to the reference

documents not to the alternatives described in the remaining chapters of this document.

3.2 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3.2.1 Overview and Use of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

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

and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) that included Title XXXIV, the Central

Valley Project Improvement Act. The CVPIA amended the previous authorizations of the

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

having equal priority with irrigation and domestic uses and fish and wildlife enhancement

as a project purpose equal to power generation. Through the CVPIA, Interior is developing

policies and programs to improve environmental conditions that were affected by

operations, management, and physical facilities of the CVP. The CVPIA also includes tools

to facilitate larger efforts in California to improve environmental conditions in the Central

Valley and the San Francisco Bay-Delta system. The PEIS addressed potential impacts and

benefits of implementing provisions of the CVPIA. The PEIS was prepared under the NEPA

by Reclamation and the Service.

The analysis in the PEIS was intended to disclose the probable region-wide effects of

implementing the CVPIA and provide a basis for selecting a decision among the alternatives.

The PEIS was developed to allow subsequent environmental documents to incorporate PEIS

analysis by reference and limit the need to re-evaluate the region-wide and cumulative impacts

of the CVPIA. In some cases, worst-case assumptions were used to maximize the utility of the

analysis for tiering within the scope of the impacts analyzed in the PEIS.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-2 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC)

As the project-specific actions are considered, the lead agencies must determine if the

specific impacts were adequately analyzed in the PEIS. If the actions under consideration

were previously evaluated and the impacts of such actions would not be greater than those

analyzed in the PEIS or would not require additional mitigation measures, the actions could

be considered part of the overall program previously approved in a Record of Decision. In

such a case, an administrative decision could be made that no further environmental

documentation would be necessary. If a tiered document is appropriate, the tiered

document may be an EIS or an EA. The tiered documents can use the PEIS by reference to

avoid duplication and focus more narrowly on the new alternatives or more detailed sitespecific effects. Therefore, only changes from the alternatives considered in the PEIS would

be addressed in detail in the tiered documents.

3.2.2 Use of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Environmental

Documentation for Refuge Water Supply Agreements

As described in the PEIS, the nature of the mandate of Section 3406(d)(1) of the CVPIA does

not require compliance with NEPA before implementation, as confirmed by the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Westlands Water District v. Natural Resources Defense Council,

43 F.3d 457 (9 Cir. 1994). However, the PEIS did consider three methods for hydrologic

shortages of CVP water. The alternative actions for refuge water supplies are incorporated

into the PEIS alternatives as part of overall CVPIA implementation, as summarized below.

The PEIS did not evaluate the impacts of individual provisions of CVPIA. The PEIS

evaluated the impacts of implementing the overall CVPIA program under several

methodologies.

3.2.3 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives

The CVPIA identified six general purposes for the CVPIA and over 60 actions that taken

together would achieve these purposes. Individually, specific actions would not achieve the

overall objectives of the CVPIA. Therefore, the PEIS alternatives were developed to evaluate a

range of actions, or programs, to meet the purposes and implement provisions of the CVPIA.

The PEIS considered a No Action Alternative, 5 Main Alternatives, including a Preferred

Alternative, and 15 Supplemental Analyses.

No Action Alternative

The PEIS No Action Alternative was used as a basis for comparison of alternatives. The No

Action Alternative included projects and policies that would be impacted by the CVPIA.

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

adopted. The No Action Alternative focused on the following issue areas that were

identified through the scoping process as potentially being affected by implementation of

the PEIS alternatives.

Water and Power Facilities and Operations

The PEIS No Action Alternative included existing facilities and operations and projected

changes in operational policies which were being evaluated concurrently. The PEIS No

Action Alternative included provisions in the Long-Term CVP Operations Criteria and Plan

(CVP-OCAP), Reclamation’s Mid-Pacific Region guidelines, the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) biological opinion for winter-run chinook salmon, the Service’s biological
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC) 3-3

opinion for Delta smelt, the Bay-Delta Plan Accord, minimum instream Trinity River flows

of 340,000 acre-feet/year, and opening of Red Bluff Diversion Dam gates from midSeptember through mid-May. No new facilities were included in the PEIS No Action

Alternative unless the facilities design, approvals, and construction funding approvals were

in existence.

The PEIS No Action Alternative assumed that unless groundwater was not physically

available due to hydrogeologic conditions, groundwater would be used with full diversion

of surface water to fully meet water demands.

The PEIS No Action Alternative assumed that CVP facilities would be operated primarily to

meet water rights, environmental requirements, and water supply requirements.

Hydroelectric power generation at CVP reservoirs was assumed to be incidental in the PEIS

analysis.

Biological Resources

The PEIS No Action Alternative assumed implementation of programs that provide benefits

and impacts to the fisheries, including the Bay-Delta Plan Accord, biological opinions for

winter-run chinook salmon and delta smelt, and construction of the Shasta Temperature

Control Device. These programs were existing or being prepared prior to implementation of

CVPIA.

The PEIS No Action Alternative assumed implementation of current environmental

requirements as defined in adopted county general plans.

The PEIS No Action Alternative also included the CVP Conservation Program. This

program was developed in 1991 during the Section 7 consultation between Reclamation and

the Service for the renewal of the Friant Division water contracts. As part of this

consultation and a subsequent consultation on interim renewal contracts, Reclamation

agreed to address endangered species issues throughout the area affected by the CVP. The

primary goal of the Conservation Program is to meet the needs, including habitat needs, of

threatened, endangered and species of concern in the areas affected by the CVP. The

Conservation Program, along with other initiatives such as Habitat Conservation Plans,

would help ensure that the existing operation of the CVP would not jeopardize listed or

proposed species or adversely affect designated or proposed critical habitat.

Agricultural and Urban Land Use Projections

The PEIS No Action Alternative included projections concerning future growth and land

use changes based upon projections from California Department of Water Resources

Bulletin 160-93, including 45,000 acres of land projected to be retired in accordance within

the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Plan study area.

CVP Water Use and Pricing

The PEIS No Action Alternative assumed that all current long-term CVP contracts would be

renewed by 2025. The total contract amount was assumed to be equal to existing contract

amounts if that full contract amount had been diverted by the water user within the period

of 1980 through 1993 or if environmental documentation was completed to evaluate use of

full water contract amounts. If the full contract amount had not been diverted in that period

or environmental documentation was not completed, the contract amount was assumed to
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-4 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC)

be equal to the maximum amount diverted of CVP water during the period 1980 through

1993.

The price of CVP water was assumed to be equal to the 1992 rates in 1992 dollars. The

pricing of CVP water for water service contracts would be at Contract Rate under the

requirements of the Reclamation Reform Act.

Refuge Water Supplies

The PEIS No Action Alternative assumed that refuge water supplies are supplied from

historical water suppliers, including the CVP, SWP, tailwater return flows from upstream

water users, and water rights holders. The delivery amounts assumed in the PEIS No Action

Alternative for the refuges and wetlands considered in the PEIS are shown in Table 3-1. The

refuges and wetlands considered in the PEIS are limited to those identified in the CVPIA as

the refuges addressed in the 1989 Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations and the

San Joaquin Basin Action Plan.

PEIS Alternatives

The PEIS alternatives were developed with Core Programs and Multiple Options. The Core

Programs included the actions addressed by separate concurrent programs and CVPIA

programs that would probably be implemented in a single manner at a programmatic level

but may require specific siting analyses. The Multiple Options included actions with several

implementation methods that could be considered at a programmatic level.

Core Programs Included in All Alternatives

The following Core Programs are included in all of the PEIS alternatives.

• Renew all CVP service, water rights, and exchange contracts - up to existing amounts

(same as No Action Alternative)

• Implement water measurement and water conservation measures - as described in

Reclamation Reform Act with Best Management Practices with measurement at point of

diversion and point of use (same conservation measures but without measurement in

No Action Alternative)

• Implement Non-flow Improvements - as described in the preliminary Anadromous

Fish Restoration Program (no improvements in No Action Alternative)

• Implement (b)(1) “other” program - as the next phase of the Conservation Program

(base program in No Action Alternative)

• Upgrade Tracy and Contra Costa pumping plants fish protection facilities - no

improvements in No Action Alternative
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC) 3-5

TABLE 3-1

Refuge Water Supply and Delivery Assumptions in the PEIS No Action Alternative

Refuge

Assumed Water Supply

Source

Water Supplies

at Refuge

Boundary

(acre feet per

year)

Conveyance

Loss

(acre feet per

year)

Water Diverted

for Refuge

Supplies

(acre feet per

year)

Sacramento NWR CVP annual contract 34,800 11,600 46,400

Delevan NWR CVP annual contract 15,713 5,238 20,950

Colusa NWR CVP annual contract 18,750 6,250 25,000

Sutter NWR Return flows and periodic

purchases 23,500 0 23,500

Gray Lodge WA Groundwater, water rights, and

periodic purchases. 35,400 0 35,400

San Luis Unit CVP contract per 1990

Agreement and 1954 Act 19,000 6,333 25,333

West Bear Creek Unit CVP contract per 1954 Act 10,810 0 10,810

Kesterson Unit CVP contract per 1990

Agreement and 1954 Act 10,000 0 10,000

Freitas Unit CVP contract per 1954 Act 5,290 0 5,290

Merced Unit Merced ID per FERC

agreement 15,000 5,000 20,000

East Bear Creek Unit Not Applicable 0 0 0

Los Banos WA CVP contract 16,670 0 16,670

Volta WA CVP contract, and DFG Lease

Agreement 13,000 0 13,000

China Island Unit Not Applicable 0 0 0

Salt Slough Unit CVP contract per 1954 Act 6,000 0 6,000

Mendota WA

CVP contract. NAA amount

reduced from total contract

amount because weirs not

modified.

18,500 0 18,500

Grasslands Resource

Conservation District CVP contract 47,800 0 47,800

Kern NWR SWP annual contracts 9,950 0 9,950

Pixley NWR Not Applicable 0 0 0
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-6 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC)

• Construct Shasta Temperature Control Device - same as No Action Alternative

• Complete improvements to Coleman National Fish Hatchery - no improvements in No

Action Alternative

• Complete habitat improvements in Clear Creek - as described in the preliminary

Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (no improvements in No Action Alternative)

• Implement Non-Flow Stream Restoration Actions to replace gravels in Central Valley

streams - as described in the preliminary Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (no

improvements in No Action Alternative)

• Complete modifications to Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District and GlennColusa Irrigation District diversion facilities for fish protection - no improvements in

No Action Alternative

• Improve fish passage - no improvements in No Action Alternative

• Implement seasonal field flooding of up to 80,000 acres to enhance waterfowl habitat

- no improvements in No Action Alternative

• Purchase up to 30,000 acres of retired land within San Joaquin Valley Drainage Plan

study area – this area selected for purposes of PEIS analysis only (in addition to

45,000 acres purchased under the No Action Alternative)

Multiple Options Included in Different Alternatives

The following multiple options were combined into four Alternatives, 15 Supplemental

Analyses, and the Preferred Alternative.

• Implement Fish and Wildlife Actions per Sections 3406(b)(2) and (3) of CVPIA

− Preferred Alternative assumed reoperation of the CVP supplies under Section

3406(b)(2) and acquisition of water from willing sellers under Section 3406(b)(3) for

improvement of flows on tributaries to the Delta, to meet portions of the Bay-Delta

Plan Accord, and Delta outflow. Approximately 50 percent of the acquired water

could not be exported by CVP and SWP. Acquisition of water from willing sellers is

constrained by existing funding limits.

− Alternative 1 and Supplemental Analyses 1b through 1i assumed reoperation of

the CVP supplies under Section 3406(b)(2) for improvement of flows on tributaries to

the Delta and to meet portions of the Bay-Delta Plan Accord.

− Supplemental Analysis 1a assumed reoperation of the CVP supplies under Section

3406(b)(2) for improvement of flows on tributaries to the Delta, to meet portions of

the Bay-Delta Plan Accord, and Delta outflow.

− Alternative 2 and Supplemental Analyses 2a through 2d assumed re-operation of

the CVP supplies under Section 3406(b)(2) and acquisition of water from willing

sellers under Section 3406(b)(3) to improve instream flows, to meet portions of the

Bay-Delta Plan Accord, and Delta outflow. Acquired water could not be exported by

the CVP and SWP. Acquisition of water from willing sellers is constrained by

existing funding limits.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC) 3-7

− Alternative 3 and Supplemental Analysis 3a assumed reoperation of the CVP

supplies under Section 3406(b)(2) and acquisition of water from willing sellers under

Section 3406(b)(3) for improvement of flows on tributaries to the Delta and to meet

portions of the Bay-Delta Plan Accord. Acquired water could be exported by the

CVP and SWP. Acquisition of water from willing sellers is not constrained by

existing funding limits.

− Alternative 4 and Supplemental Analysis 4a assumed reoperation of the CVP

supplies under Section 3406(b)(2) and acquisition of water from willing sellers under

Section 3406(b)(3) for improvement of flows on tributaries to the Delta, to meet

portions of the Bay-Delta Plan Accord, and Delta outflow. Acquired water could not

be exported by the CVP and SWP. Acquisition of water from willing sellers is not

constrained by existing funding limits.

− No Action Alternative assumed use of the CVP water to meet portions of the BayDelta Plan Accord.

• Implement Water Pricing Actions

− Preferred Alternative; Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4; and Supplemental Analyses 1a,

1b, 1d through 1f, 1h, 1i, 2a through 2c, 3a, and 4a assumed 80 percent of contract

amount at Contract Rate, top 10 percent of contract amount at Full Cost Rate, and

middle 10 percent of contract amount at blended rate assuming continuation of

Ability-to-Pay policy.

− Supplemental Analyses 1c and 2d assumed 80 percent of contract amount at Full

Cost Rate, next 10 percent of contract amount at 110 percent of Full Cost Rate, and

top 10 percent of contract amount at 120 percent of Full Cost Rate assuming

continuation of Ability-to-Pay policy.

− Supplemental Analysis 1g assumed 80 percent of contract amount at Contract Rate,

top 10 percent of contract amount at Full Cost Rate, and middle 10 percent of

contract amount at blended rate without Ability-to-Pay policy.

− No Action Alternative assumed 100 percent of contract amount at Contract Rate

assuming continuation of Ability-to-Pay policy.

• Modify Red Bluff Diversion Dam

− Preferred Alternative indicated that this action would be determined following

additional studies.

− Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4; Supplemental Analyses 1a through 1h, 2a through 2d,

3a, and 4a; and No Action Alternative assumed gates open mid-September through

mid-May.

− Supplemental Analysis 1i assumed gates open all year with a new facility to deliver

water.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-8 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC)

• Construct Delta Fish Barriers

− Preferred Alternative indicated that this action would be determined following

additional studies.

− Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4; Supplemental Analyses 1a, 1c through 1e, 1g through 1i,

2b through 2d, 3a, and 4a; and No Action Alternative assumed non-structural

barriers at Old River and Georgiana Slough.

− Supplemental Analyses 1b and 2a assumed structural barriers at Old River and

Georgiana Slough.

• Provide for Water Transfers

− Preferred Alternative and Supplemental Analyses 1e, 2b, 3a, and 4a assumed

CVPIA water transfers with basic CVPIA transfer fees.

− Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4; Supplemental Analyses 1a through 1c, 1f through 1i, 2a,

and 2d; and No Action Alternative assumed only non-CVPIA water transfers.

− Supplemental Analyses 1f and 2c assumed CVPIA water transfers with basic

CVPIA transfer fees plus $50/acre-foot fee.

• Revegetate up to 30,000 acres Retired Lands

− Preferred Alternative and Supplemental Analysis 1h assumed revegetation and

restoration of retired lands without need for water supplies.

− Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4; Supplemental Analyses 1a through 1g, 1i, 2a through 2d,

3a, and 4a; and No Action Alternative assumed no revegetation or restoration of

retired lands.

• Refuge Water Supplies

− Preferred Alternative assumed Level 2 and 4 water supplies as shown in Table 3-2

subject to hydrologic shortages described by the 40-30-30 Index with a maximum

shortage of 25 percent of the total amount.

− Alternative 1 and Supplemental Analyses 1a through 1c and 1e through 1i

assumed Level 2 water supplies, as shown in Table 3-3 subject to hydrologic

shortages described by the Shasta criteria with a maximum shortage of 25 percent of

the total amount.

− Supplemental Analysis 1d assumed Level 2 water supplies, as shown in Table 3-2

subject to no hydrologic shortages.

− Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and Supplemental Analyses 2a through 2d, 3a, and 4a

assumed Level 2 and 4 water supplies as shown in Table 3-2 subject to hydrologic

shortages described by the Shasta criteria with a maximum shortage of 25 percent of

the total amount.

− No Action Alternative assumed existing water supplies at the time of adoption of

CVPIA as shown in Table 3-1 subject to hydrologic shortages described by the

40-30-30 Index with a maximum shortage of 25 percent of the total amount.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC) 3-9

TABLE 3-2

Refuge Water Supply and Delivery Assumptions in the PEIS for Level 2 and Level 4 Water Supplies in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Refuge

Assumed Water Supply

Source

Water Supplies

at Refuge

Boundary

(acre feet per

year)

Conveyance

Loss

(acre feet per

year)

Water Diverted

for Refuge

Supplies

(acre feet per

year)

Sacramento NWR

Level 2: CVP contract. Level 4:

Purchase from Sacramento River

Settlement Contractors

50,000 16,667 66,667

Delevan NWR

Level 2: CVP contract. Level 4:

Purchase from Sacramento River

Settlement Contractors

30,000 10,000 40,000

Colusa NWR Level 2: CVP contract 25,000 8,333 33,333

Sutter NWR

Level 2: CVP contract. Level 4:

Purchase from Sacramento River

Settlement Contractors

30,000 3,333 33,333

Gray Lodge WA

Water rights. Remaining Level 2:

CVP contract. Level 4: Purchase

from Sacramento River

Settlement Contractors

44,000 6,964 50,964

San Luis Unit Level 2: CVP contract 19,000 6,333 25,333

West Bear Creek Unit Level 2: CVP contract 10,810 3,603 14,413

Kesterson Unit Level 2: CVP contract 10,000 1,147 11,147

Freitas Unit Level 2: CVP contract 5,290 1,763 7,053

Merced Unit

Level 2: Merced River water per

FERC Agreement. Level 4:

Purchase from water rights

holders

16,000 5,333 21,333

East Bear Creek Unit

Level 2: CVP contract exchange

with Merced River water rights

holders. Level 4: Purchase from

water rights holders

13,295 4,432 17,727

Los Banos WA

Level 2: CVP contract. Level 4:

Purchase from San Joaquin River

Exchange Contractors

25,496 5,129 30,625

Volta WA

Level 2: CVP contract. Level 4:

Purchase from San Joaquin River

Exchange Contractors

16,000 0 16,000

China Island Unit

Level 2: CVP contract. Level 4:

Purchase from San Joaquin River

Exchange Contractors

10,450 1,844 12,294

Salt Slough Unit

Level 2: CVP contract. Level 4:

Purchase from San Joaquin River

Exchange Contractors

10,020 1,768 11,788

Mendota WA

Level 2: CVP contract. Level 4:

Purchase from water rights

holders

29,650 0 29,650

Grasslands Resource

Conservation District

Level 2: CVP contract. Level 4:

Purchase from San Joaquin River

Exchange Contractors

180,000 31,765 211,765

Kern NWR Level 2: CVP contract. Level 4:

Purchase from SWP Contractors 25,000 3,736 28,736

Pixley NWR Level 2: CVP contract. Level 4:

Purchase from SWP Contractors

6,000 833 6,833
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-10 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC)

TABLE 3-3

Refuge Water Supply and Delivery Assumptions in the PEIS for Level 2 Water Supplies in Alternative 1

Refuge

Assumed Water Supply

Source

Water Supplies

at Refuge

Boundary

(acre feet per

year)

Conveyance

Loss

(acre feet per

year)

Water Diverted

for Refuge

Supplies

(acre feet per

year)

Sacramento NWR Level 2: CVP contract 46,400 15,467 61,867

Delevan NWR Level 2: CVP contract 20,951 6,984 27,935

Colusa NWR Level 2: CVP contract 25,000 8,333 33,333

Sutter NWR Level 2: CVP contract 23,500 2,611 26,111

Gray Lodge WA Water rights. Remaining Level

2: CVP contract 35,400 5,202 40,602

San Luis Unit Level 2: CVP contract 19,000 6,333 25,333

West Bear Creek Unit Level 2: CVP contract 10,810 3,603 14,413

Kesterson Unit Level 2: CVP contract 10,000 1,147 11,147

Freitas Unit Level 2: CVP contract 5,290 1,763 7,053

Merced Unit Merced River water per FERC

Agreement 15,000 5,000 20,000

East Bear Creek Unit

CVP contract exchange with

Merced River water rights

holders

8,863 2,954 11,817

Los Banos WA Level 2: CVP contract 16,670 2,783 19,453

Volta WA Level 2: CVP contract 13,000 0 13,000

China Island Level 2: CVP contract 6,967 1,229 8,196

Salt Slough Level 2: CVP contract 6,680 1,179 7,859

Mendota WA Level 2: CVP contract 27,594 0 27,594

Grasslands Resource

Conservation District Level 2: CVP contract 125,000 22,059 147,059

Kern NWR Level 2: CVP contract 9,950 1,487 11,437

Pixley NWR Level 2: CVP contract 1,280 0 1,280

Summary of Overall Analyses of PEIS Alternatives

The alternatives considered in the PEIS were analyzed to determine the potential for

adverse and beneficial impacts associated with implementation of all actions as compared to

continuation of the No Action Alternative conditions. The results of this analysis are

summarized in Table 3-4. The most significant changes under the alternatives as compared

to the No Action Alternative were related to surface water and groundwater facilities

operations and deliveries, power generation, fishery resources, agricultural land use and

economics, and waterfowl habitat.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC) 3-11

TABLE 3-4

Summary of CVPIA PEIS Analysis

Issue Area Impacts and Benefits

Surface Water CVP Water Deliveries. Under the PEIS No Action Alternative, average annual deliveries

from the CVP would be 5,700,000 acre-feet per year. CVP water deliveries would

decrease under most alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, by about 10

percent, given the allocation of CVP water to Level 2 refuge water supplies, improved fish

and wildlife habitat, and reduced Trinity River exports to the Central Valley. CVP water

deliveries under Supplemental Analyses 1c and 2d would decrease by approximately 20

percent because users could not afford some of the CVP water.

SWP Water Deliveries. Under the PEIS No Action Alternative, average annual deliveries

from the SWP would be 3.3 million acre-feet per year. SWP water deliveries would

increase under all alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, by 1 to 2 percent given

increased Delta inflows that could be exported by SWP, but not necessarily by CVP.

Under Alternative 3 and Supplemental Analysis 3a, SWP water deliveries would be

increased by 5 percent as a result of the ability to export acquired water by both CVP and

SWP. Changes in SWP deliveries would not be affected by implementation of Level 2 and

Level 4 water supplies.

Delta Outflows. Delta ouflows would increase under all alternatives because a portion of

the CVP water was reallocated to improve instream flows during periods when CVP and

SWP pumping plants could not export the flows. Delta outflows would also increase under

Alternatives 2 and 4 and the Preferred Alternative as a result of acquisition of water to

improve Delta outflows. The Delta outflows would increase by 1 to 2 percent in

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 and the Preferred Alternative and by more than 10 percent under

Alternative 4. Changes in Delta outflows would not be affected by implementation of Level

2 and Level 4 water supplies.

Carryover Storage in CVP Reservoirs. Average annual carryover storage would

decrease in Shasta Lake and New Melones Reservoir under all alternatives. Carryover

storage in Folsom Lake would decrease under Alternative 1, and would increase in all

other alternatives. Operational flexibility of San Luis Reservoir would be decreased in all

alternatives. A portion of these changes are caused by implementation of Level 2 and

Level 4 water supplies, however, it is not possible to determine the specific impact.

Instream Flows. Instream flows and/or pulse flows would increase in Clear Creek,

Stanislaus River, and Trinity River under all alternatives. Instream flows and/or pulse

flows would increase in the Tuolumne, Merced, and San Joaquin rivers in Alternatives 2,

3, and 4 and the Preferred Alternative. Instream flows would increase in the Mokelumne

and Yuba rivers in Alternatives 3 and 4. Changes in instream flows would not be affected

by implementation of Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies.

Effects of CVPIA Refuge Water Supplies. Under the PEIS No Action Alternative,

average annual deliveries to refuges would be 335,000 acre-feet per year, primarily from

CVP water supplies. Refuge water supplies from CVP would increase by 233,000 acrefeet per year of deliveries for Level 2 under all alternatives including the Preferred

Alternative. The incremental increase for Level 4 under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and the

Preferred Alternative would be 140,000 acre-feet per year. Level 4 supplies were

assumed for the purpose of the PEIS analysis to be provided by Sacramento River

Settlement Contractors, San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors, and SWP contractors.

Under Supplemental Analysis 1d, annual refuge water supply deliveries would be the

same in all years, including critical dry years.

Groundwater Average Regional Groundwater Depths. Average regional groundwater depths under

the No Action Alternative would be approximately 90 to 100 feet in the Sacramento and

San Joaquin valleys and 200 to 300 feet in the Tulare Lake region. Groundwater levels

would decline by 1 to 3 percent in all regions under Alternatives 1 and 2 and the Preferred

Alternative due to allocation of CVP water to Level 2 refuge water supplies, improved fish

and wildlife habitat, and reduced Trinity River exports to the Central Valley. Groundwater

levels would decline by 1 to 5 percent in all regions under Alternatives 3 and 4 as a result

of reduced recharge from fallowed lands.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-12 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC)

TABLE 3-4

Summary of CVPIA PEIS Analysis

Issue Area Impacts and Benefits

Subsidence. Under the No Action Alternative, subsidence would continue to increase in

the Sacramento Valley near Davis-Zamora and in western San Joaquin Valley and Tulare

Lake region. Additional subsidence would occur in the San Joaquin Valley and Tulare

Lake region under all alternatives given the decline in groundwater levels.

CVP Power

Resources

CVP Generation. Under the No Action Alternative, average annual energy generation at

CVP facilities would be 4,935 gigawatt-hours per year. The average annual energy

generation would be reduced by about 5 percent under all alternatives because of

changes in releases from CVP reservoirs and reduced reservoir elevations in summer

months because of allocation of CVP water to Level 2 refuge water supplies, improved

fish and wildlife habitat, and reduced Trinity River exports to the Central Valley.

CVP Project Use. Under the No Action Alternative, average CVP Project Use would be

1,425 gigawatts per hour per year. CVP Project Use would be reduced by about 10

percent under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 and the Preferred Alternative as a result of reduced

CVP exports from the Delta. CVP Project Use would be reduced only by 4 percent in

Alternative 3 because CVP exports are higher in these alternatives than other

alternatives.

Fisheries

Resources

Stream Flows. Stream flow improvements would occur in Clear Creek and the

Sacramento, American, Stanislaus, and Trinity rivers under Alternative 1 given the

allocation of CVP water to improved fish and wildlife habitat to increase spring and fall

flows. Additional improvements in these streams and San Joaquin River tributaries would

occur under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and the Preferred Alternative because of water

acquisition for instream habitat. Release of water for Level 2 supplies under Alternative 1

and Level 4 supplies under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and the Preferred Alternative would

increase stream flow patterns in fall and winter months in the Sacramento and Merced

rivers.

Stream Temperatures. Decreased stream temperatures would occur in Clear Creek and

the Sacramento, Stanislaus, and Trinity rivers under Alternative 1 given stream flow

improvements. Additional improvement would occur under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and

the Preferred Alternative as a result of water acquired to increase spring and fall flows.

Water temperatures would increase in summer months in the American River under all

alternatives, which would adversely affect steelhead.

Fish Passage and Habitat Quality. Fish passage and habitat quality would improve in all

alternatives as a result of increased instream flows, as described above, and from

structural actions that would occur in all alternatives. Reduction in diversion of acquired

water under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and the Preferred Alternative also would reduce

losses at the diversions in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems and would

improve Delta channel flows to increase movement of larval and juvenile striped bass,

delta smelt, longfin smelt, and juvenile chinook salmon. Closure of the Delta Cross

Channel gates from November through January in wetter years under Alternative 4 and

the Preferred Alternative would improve outmigration of chinook salmon and steelhead.

Additional benefits in the Sacramento River would occur under Supplemental Analysis 1i

with the opening of Red Bluff Diversion Dam gates in the summer and restoration of the

river reach currently affected by Lake Red Bluff.

Delta Outflow. Reductions in Delta pumping and increases in Delta outflow in

Supplemental Analysis 1a and Alternative 4 would reduce losses and improve species

survival at the Delta export pumping plants. Delta outflow also would increase in

Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative given the use of acquired water for increased

Delta outflow.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC) 3-13

TABLE 3-4

Summary of CVPIA PEIS Analysis

Issue Area Impacts and Benefits

Vegetation and

Wildlife

Resources

Retired and Fallowed Agricultural Lands. The No Action Alternative assumes

retirement of 45,000 acres of land identified in the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Plan as

having drainage problems. An additional 30,000 acres would be retired under all

alternatives including the Preferred Alternative. Additional habitat would occur as a result

of fallowing of 0.3 to 3 percent of irrigated acres in the Central Valley under the

alternatives including Preferred Alternative because of allocation of CVP water to Level 2

refuge water supplies, improved fish and wildlife habitat, reduced Trinity River exports to

the Central Valley and water acquisitions for instream flows and Level 4 water supplies.

Riparian Restoration. Riparian restoration would occur along the Sacramento and San

Joaquin river systems as a result of habitat improvements under all alternatives.

Additional restoration would occur under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and Preferred Alternative

due to acquired water under increased instream flows.

Flooded Fields. Up to 80,000 acres of agricultural fields would be flooded to provide

additional habitat for waterfowl under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 through the

implementation of Incentive Payments. The CVPIA stated that this program should be

funded through the Restoration Fund only through 2002. The PEIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3,

and 4 assumed continued funding through 2025. The Preferred Alternative assumed no

funding through the Restoration Fund in 2025, but suggested that field flooding continue.

Refuge Water Supplies. Habitat and waterfowl population would increase under

Alternative 1 as a result of Level 2 water supplies. Additional increases would occur under

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and the Preferred Alternative because of Level 4 water supplies.

Recreation and

Recreational

Economics

Opportunities at Reservoirs. Given the lower surface elevations at Shasta Lake and

New Melones Reservoir from allocation of CVP water to Level 2 refuge water supplies,

improved fish and wildlife habitat, and reduced Trinity River exports to the Central Valley,

boating opportunities would be reduced and boat ramps would need to be extended

under all alternatives. Boating opportunities would be improved as a result of higher

reservoir levels in Folsom Lake and Lake Oroville under all alternatives including the

Preferred Alternative.

Opportunities at Rivers. Because of increased flows in the upper Sacramento River and

Stanislaus River in peak season from allocation of CVP water to Level 2 refuge water

supplies, improved fish and wildlife habitat, and reduced Trinity River exports to the

Central Valley, swimming opportunities would increase under all alternatives. Lower flows

in peak season on the American River would decrease swimming opportunities under all

alternatives including the Preferred Alternative.

Flat-water recreational opportunities near Red Bluff would decline under Supplemental

Analysis 1i. Boat access may be restricted near the physical barriers in Georgiana Slough

and Old River under Supplemental Analyses 1b and 2a.

Increased stream flows on the San Joaquin River tributaries and San Joaquin River under

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and the Preferred Alternative, and on the Sacramento River

tributaries under Alternatives 3 and 4 and the Preferred Alternative could increase

recreational opportunities.

Opportunities on Refuges. Recreational opportunities on the refuges would increase

under Alternative 1 given the Level 2 water supplies. Additional increases would occur

under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and the Preferred Alternative as a result of Level 4 water

supplies.

Economic Impacts and Benefits. Recreation-related expenditures would increase about

3 percent at reservoirs and rivers under all alternatives. Recreation-related expenditures

at refuges would increase about 25 percent under Alternative 1 given Level 2 water

supplies, and 70 percent under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and the Preferred Alternative

given Level 4 water supplies.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-14 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC)

TABLE 3-4

Summary of CVPIA PEIS Analysis

Issue Area Impacts and Benefits

Cultural

Resources

Cultural Resources at Reservoirs. Water surface elevations would be lowered more

frequently than historically at New Melones Reservoir under all alternatives including the

Preferred Alternative, and at Folsom Lake and Shasta Lake under the Preferred

Alternative because of the allocation of CVP water to Level 2 refuge water supplies,

improved fish and wildlife habitat, and reduced Trinity River exports to the Central Valley.

Therefore, cultural resources would be exposed more frequently to vandalism potential

under all alternatives including the Preferred Alternative.

Cultural Resources along Rivers. Construction of habitat and fish passage

improvements could increase the potential for disturbance of cultural resources in the

riparian corridor under all alternatives including the Preferred Alternative. Increased

instream flows during some months could increase visitor use and, therefore, would

increase the potential for vandalism, especially in the San Joaquin River system, under all

alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative.

Cultural Resources in Agricultural Fields. Agricultural lands would be fallowed under

Alternative 1 as a result of allocation of CVP water to Level 2 refuge water supplies,

improved fish and wildlife habitat, and reduced Trinity River exports to the Central Valley.

Additional agricultural lands would be fallowed under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and the

Preferred Alternative as a result of water acquisition programs. The fallowing of

agricultural land could reduce the risk of disturbance and exposure of cultural resources.

Cultural Resources at the Refuges. Increased water supplies at the refuges under all

alternatives and the Preferred Alternative would increase visitor use and the risk of

vandalism. Use of Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies also could flood or increase erosion

potential for cultural resources at the refuges under all alternatives, including the

Preferred Alternative.

Agricultural

Economics

Irrigated Acreage and Gross Revenue. Under the No Action Alternative, 6.6 million

acres of land would be irrigated in the Central Valley by all water supplies and in the San

Felipe Division by CVP water supplies. This acreage would be reduced by 0.3 to 3

percent under all alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, because of allocation of

CVP water to Level 2 refuge water supplies, improved fish and wildlife habitat, and

reduced Trinity River exports to the Central Valley. A portion of the reduced CVP water

deliveries would be replaced by increased groundwater pumping. Reduction in surface

water supplies and increased use of groundwater to replace reduction in CVP water

supplies would reduce gross revenues from $10.245 billion per year under the No Action

Alternative by 0.7 to 1.5 percent in the alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative.

Regional

Economics

Employment. A total employment of 15.7 million was assumed in the No Action

Alternative. Under the alternatives and the Preferred Alternative, employment would be

reduced by 0.02 to 0.04 percent, primarily in the San Joaquin River region because of the

allocation of CVP water to Level 2 refuge water supplies, improved fish and wildlife

habitat, reduced Trinity River exports to the Central Valley, and water acquisitions for

increased instream flows and Level 4 water supplies.

Given the integrated nature of the PEIS alternatives, it is not possible to determine if the

impacts and benefits would occur due to a specific CVPIA provision or goal. The impacts

and benefits of a PEIS alternative are due to the overall implementation of CVPIA as

compared to conditions without implementation of CVPIA in the No Action Alternative.

The impacts and benefits presented below for Alternative 1 include changes due to

implementation of Level 2 water supplies as well as allocation of CVP water to improve

fisheries. Impacts and benefits presented for Alternative 2 include changes due to

implementation of Level 4 water supplies and acquisition of water from non-CVP water
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC) 3-15

service contractors to improve fisheries. Impacts and benefits for Alternatives 3 and

4 primarily include changes due to acquisition and use of water from non-CVP water

service contractors to improve fisheries at higher levels than under Alternative 2.

Impacts and Benefits of Level 2 and Level 4 Refuge Water Supplies

Due to the integrated nature of the PEIS alternatives, it is not possible to determine if the

impacts and benefits would occur due to a specific CVPIA provision or goal. The impacts

and benefits of a PEIS alternative are due to the overall implementation of CVPIA as

compared to conditions without implementation of CVPIA in the No Action Alternative.

However, it is possible to compare the results of several alternatives to identify general

impacts and benefits of increasing refuge water supplies.

Impacts on Surface Water Supplies

Under the PEIS No Action Alternative, average annual deliveries to refuges would be

335,000 acre-feet/year, primarily from CVP water supplies. Refuge water supplies from

CVP would increase by 233,000 acre-feet/year to 568,000 acre-feet/year for Level 2 under all

alternatives including Preferred Alternative. This would result in a decrease in CVP water

deliveries, however the specific amount is difficult to determine due to the integrated

implementation of CVPIA provisions. The PEIS alternatives assume that the water would be

diverted under the monthly patterns described in the 1989 Report on Refuge Water Supply

Investigations and all of the return flows would be discharged from the refuges in March.

The PEIS also assumed allocation of the entire amount of Level 2 water supplies from CVP

water. This may overestimate the impacts to CVP users if existing non-CVP water supplies

continue to be used in the future.

Allocation of CVP water for Level 2 water supplies would reduce CVP water deliveries,

especially south of the Delta because the refuges have a higher water supply reliability than

the agricultural or municipal and industrial CVP water service contractors. Therefore,

delivery of refuge water supplies may reduce the remaining capacity in the Tracy pumping

plant or San Luis Reservoir in some months, especially in Below Normal or Dry water years.

Allocation of CVP water for Level 2 water supplies also would reduce the amount of CVP

water available for use by water service contractors. However, it is not possible to specify

the impact only due to Level 2 refuge water supplies.

The overall impact of allocating CVP water towards meeting Section 3406(b)(2) of CVPIA

requirements in Alternative 1 was to allocate up to 800,000 acre-feet/year as measured by a

reduction in CVP water service contract deliveries. Following the determination of the

"(b)(2) Water Management" component, the analysis of Alternative 1 continued with

allocation of CVP water to Level 2 water supplies and reduction of CVP water supplies due

to increased instream flows in the Trinity River. The overall impact of Alternative 1 (Revised

Alternative 1 as presented in the Final PEIS) was to reduce water deliveries to CVP water

users by 5 percent on an average annual basis and up to 8 percent in dry periods. The refuge

water supplies were reduced by up to 25 percent in dry periods in accordance with the

40-30-30 Index in the No Action Alternative and Revised Alternative 1. The 40-30-30 Index is

similar in frequency to the Shasta Index which is used to determine hydrologic deficiencies

for deliveries to the Sacramento Settlement Contractors and Delta Mendota Exchange

Contractors except that during the study period of 1922 – 1990, the 40-30-30 Index would

identify dry year hydrologic conditions in one more year than the Shasta Index.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-16 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC)

Under Supplemental Analysis 1d, refuge water supply deliveries would not be reduced in

dry periods. This increased water supply reliability for the refuges would reduce CVP

deliveries by an additional 0.5 percent in drier periods.

Impacts on CVP water service contractors under the Preferred Alternative would be higher

than Revised Alternative 1 due to a different method to allocate water under "(b)(2) water

management." Water deliveries to CVP water users would be reduced by 10 percent on an

average annual basis and up to 13 percent in dry periods. The refuge water supplies were

reduced by up to 25 percent in critically dry periods in accordance with the 40-30-30 Index

in the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative.

The incremental increase for Level 4 under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and the Preferred

Alternative would be 140,000 acre-feet/year. Level 4 supplies were assumed for the purpose

of the PEIS analysis to be provided by Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, San

Joaquin River Exchange Contractors, and SWP contractors. It was assumed that acquisition

of the Level 4 water supplies did not change the pattern of Delta diversions or annual

storage amounts in CVP reservoirs. The acquisition amount was actually larger than the

amount diverted by the refuges. The additional increment was used to restore instream

flows that would have occurred due to return flows from the sellers during the irrigation

season. The seller was required to release the increment of acquired water in excess of the

Level 4 increment during the irrigation season to avoid third-party impacts. Therefore, there

were no third-party impacts to surface water supplies due to Level 4 water supplies.

Deficiencies during dry periods would be determined by the acquired water supplies.

Therefore, deficiencies for refuges in the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River regions

would be determined based on the Shasta Index. Deficiencies for refuges in the Tulare Lake

region would be determined by the SWP deficiencies.

Impacts on Surface Water Quality

The primary concern about surface water quality related to refuge water supplies is based

upon discharge of return flows from the San Joaquin River region refuges into the San

Joaquin River. Salts in the return flows could increase salinity concentrations in the San

Joaquin River to a level that could exceed current salinity standards in the river as measured

at Vernalis. The PEIS analysis assumed a worst-case scenario of discharging all of the return

flows during the month of March.

Changes in monthly water quality on the San Joaquin River at Vernalis during the irrigation

(April - August) and non-irrigation (September -March) seasons were evaluated for the No

Action Alternative and Alternative 1. During dry periods, water quality standards would

not be met under the No Action Alternative. Adverse impacts of the PEIS alternatives were

identified as an increase in frequency of violations of the standards, not the ability to meet

the standard at all times. The analysis indicated that for both the irrigation and nonirrigation seasons, water quality standards would be exceeded more frequently in

Alternative 1 than in the No Action Alternative. Under the Preferred Alternative, the

combined contribution of acquired water released on the Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus

rivers (under the Vernalis Adaptive Management Program) would result in increased flow

and improved water quality in the San Joaquin River at Vernalis during April and May, and

decreased flow and reduced water quality in other months.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC) 3-17

During the non-irrigation season, including March when refuges discharge return flows and

agricultural users discharge return flows during pre-irrigation in the PEIS alternatives, the

water quality standard would be exceeded in approximately 5 percent of the years under

the Preferred Alternative as compared to 2 percent of the years under the No Action

Alternative. This increased frequency of violations is primarily due to reduced San Joaquin

River flows in March of up to 3 to 10 percent, depending upon water year type.

It is important to note that the PEIS analysis assumes that the total salt loading during

March includes contributions from both the refuge water supply return flows and irrigation

return flows from pre-irrigation activities.

Impacts on Groundwater

Level 2 water supplies under all alternatives including Preferred Alternative would result in

a decrease in CVP water deliveries which would increase reliance on groundwater in some

areas of the Central Valley. In these areas, groundwater levels would decline. Groundwater

level declines in the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake regions also would lead to increased

subsidence. However the specific amount of groundwater decline and subsidence associated

with Level 2 water supplies is difficult to determine due to the integrated implementation of

CVPIA provisions.

The incremental increase for Level 4 under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and the Preferred

Alternative would cause groundwater levels to decline based upon the assumptions in the

PEIS for these water supplies. Level 4 supplies were assumed for the purpose of the PEIS

analysis to be provided by Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, San Joaquin River

Exchange Contractors, and SWP contractors through fallowing of land. Fallowing of land

reduces groundwater recharge which leads to groundwater level declines.

Impacts on CVP Power Resources

Level 2 water supplies under all alternatives including Preferred Alternative would result in

changes in release patterns from CVP reservoirs and reduced reservoir elevations in

summer months and a reduced capability of using CVP hydropower facilities to meet peak

summer demand for Western Area Power Administration preference power customers.

However the specific impact on power supplies due to Level 2 water supplies is difficult to

determine due to the integrated implementation of CVPIA provisions. Use of Level 2 water

supplies is not anticipated to affect annual CVP Project Use, however, the pattern of CVP

Project Use would be modified to provide increased fall and spring diversions to the

refuges.

Level 4 supplies were assumed for the purpose of the PEIS analysis to be provided by

Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors, and

SWP contractors. It was assumed that acquisition of the Level 4 water supplies would not

change the pattern of Delta diversions or annual storage amounts in CVP reservoirs.

However, release patterns could be modified, primarily at Shasta Lake and San Luis

Reservoir, which could shift the pattern of CVP power generation and Project Use.

Impacts on and Benefits to Fisheries Resources

Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies under all alternatives including Preferred Alternative

would result in increased instream flow patterns in the Sacramento and Merced rivers in the
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-18 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC)

spring and fall months. These changes would be beneficial to fishery resources, including

fall-run and spring-run chinook salmon, by increasing instream flows. Use of Level 2 and

Level 4 water supplies would not impact temperature in critical summer months, fish

passage and habitat, or Delta outflow. The increased frequency of violations of water

temperature standards in the Sacramento River under all of the PEIS alternatives is probably

more associated with "(b)(2) water management" and increased instream flows on the

Trinity River.

The PEIS did not evaluate fishery resources that occurred within the refuges.

Benefits to Vegetation and Wildlife Resources at Refuges in the Sacramento River Region

Under the No Action Alternative, water deliveries reflect the general conditions on the

refuges prior to the implementation of the CVPIA in 1992. In 1992, approximately

2,450 acres of permanent ponds, 14,650 acres of seasonal marshes, and 1,900 acres of

watergrass (millet) habitats were managed for migratory and breeding waterfowl and other

wetland-dependent wildlife at refuges in the Sacramento River Region. Water supplies

available to refuges under the No Action Alternative would limit the flexibility of refuge

managers to use adaptive management techniques in adjusting the timing and locations of

wetland habitats to maximize their benefits to wildlife. Large numbers of ducks, geese, and

other water birds would continue to use the refuges in the Sacramento River Region under

the No Action Alternative, but limited wetland acreages and short flooding cycles could

reduce their use of refuge wetlands. Water supplies for refuges in the Sacramento River

Region under the No Action Alternative could limit late-season wetland acreages and

nesting opportunities for ducks, shorebirds, and wading birds that nest in the Central

Valley. Lack of suitable late-season water supplies also could increase stagnation of waters

in permanent ponds and seasonal marshes, and could increase the potential for outbreaks of

waterfowl diseases such as botulism and avian cholera. Similarly, the limited summer and

early fall water available to refuges under the No Action Alternative would not permit

refuge managers to adapt their water use to prevent or eliminate waterfowl disease

outbreaks in wetland habitats.

Level 2 water supplies to refuges in the Sacramento River Region would allow more

effective management of existing wetlands to benefit migratory and breeding waterfowl and

other water birds and wildlife. Under Level 2 water supplies, approximately 2,900 acres of

permanent ponds, 17,300 acres of seasonal marshes, and 2,300 acres of watergrass habitats

would be managed on refuges in the Sacramento River Region, an increase of 3,500 acres

over the No Action Alternative acreage. Although these acreages would represent a

substantial benefit to migratory waterfowl and other water birds, water supplies would be

inadequate for optimal wetland management. Level 4 water supplies would permit optimal

management of existing and new wetlands to benefit migratory and breeding waterfowl

and other water birds and wildlife. Under Level 4 water supplies, approximately 3,000 acres

of permanent ponds, 18,570 acres of seasonal marshes, and 2,700 acres of watergrass

habitats would be managed on refuges in the Sacramento River Region. This is an increase

of 5,300 acres over the No Action Alternative acreage. Reclamation and CDFG cite the

following benefits of Level 4 water deliveries to refuges in the Sacramento River Region and

the migratory waterfowl and other water birds that depend on them:
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC) 3-19

• Earlier fall flood-up schedule for seasonal marshes to allow increased wildlife use, while

easing water conveyance capacity constraints due to timing

• Maintenance of additional acres of both summer water and permanent pond habitat

types for both wildlife use and vegetation improvement

• Increased acreage of watergrass habitat and increased frequency of irrigation, if

necessary, to provide a high-quality carbohydrate food source for waterfowl and other

water birds, while easing potential waterfowl crop depredation problems on nearby

agricultural lands

• Increased “flow-through” management in all wetland habitat units on the refuges to

decrease the potential for disease outbreaks, especially botulism, among waterfowl and

other water birds using these habitats

• Maintenance of water depths, using year-round water delivery, that provide optimum

foraging conditions for the majority of avian species

• Control of undesirable vegetation species, such as cocklebur, using deep irrigation and

maintenance for periods of two to four weeks during summer

• Development of an additional 400 to 500 wetland acres throughout the Sacramento

NWR complex during the next several years

Each of these benefits is described in more detail in the specific master plans for individual

refuges.

Existing wetland and upland habitats would not be affected by the conveyance or

application of Level 4 water supplies on the refuges because most of the water would be

applied to existing wetlands and recreated wetlands would be in historical wetland areas,

such as swales, basins, or farmed wetlands. The overall objectives of refuge water

management strategies anticipated under Level 4 water supplies would enable refuge

managers to implement their master plans to optimize the foraging, resting, and breeding

habitats for wetland-dependent wildlife.

The relative numbers of waterfowl and other water birds on the refuges, expressed in useday indices (one use-day equals one bird present at a refuge for one day), reflect the

potential use of Sacramento River Region refuge wetlands under the No Action Alternative.

Use-day indices for the No Action Alternative were extrapolated from Level 2 estimates

provided by Reclamation in 1992 for use in the PEIS. These values are included to provide

an approximate basis for comparison with the other alternatives. Use days under the No

Action Alternative for the Sacramento River region were 157,986,440 for ducks and geese

and 6,186,440 for other water birds. It is anticipated that the use days for ducks and geese

will increase 18 percent under Level 2 water supplies and 35 percent under Level 4 water

supplies. Use days for other water birds would increase 18 percent under Level 2 water

supplies and 35 percent for other water birds under Level 4 water supplies. Actual numbers

of ducks and geese visiting the Sacramento River Region each year would vary with

population trends in the Pacific Flyway and with the regional availability of suitable

wetland habitats.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-20 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC)

Benefits to Vegetation and Wildlife Resources at Refuges in the San Joaquin River Region

Under the No Action Alternative, refuges in the San Joaquin River Region and private

wetlands would receive approximately 143,570 acre-feet of CVP water in normal and wet

years. Under the No Action Alternative, wetlands available for breeding and migratory

waterfowl on refuges in the San Joaquin River Region (excluding the San Joaquin Basin

Action Plan lands) could include an estimated 2,000 acres of permanent ponds, 36,000 acres

of seasonal marshes, and 2,000 acres dedicated to growing waterfowl food plants such as

watergrass and smartweed. The water supplies under the No Action Alternative would

limit the flexibility of refuge managers to use adaptive management techniques to adjust the

timing and locations of wetland habitats to maximize their benefits to wildlife. Large

numbers of ducks, geese, and other water birds would continue to use refuges in the San

Joaquin River Region under the No Action Alternative, but limited wetland acreages and

short flooding cycles could limit the potential waterfowl use of refuge wetlands.

With Level 2 water supplies to these lands, refuges in the San Joaquin River Region

(excluding the San Joaquin Basin Plan Action lands) could support approximately

3,400 acres of permanent ponds; 59,100 acres of seasonal wetlands; and 3,550 acres of

waterfowl food plant habitat, such as watergrass and smartweed. Level 2 water supplies in

the San Joaquin River Region would enable refuge managers to more effectively manage

existing wetlands to benefit migratory and breeding waterfowl and other water birds and

wildlife. However, although these acreages would substantially benefit migratory

waterfowl and other water birds compared with acreages under the No Action Alternative,

water supplies would be inadequate for optimal wetland management.

With Level 4 water supplies, approximately 6,240 acres of permanent ponds, 57,680 acres of

seasonal marshes, and 7,700 acres of watergrass and smartweed habitats would be managed

on refuges in the San Joaquin River Region, excluding the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan

lands. This is an increase of 31,600 acres over the No Action Alternative acreage. Benefits of

Level 4 water deliveries discussed above for the Sacramento River Region would also apply

to refuges in the San Joaquin River Region. Increased water deliveries to San Joaquin River

Region refuges would enable refuge managers to more effectively manage existing wetlands

to benefit migratory and breeding waterfowl and other water birds and wildlife. Refuges

and private wetlands in the San Joaquin River Region have benefited from firm water

supplies during the past few years. The Grasslands RCD has increased waterfowl and other

water bird production habitat by approximately 400 percent since 1992, and increased

wintering waterfowl food production by irrigating 14,600 acres in addition to those irrigated

in 1994, resulting in an estimated 300 percent increase in food supplies. Five years of

detailed research conducted by the Service, in cooperation with state and federal

landowners, identified the importance of continuing to use high-quality, Level 4 CVP water

supplies to reduce selenium concentrations at refuges. Based on studies conducted in 1986,

1987, 1988, 1989, and 1994, selenium concentrations in waterfowl and other water birds

wintering in that vicinity declined significantly.

Use-day indices indicate that refuges in the San Joaquin River Region would support about

half as many waterfowl but more than seven times as many shorebirds, wading birds, and

other water birds as refuges in the Sacramento River Region under the No Action

Alternative. Use days under the No Action Alternative for the San Joaquin River region

were 76,002,420 for ducks and geese and 46,220,600 for other water birds. It is anticipated
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC) 3-21

that the use days for ducks and geese will increase 65 percent under Level 2 water supplies

and 113 percent under Level 4 water supplies. Use days for other water birds would

increase 65 percent under Level 2 water supplies and 158 percent for other water birds

under Level 4 water supplies. The actual number of water-dependent species using all these

refuges and private wetlands each year would vary with population trends in the Pacific

Flyway and with regional availability of suitable wetland habitats in the San Joaquin River

Region.

Benefits to Vegetation and Wildlife Resources at Refuges in the Tulare Lake Region

Under the No Action Alternative, water supplies available to refuges in the Tulare Lake

Region (including Mendota WA) would limit the flexibility of refuge managers to use

adaptive management techniques to adjust the timing and locations of wetland habitats to

maximize their benefits to wildlife. With supplies available under the No Action

Alternative, approximately 3,600 acres of seasonal wetlands could be managed at Mendota

WA and at Kern NWR; and no permanent ponds or seasonal wetlands would be managed

at Pixley NWR under this alternative.

Level 2 water supplies to refuges in the Tulare Lake Region would enable more effective

management of existing wetlands to benefit migratory and breeding waterfowl and other

water birds and wildlife. Under Alternative 1, approximately 4,800 acres of seasonal

marshes would be managed on refuges in the Tulare Lake Region, an increase of 1,200 acres

over the No Action Alternative acreage. Although these acreages would represent a

substantial benefit to migratory waterfowl and other water birds, water supplies under this

alternative would be inadequate for optimal wetland management.

Under Level 4 water supplies, approximately 12,000 acres of seasonal marshes and

4,000 acres of watergrass and smartweed habitats would be managed on refuges in the

Tulare Lake Region. This is an increase of 12,400 acres over the No Action Alternative

acreage. Benefits of Level 4 water deliveries discussed above for the Sacramento River

Region also would apply to refuges in the Tulare Lake Region. The increased water

deliveries to Tulare Lake Region refuges would enable refuge managers to more effectively

manage existing wetlands, to benefit migratory and breeding waterfowl and other water

birds and wildlife. Refuges and private wetlands in the Tulare Lake Region have benefited

from firm water supplies during the past few years. For example, seasonal wetland habitats

at the Kern NWR complex in 1994 peaked at 4,000 acres, compared with 1,900 in 1992,

representing a 52 percent increase. An increase of 20 percent in waterfowl and 30 percent in

other water bird use was documented at the Kern NWR complex during this same period.

The number of ducks, geese, and other water birds using seasonal marshes at refuges in the

Tulare Lake Region probably would represent less than 10 percent of the birds using refuges

in the San Joaquin River Region or Sacramento River Region under the No Action

Alternative. Use days under the No Action Alternative for the Tulare Lake region were

6,583,820 for ducks and geese and 986,030 for other water birds. It is anticipated that the use

days for ducks and geese will increase 36 percent under Level 2 water supplies and 314

percent under Level 4 water supplies. Use days for other water birds would increase

36 percent under Level 2 water supplies and 326 percent for other water birds under Level

4 water supplies. Limited wetland acreages and short flooding cycles could limit water bird

use of refuge wetlands. The actual number of water-dependent species using refuges in the
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-22 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC)

Tulare Lake Region each year would vary with population trends in the Pacific Flyway and

the regional availability of suitable wetland habitats.

Benefits to Recreation and Recreational Economics at the Refuges

Recreational opportunities on the refuges increased under Alternative 1 due to Level 2

water supplies. Additional increases occurred under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and Preferred

Alternative as a result of Level 4 water supplies.

Under the No Action Alternative, hunting, fishing, and non-consumptive visitor use was

101,200 at the Sacramento River region refuges, 72,900 at the San Joaquin River region

refuges, and 4,400 at the Tulare Lake River region refuges (as described above). Under

Level 2 water supplies, visitor use would increase to 125,700 at the Sacramento River region

refuges and 93,200 at the San Joaquin River region refuges. No change would occur at

Tulare Lake River region refuges. The majority of the increased use would be due to

hunting. Under Level 4 water supplies, visitor use would increase to 164,500 at the

Sacramento River region refuges, 121,000 at the San Joaquin River region refuges, and

11,000 at the Tulare Lake River region refuges.

In the Sacramento River region refuges, the increased visitor use would increase recreation

trip-related expenditures from $144,474,000 per year under No Action Alternative to

$145,322,000 per year with Level 2 water supplies and $146,680,000 per year with Level

4 water supplies. In the San Joaquin River region refuges, the increased visitor use would

increase recreation trip-related expenditures from $84,494,000 per year under No Action

Alternative to $85,156,000 per year with Level 2 water supplies and $86,041,000 per year

with Level 4 water supplies. In the Tulare Lake region refuges, the increased visitor use

would increase recreation trip-related expenditures from $77,000 per year under No Action

Alternative to $193,000 per year with Level 4 water supplies. No change would occur under

Level 2 water supplies.

Impacts on Cultural Resources

Increased water supplies at the refuges under all alternatives and the Preferred Alternative

would increase visitor use and the risk of vandalism. Use of Level 2 and Level 4 water

supplies also could flood or increase erosion potential for cultural resources at the refuges

under all alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative.

Impacts on Agricultural Economics

As described above under Impacts to Surface Water Resources, implementation of CVPIA

including providing CVP water for Level 2 water supplies, would result in a decrease in

CVP water deliveries to water service contractors. However the specific amount is difficult

to determine due to the integrated implementation of CVPIA provisions. These actions

would reduce water supply reliability, reduce irrigated acreage, and increase groundwater

use. All of these actions would reduce gross revenues by 0.7 to 1.5 percent. The PEIS

assumed allocation of the entire amount of Level 2 water supplies from CVP water. This

may overestimate the impacts to CVP users if existing non-CVP water supplies are

continued to be used in the future.

Level 4 supplies were assumed for the purpose of the PEIS analysis to be provided by

Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors, and
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC) 3-23

SWP contractors. Gross revenues for the agricultural sector would increase due to sales of

water.

Impacts on Regional Economics

Employment and income would increase for recreational sectors with Level 2 and Level

4 water supplies as compared to the No Action Alternative. However, loss of employment

and net revenues would decrease for the agricultural sector at a greater amount. Therefore,

the total change in regional economics would be negative under implementation of CVPIA.

Summary of Impacts and Benefits Described in the PEIS

The Final PEIS recognizes that there are adverse impacts that would occur due to

implementation of the Preferred Alternative. Some of these impacts can be mitigated. The

following impacts under the Preferred Alternative were identified with the associated

mitigation measures.

• Reduction in CVP water service contract deliveries and reduction in groundwater levels

could be mitigated by implementation of methods to increase CVP yield including

recommendations under Section 3408(j).

• Adverse impacts due to increased summer water temperatures in the American River

could be mitigated by temperature control devices on Folsom Dam.

• Increase potential for mosquito abundance owing to increased wetlands, including

refuge wetlands, could be mitigated by increased abatement activities.

• Reductions in swimming opportunities in the American River resulting from high flows

could be mitigated by development of other swimming opportunities.

• Increased potential for disturbance to cultural resources could be mitigated by increased

activities in accordance with Section 106 consultation.

• Periodic reductions in boating and shoreline use opportunities at CVP reservoirs could

be mitigated by construction or extension of boat ramps and facilities for beach use.

• Adverse impacts to employment could be mitigated by job training opportunities.

• Adverse impacts to orchards along the Stanislaus River banks as a result of high

groundwater during high flow conditions could be mitigated by flood easements.

For other impacts, there are no reasonable mitigations for many of these impacts. The

following impacts do not have reasonable mitigation measures:

• Adverse impacts owing to Restoration Fund charges

• Adverse impacts to fish owing to increased water temperatures in some streams

• Adverse impacts to fish owing to reduced instream flows in some streams

• Adverse impacts to reduction in CVP power generation and shift of generation

However, the impacts are necessary to realize the benefits to fish and wildlife resources.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-24 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC)

3.2.4 Implementation of CVPIA Refuge Water Supplies

The PEIS was intended to provide the basis for a decision on whether to implement most of

the CVPIA provisions. However, the decision-maker may determine that additional analysis

is needed to reach a decision on how to implement any the provisions. A Record of Decision

based on the PEIS would not include a decision about whether to provide CVP water

supplies to refuges as described in 3406(d)(1), because the nature of the 3406(d)(1) mandate

does not require compliance with NEPA before implementation, as confirmed by the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Westlands Water District v. Natural Resources Defense Council,

43 F.3d 457 (9 Cir. 1994). However, a Record of Decision based on the PEIS would likely

include a decision about how to describe hydrologic shortages to which refuge water

supplies would be subject. A Record of Decision based on the PEIS would likely include a

decision about whether to proceed at the programmatic level with water acquisition to

provide increased refuge water supplies, as described in 3406(d)(2).

The PEIS assumed that subsequent NEPA documentation for refuge water supplies would

include evaluation of improvements to conveyance and methods used to acquire the

increment for Level 4 water supply. In addition, the PEIS assumed that future NEPA

documentation would evaluate use of Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies at the refuges

under new water management plans that were different than those identified in 1989. The

PEIS also assumed that future NEPA documentation would include an updated list and

analysis of special status species on the refuges.

3.3 Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply for West and East

Sacramento Study Areas

3.3.1 Overview of the NEPA/CEQA Documentation for Conveyance of Refuge

Water Supplies for West and East Sacramento Study Areas

The Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply Project was implemented pursuant to Section 3406

(d)(5) of CVPIA. Reclamation was the lead federal agency for NEPA in cooperation with the

Service and CDFG, which was the lead state agency for CEQA. The purpose of these

documents was to evaluate the environmental impacts of implementing alternative means

of conveying water supplies to the Sacramento, Delevan, and Colusa NWRs within the West

Sacramento Valley area and Sutter NWR and Gray Lodge WA in East Sacramento Valley

area of the Central Valley.

The environmental compliance portion of the action began with the 1995 publication of the

Report of Recommended Alternatives, Refuge Water Supply and San Joaquin Basin Action Plan

Lands (Decision Document). This document described the alternatives identified during

technical investigations and public involvement meetings in 1994. The Decision Document

also discussed the initial screening of the alternatives, based on environmental, technical,

and economic factors, as a result of project scoping/screening efforts. The potential

feasibility of alternatives identified in the Decision Document was verified in June 1995

through public involvement workshops, stakeholder meetings, and field investigations. The

Refuge Water Supply Conveyance Alternatives Refinement Memorandum published in May 1995

summarized the results of alternative refinement activities presented in the Decision
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC) 3-25

Document for the Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, Sutter, Gray Lodge, Kern, and Pixley

refuges.

The Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply EA/ISs focused on the environmental compliance

phase of the project and addressed anticipated effects of constructing and/or improving

existing conveyance facilities to the refuges. Reclamation, in cooperation with the Service

and CDFG, is currently implementing projects to provide and/or improve existing

conveyance facilities to deliver those quantities of water required for full habitat

development on the refuges located in West and East Sacramento Valley study areas.

The purposes of the conveyance projects are to:

• Provide or upgrade facilities to support peak flow and year-round delivery of water

supply requirements

• Minimize any adverse impacts on the environment resulting from the implementation of

the selected conveyance alternative

The need for the Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply Project resulted from capacity

constraints and/or maintenance requirements in the delivery systems. Historically, water

supplies were conveyed on an as-available basis, which was not consistent with refuge

needs. Existing facilities were not designed to convey peak daily refuge requirements in

addition to existing customer demands or are dewatered for maintenance purposes and,

therefore, were precluded from year-round delivery capability. Facility capacities must be

able to support scheduled maximum peak flows under Level 4 water supplies.

The EA/IS for the West Sacramento Valley study area and the associated Finding of No

Significant Impact was adopted by Reclamation in March 1998. The EA/IS for the East

Sacramento Valley study area and the associated Finding of No Significant Impact also was

adopted by Reclamation in August 1998.

3.3.2 Current Conveyance Facilities

The Sacramento NWR currently receives approximately 90 percent of its water between

March 15 and November 30 through Glenn Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) Lateral 26-2

and Logan Creek. This lateral delivers water from GCID’s Main Canal to the northwest

corner of the refuge. Once Lateral 26-2 enters the refuge, it splits and delivers water along

the northern and western boundaries of the refuge. A series of checks along Lateral 26-2

provides the necessary water height for diversion onto the refuge lands. This system does

not deliver an adequate quantity of water to the northeast corner of the refuge because of

site topography. GCID Lateral 35-1C also delivers water to the middle of the refuge’s

western boundary, primarily during September and October. Because of site topography,

water delivered at this point can only be delivered by gravity flow to the southern half of

the refuge.

No water is available from GCID facilities from December 1 through mid-March, when the

GCID Main Canal is shut down and dewatered. During this period, the refuge relies on

seasonal precipitation and natural flow in North Fork Logan Creek which passes through

the refuge lands. Water from North Fork Logan Creek is diverted inside the refuge using

Weirs DM-1 and DM-2 that back up water for distribution within the refuge.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-26 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC)

The Delevan NWR currently receives water that flows from the GCID Main Canal through

Willits Slough, through Hunters Creek, and is then diverted into Lateral HC-2. Lateral HC-2

runs from Hunters Creek to the northwest corner of the refuge. No water is generally

available from GCID facilities from December 1 through mid-March when the GCID Main

Canal is shut down and dewatered. The check structure on Hunters Creek is removed

during this time to allow passage of winter flood flows. During this period, the refuge relies

solely on seasonal precipitation.

The Colusa NWR currently receives water from the GCID Main Canal through

Laterals 64-2A and 64-1C, and from the 2047 Drain. Lateral 64-2A serves the central portion

of the refuge south of the 2047 Drain via the refuge’s West Main Lateral, which parallels the

western boundary of the refuge. A lift pump transfers water from Lateral 64-2A to the West

Main Lateral. Lateral 64-1C serves the southern portion of the refuge, which cannot be

served by the West Main Lateral. Both laterals provide water only from mid-March through

November 30 while the GCID Main Canal is in operation. During peak irrigation demand

periods, these laterals do not have sufficient capacity to meet refuge demands.

During the winter shutdown of the GCID Main Canal, the 2047 Drain is the primary source

of water for the refuge. In 1994, the Service installed a rubber dam and rehabilitated a pump

station on the 2047 Drain that has increased both the amount of water and the time periods

during which the refuge can pump from the drain. The pooled water from the dam can be

pumped in the summer to supplement the GCID lateral supplies. Two pump stations

(24-cubic-feet-per-second [cfs] highway pump and 24-cfs main pump) that draw from the

2047 Drain can provide flows to the northeast and central portions of the refuge, but cannot

provide flows to the southern portion. Precipitation is the only source of water for the

southern portion of the refuge from December 1 to mid-March.

The Sutter NWR receives surface-water supplies from two sources: the Sutter Extension

Water District (SEWD) and the Sutter Bypass. SEWD supplies the refuge lands located

outside of the Sutter Bypass levees, approximately 450 acres at the southeast corner of the

refuge, through the Sutter Extension Canal. The Service and SEWD have an annual

agreement that allows the Service to purchase water at the discretion of SEWD; however,

there is no contracted amount of water that must be delivered to Sutter NWR.

Gray Lodge WA currently receives water from a combination of surface-water and ground

water sources. As a customer of the Biggs-West Gridley Water District (BWGWD), Gray

Lodge WA has both primary and secondary surface-water rights, which are supplied from the

Thermalito Afterbay, through the A-Joint Canal and BWGWD’s Belding Lateral, to four

delivery points at the Gray Lodge WA boundary via the Rising River, Schwind, Jakey, and

Cassidy laterals. Additional water purchased through the SWP is also conveyed from the

Thermalito Afterbay through these same facilities, when necessary, to augment other

supplies. BWGWD facilities are shut down from mid-January to mid-April for maintenance.

Gray Lodge WA also has appropriative water rights supplied from diversions on the

RD 833 Drain and the RD 2054 Drain, where these drains cross the WA boundary. The water

in these drains is a combination of agriculture and natural runoff, depending on the time of

year. The amount of water available in these drains during the normal irrigation season has

been decreasing as area farms improve irrigation efficiency and implement drainage capture

and reuse programs. This is not considered a firm water supply by Gray Lodge WA.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC) 3-27

3.3.3 Conveyance for Refuge Water Supply Alternatives

The No Action Alternative would involve continued use of existing conveyance systems

that would limit refuge water supplies to Level 2 amounts or less during some months.

Three alternatives were considered for the Sacramento NWR:

• New pipeline from the Tehama Colusa Canal to refuge

• New pipeline from GCID Main Canal to refuge; improvements to GCID Main Canal

including Stony Creek siphon

• Use of existing GCID laterals 26-2 and 25-1; improvements to GCID Main Canal

including Stony Creek siphon

The alternative that uses existing laterals 26-2 and 25-1 and improves GCID Main Canal was

selected as the recommended alternative because of the low capital cost and limited

environmental impacts.

Three alternatives were considered for the Delevan NWR:

• Use GCID Logan Creek conveyance

• Upgrade existing conveyance channel and install new canal segments in GCID Main

Canal

• Upgrade existing GCID facilities

Upgrade the existing conveyance channel and install new canal segments in GCID Main

Canal was selected as the recommended alternative primarily because of its integration with

the selected alternative for the Sacramento NWR and the relatively lower cost of this

alternative.

Two alternatives were considered for the Colusa NWR:

• Drain and modify existing pump station

• Enlarge GCID Laterals 64-2A and use Lateral 64-1C and 2047 Drain in the winter

Enlargement of GCID Laterals 64-2A and use Lateral 64-1C and 2047 Drain in the winter

was selected as the recommended alternative primarily because of water supply reliability

and water quality issues.

Three alternatives were considered for the Sutter NWR:

• Use existing canals from Thermalito Afterbay; construct new pipeline from Sutter

Extension Canal

• Use existing canals from Thermalito Afterbay; construct new pressure pipeline from

Sutter Extension Canal

• Use existing canals; enlarge Farrington Lateral; modify existing siphons

Use existing canals, enlarge Farrington Lateral, modify existing siphons was selected as the

recommended alternative primarily because of its relatively low capital cost, limited
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-28 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC)

environmental impacts associated with the smallest construction impacts, and relatively

minor implementation and engineering issues.

Four alternatives were considered for the Gray Lodge WA:

• Construct new pipeline from Thermalito Afterbay

• Construct new canal from Thermalito Afterbay

• Use BWGWD facilities with improvements

• Use Butte Water District facilities with improvements

Use BWGWD facilities with improvements was selected as the recommended alternative

primarily because of its relatively low capital cost, limited environmental impacts associated

with the smallest construction impacts, and relatively minor implementation and

engineering issues.

3.3.4 Summary of Analyses of Alternatives

Impacts identified by the EA/ISs related primarily to construction impacts. Mitigation

measures were also identified to reduce the impacts to a level of less than significant. The

results of the impact analyses are summarized below.

Land Use

Construction could temporarily impact agricultural production. However, these impacts

would be mitigated by scheduling construction during non-crop seasons, minimizing

construction easements, and compensating landowners for loss of crops.

Residential structures, other structures, and powerlines could be permanently impacted due

to proposed routes. These impacts would be mitigated by selecting routes that avoid

existing structures and powerlines. If necessary, landowners would be compensated for loss

of use of property.

Biological Resources

Impacts to special-status species would be avoided based upon the findings of preconstruction surveys and mitigation measures to avoid impacts or provide acceptable

compensation.

Permanently eliminated riparian habitat would be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. Erosion and

sediment controls would be included in the project to reduce impacts during and following

construction.

Wetlands delineations would be conducted and measures to avoid jurisdictional wetlands

would be developed. Post-construction surveys would be conducted to determine actual

impacts. Eliminated wetlands would be replaced at a 2:1 ratio.

Revegetation plans would be developed to restore construction sites.

A monitoring plan would be instituted to confirm the implementation of the mitigation

measures. The monitoring program would continue for at least three years following

construction.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180005 (SAC 003.DOC) 3-29

Cultural Resources

Construction activities would be restricted to alignments that would not impact historic

sites near Sacramento and Sutter NWRs and Gray Lodge WA.

Surface Water Resources

Construction would be scheduled during the dry season to minimize erosion and damage to

streambeds and streambanks. An erosion control plan would be implemented to minimize

impacts during and following construction. If necessary, boring under streams and ditches

would be considered to avoid impacting flows.

No long-term impacts were identified in the EA/IS. The benefits of implementing the

conveyance facilities were similar to those described in the PEIS for providing Level 4 water

supplies to the refuges.

3.3.5 Implementation of Conveyance Facilities for Refuge Water Supplies

The EA/ISs for Conveyance of Refuge Water Supplies and the associated Findings of No

Significant Impact were adopted by Reclamation in December 1997. The current status of

the conveyance facilities for the refuges in the Sacramento Valley is discussed in other

sections of this document. Delivery of Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies could be initiated

under CVPIA on a temporary basis when the conveyance facilities are completed. Longterm deliveries could be initiated following adoption of the long-term water supply

agreements that are the subject of this document.

3.4 Management of Wildlife Areas

A Management Plan and associated CEQA documentation for the Gray Lodge WA was

adopted by CDFG in 1989. The purpose of the Management Plan was to define CDFG’s

goals and objectives for managing the 8,400-acre refuge. The plan focused on providing

optimal habitat for wildlife while ensuring the continued public use of the refuge for

waterfowl hunting and other recreation uses.
Section 4: Description of Alternatives
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC) 4-1

SECTION 4

Description of Alternatives

4.1 Introduction

Two alternatives were identified for this project: the No Action Alternative and the

Proposed Action. The alternatives consist of two parts: the water supply agreement and onrefuge management. On-refuge management addresses how Level 2 water supplies and the

Level 4 increment would be used on the refuges to achieve the purposes of the CVPIA. Also

described are alternatives considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis.

4.2 Water Supply Agreements

4.2.1 No Action Alternative

The Preferred Alternative of the CVPIA PEIS assumed that Reclamation would enter into a

25-year water supply agreement with the Service, and a 25-year water service contract with

CDFG to provide Level 2 water supplies from CVP yield to the refuges of the Sacramento

NWR Complex and Gray Lodge WA, respectively. In addition, the Preferred Alternative

assumed that Reclamation would provide the Level 4 increment as acquired through the

Water Acquisition Program. Therefore, the No Action Alternative assumes that Reclamation

would enter into a 25-year water service agreement with the Service and CDFG to provide

Level 2 water supplies from CVP yield to the refuges, and that the long-term water service

agreements would provide for delivery of up to the Level 4 increment, as acquired. The

quantities of CVP water that would be provided under the long-term water service

agreement of the No Action Alternative are shown in Table 4-1. Level 2 and Level 4 water

supplies would be delivered on the estimated monthly patterns identified in the Report on

Refuge Water Supply Investigations (Reclamation, 1989).

Water Management Planning

Section 210 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 requires water districts with certain types

of contracts with Reclamation to prepare and submit Water Conservation Plans with

appropriate goals, measures, timetables, and plans to ensure that water is being efficiently

applied for beneficial uses. The plans are to be updated every 5 years. After passage of the

CVPIA, a number of parties recognized the need for the development of Best Management

Practices/Efficient Use Plans for the refuges to ensure that the refuge water supplies were

being efficiently used in keeping with the Reclamation Reform Act. In 1996, Interior

responded by directing that an Interagency Coordinated Program (ICP) be instituted to

provide a common methodology for water use planning for all wetlands areas receiving

water authorized by the CVPIA. In 1997, Interior, represented by Reclamation, the Service,

CDFG, and the Grassland WD assembled a Task Force for this purpose.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-2 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC)

TABLE 4-1

Quantities of Water to Be Provided to the Refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex and Gray Lodge WA under the No

Action Alternative

Refuge

Level 2

(acre-feet)

Level 2 +Level 4 Increment

(acre-feet)

Sacramento NWR 46,400 50,000

Delevan NWR 20,951 30,000

Colusa NWR 25,000 25,000

Sutter NWR 23,500 30,000

Gray Lodge WA 35,400 44,000

NOTE: Level 2 water supplies would be provided from CVP yield. The Level 4 increment would be provided as acquired

through voluntary measures.

The Task Force provided guidance and advice in the development of the report An

Interagency Coordinated Program for Wetland Water Use Planning, Central Valley, California (ICP

Report) (Reclamation, et al., 1998) that examined water use on wetland areas and provided a

process for identification of effective water regimes for wetlands. The goal of the ICP, as

overseen by the Task Force, was to: (1) provide background information on optimum

management scenarios for refuge water supplies; (2) identify methods of effective use of

wetland water supplies; (3) assure that a process is in place for public input that can be

applied consistently to assist in refuge management decisions; and (4) provide a common

methodology for analysis of effective water use.

In the ICP Report, the Task Force proposed a common methodology for water use planning

on the refuges. There was general agreement within the Task Force that a number of water

management practices could be used to improve water use in some situations on the

refuges. The common methodology recommended by the Task Force was to systematize

these practices and to create a procedure by which all state, federal, and Grassland WD

managers are periodically asked whether they have considered efficient use practices on

their wetland operations. The ICP Report presented a partial list of practices that could

contribute to increasing water use efficiency on the refuges. Furthermore, the ICP Report

identified a number of measures that wetland managers should consider when planning

operations. The intent of the proposed measures was to encourage refuge managers to

consider the suggested practices during each planning cycle and to adopt those that are

technically feasible, financially affordable, and consistent with achieving the refuge’s goals.

The common methodology promoted the most effective water regimes for refuges while

preserving local flexibility for wetland managers.

Finally, the Task Force proposed that implementation of the common methodology

described in the ICP Report should require all refuges to prepare an Effective Water Use Plan.

In many cases, existing documents provide a strong foundation for preparing these plans.

These documents include:

• A Guide to Wetland Habitat Management in the Central Valley (a cooperative effort of CDFG

and the California Waterfowl Association, last revised in 1995)
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC) 4-3

• Water Management Strategy for the National Wildlife Refuges for the Central Valley of

California (K.M. Forrest and S. Baird, in draft)

• Water Management Plan for Grassland Water District (Stoddard & Associates, 1998)

These documents describe water-management practices and water requirements for

wetland habitats and croplands managed for waterfowl. They also discuss the justification

for the water management practices and the benefits to waterfowl habitat. These documents

may be functional equivalents of Effective Water Use Plans, but to make the format and

accountability consistent with plans prepared by CVP water users, and to incorporate the

Water Use Effectiveness Practices developed by the Task Force, the Task Force

recommended that each refuge prepare a separate document.

The CVPIA PEIS Preferred Alternative assumed that the long-term water service

agreements between Reclamation and the Service, and CDFG would be implemented.

Therefore, the No Action Alternative also assumes preparation and implementation of a

Water Use Plan for each refuge.

4.2.2 Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, Reclamation would enter into 25-year water service agreements

with the Service and CDFG to ensure provision of Level 2 water supplies to the refuges. The

long-term water service agreements would also include provisions for delivery of the Level

4 increment when this additional water is acquired by Reclamation. The major provisions of

the water service agreements are summarized in Table 4-2.

Water Management Planning

The Water Service Agreement proposed between Reclamation and the Service includes the

requirement that Water Use Plans be prepared for the refuges of the Sacramento NWR

Complex. Similarly, CDFG would have to prepare a Water Use Plan for Gray Lodge WA

within one year of execution of the water service contract. The ICP Report described for the

No Action Alternative fills a short-term need, if necessary, to ensure and improve water-use

efficiency on the refuges. The Sacramento NWR Complex is scheduled to begin preparation

in 2001 of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), as required by the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, with completion expected by 2005. Development

of the CCP is expected to include a Water Use Plan to fulfill the requirements of the Water

Service Agreement.

4.3 On-Refuge Management

4.3.1 Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Management goals of the Sacramento NWR Complex are based on refuge purposes defined

in the United States Code and executive orders. The goals include:

• Provide a diversity if wetland habitats for an abundance of migratory birds, particularly

waterfowl and water birds
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-4 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC)

TABLE 4-2

Summary of the Proposed Water Service Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the

Proposed Refuge Water Supply Contract with the California Department of Fish and Game.

Article Discussion

Quantities of Water Refuge water supplies will be provided both from the CVP and from other sources, as

described below. The USFWS and CDFG will continue to use non-CVP sources of Level 2

water provided that these other supplies remain available and of suitable quality. If this

non-CVP water becomes unavailable or unsuitable in quality, then Reclamation will

provide substitute water such that adequate Level 2 water is delivered to the refuges

pursuant to the CVPIA.

Sacramento NWR Reclamation will provide the full Level 2 supply of 46,400 acre-feet per year, and will seek

to acquire the Level 4 increment of 3,600 acre-feet per year through voluntary measures

for a total potential water delivery of 50,000 acre-feet per year.

Delevan NWR Reclamation will provide the full Level 2 supply of 20,950 acre-feet per year, and will seek

to acquire the Level 4 increment of 9,050 acre-feet per year through voluntary measures

for a total potential water delivery of 30,000 acre-feet per year.

Colusa NWR Reclamation will provide the full Level 2 supply of 25,000 acre-feet per year. No Level 4

deliveries are necessary.

Sutter NWR Reclamation considers 3,000 acre-feet per year to be a firm, reliable water supply of

sufficient quality to continue serving refuge needs. Reclamation will provide the remaining

Level 2 increment of 20,500 acre-feet per year, and will seek to acquire the Level 4

increment of 6,500 acre-feet per year through voluntary measures for a total potential

water delivery of 30,000 acre-feet per year (21,000 acre-feet per year by Reclamation).

Gray Lodge WA Reclamation considers 28,000 acre-feet per year to be a firm, reliable water supply of

sufficient quality to continue serving refuge needs. Reclamation will provide the remaining

Level 2 increment of 7,400 acre-feet per year, and will seek to acquire the Level 4

increment of 8,600 acre-feet per year through voluntary measures for a total potential

water delivery of 44,000 acre-feet per year (16,000 acre-feet per year by Reclamation).

Term of Agreements 25 years

Water Delivery Schedule On or before to March 1 of each year, the refuges will submit a requested monthly

schedule of water deliveries to Reclamation.

Measurement The refuges shall provide measurement readings to Reclamation from the authorized

Point of Delivery.

Water Quality Reclamation will provide water of sufficient quality to maintain or improve wetland habitat

areas and comparable to that provided other CVP contractors in the same geographic

region. If the Level 2 or Level 4 water supplies are not of sufficient quality, Reclamation

and the affected refuges will meet within 48 hours to determine appropriate actions

necessary to identify and address the source of the water quality problems. Reclamation is

under no obligation to construct or furnish water treatment facilities to maintain or improve

the quality of water furnished under these agreements.

Endangered Species Use of water provided by this agreement will be in compliance with any applicable

Biological Opinions.

Deficiencies Reductions in deliveries will be based on the critically dry water year classifications

whenever reductions due to hydrologic circumstances are imposed upon agricultural

deliveries of CVP water, subject to the 25 percent cap on refuge water supply reductions

for Level 2 water supplies. Reductions in Level 2 supplies not provided by Reclamation in

excess of 25 percent will be compensated by Reclamation so that the maximum deficiency

does not exceed 25 percent. For Level 4 supplies, reductions will be imposed in

accordance with the priority or priorities that applied to such water prior to its acquisition

for Level 4 supplies.

Rescheduling With the approval of Reclamation, a portion of Level 2 water supplies and/or a portion of

the Level 4 water supplies may be rescheduled for use within the refuge’s boundary during

the subsequent year, in accordance with applicable rescheduling guidelines and policies.

Pooling Whenever deficiencies are imposed on Level 2 water supplies and the Level 4 increment,

the remaining water supplies may be pooled for use on other refuges at the direction of the

Interagency Refuge Water Management Team and subject to Reclamation’s determination

regarding impacts on project operations and contractors.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC) 4-5

TABLE 4-2

Summary of the Proposed Water Service Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the

Proposed Refuge Water Supply Contract with the California Department of Fish and Game.

Article Discussion

Exchanges With the approval of Reclamation, CVP water made available under these agreements

may be exchanged for water made available to other refuges, provided that the exchange

is authorized by applicable Federal and California State laws and applicable guidelines or

regulations.

Water Use Efficiency Within one year following establishment of criteria by the Interagency Refuge Management

Team, each refuge shall prepare a Water Management Plan to address the effective and

efficient use of water on the refuge, following the general guidelines of the Interagency

Coordinated Program Task Force report. Implementation of the plans would be monitored

in annual reports submitted to Reclamation, and the plans would be updated on a five-year

schedule for the term of each agreement. Any identified water savings may be reallocated

to other wetland, wildlife, or fishery needs under the direction of an Interagency Refuge

Water Management Team and subject to Reclamation’s determination regarding impacts

on project operations and contractors.

The following applies only to the proposed contract with the California Department of Fish and Game (not applicable for

MOUs between federal agencies).

Standard Articles for

Contracting

• Rules and Regulations

• Water and Air Pollution Control

• Equal Opportunity

• Compliance with Civil Rights Laws and Regulations

• Contingent Upon Appropriation or Allotment of Funds

• Books, Records, and Reports

• Assignment Limited – Successors and Assigns Obligated

• Liability

• Officials Not to Benefit

• Confirmation of Contract

• Certification of Nonsegregated Facilities

• Notices

• Provide a natural habitat and management to restore and perpetuate endangered,

threatened and proposed species, and species of special concern

• Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of flora and fauna

• Alleviate crop depredation on private lands by providing sufficient alternative food

sources for waterfowl on refuge property

• Provide opportunities for the understanding and appreciation of wildlife ecology and

the human role in the environment

• Provide high-quality wildlife-dependent recreation, education and research

The three main habitat types on the refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex include

managed wetlands and waterways, vernal pool-alkali meadow-annual grassland complex,

and riparian woodlands. On each refuge, managed wetlands are composed of seasonal

wetlands (flooded from August or September to April), moist soil impoundments (flooded

from August through May and irrigated once in June; sometimes referred to as “watergrass
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-6 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC)

units”), summer water (flooded September through mid-July), and permanent wetlands

(flooded year-round) (G. Mensik, 2000). The amount of each of these managed wetland

types varies from year to year, based on habitat management treatments, maintenance

requirements, and water availability. Management of these habitats, including management

priorities in critically dry years, would be similar for the two alternatives and is described

below. It is important to note that the water requirements described below are averages.

More or less water may be required in any given year, depending on precipitation patterns.

Seasonal wetlands are inundated fields or ponds that are managed primarily to grow seed

and produce invertebrates for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wetlanddependent wildlife. They are the most abundant and diverse habitat type on the Sacramento

NWR Complex. These units are typically flooded from early September through mid-April.

Seed-producing plants germinate and grow to maturity on the moist pond bottoms during

the spring and early summer. Wetland flooding in the fall makes this food available to

migrant waterfowl and other water birds. Optimal management of seasonal marsh requires

an average of 5 to 6.3 acre-feet of water per acre, the lowest amount of the habitat types.

Moist soil impoundments on the Sacramento NWR Complex are managed to produce

watergrass, sprangletop, and smartweed. Moist soil impoundments are usually flooded

from late August through early May, and are irrigated in mid-June to bring watergrass,

sprangletop and smartweed to maturity. Optimal management of moist soil impoundments

requires 7.3 to 8.5 acre-feet of water per acre on average.

During the summer growing season, water is often used to encourage growth in certain

sparsely vegetated units. Two water management strategies are employed in these summer

water units. In some units, water removal does not take place until late July; in others, the

normal drawdown in April is done, scheduled work is completed, and then the unit is

flooded for the remainder of the year. Both practices promote vegetation growth while

providing habitat for resident wildlife during the hot summer months. Optimal

management of summer water requires 8.3 to 9 acre-feet of water per acre on average.

Permanent ponds remain flooded throughout the year. Characterized by both emergent and

submergent aquatic plants, these units provide brood and molting areas for waterfowl, secure

roosting and nesting sites for wading birds and other over-water nesters, and feeding areas for

some species. These units are drawn down every 4 to 5 years to recycle nutrients to increase

their productivity and to discourage undesirable fish populations. Optimal management of

permanent pond habitat requires 13.3 to 13.6 acre-feet of water per acre on average.

On the Sacramento NWR Complex, an additional 5 percent of the quantities of water used

in the wetland units is necessary to account for evaporation/seepage from the delivery

ditches (Forest et al., 1996). This water is considered essential for current and planned

riparian habitat along the refuge waterways. Some water may be delivered specifically to

irrigate these riparian areas and provide habitat for special status species.

The previous discussion describes optimum management of wetland habitats, which can

only be practiced with adequate water supplies. In critically dry years, water availability is

reduced. Under the CVPIA, Level 2 water supplies may be reduced up to 25 percent in

critically dry years. Level 4 water supplies are also expected to be reduced. The degree to

which Level 4 water supplies would be reduced depends on the dry-year provisions
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC) 4-7

associated with acquired water and cannot currently be determined. Nonetheless, the water

available for refuge management activities in critically dry years would be reduced.

In critically dry years when water availability would be reduced, the diversity, acreage, and

duration of availability of wetland habitats would be reduced. Refuge management

objectives would shift to emphasize habitats with the lowest water requirements. Seasonal

wetlands require the least amount of water, so, in critically dry years, this habitat type

would be emphasized. However, early fall flooding of seasonal wetlands in August or

September would be restricted. Less water would be available to irrigate seasonal wetlands

during the summer, which would affect the types and quality of forage production. Swamp

timothy requires the least amount of water of the primary forage plants, and units managed

for swamp timothy would be expected to increase in critically dry years. Because swamp

timothy does not produce as much or as nutritious a food source as other forage plants

(such as watergrass), the quality of seasonal wetlands for migratory waterfowl the following

fall would be reduced. Permanent ponds, semi-permanent wetlands, and summer water

habitats require the most water, and also require application of water during the summer

months when water availability can be the most restricted. As a result, in critically dry

years, the amount and duration of availability of semi-permanent wetlands and summer

water would be reduced.

No Action Alternative

Habitat Management

Under the No Action Alternative, on-refuge management at the Sacramento NWR Complex

would be in accordance with the assumptions of the CVPIA PEIS Preferred Alternative, as

defined in the Record of Decision. The CVPIA assumed that provision of Level 2 water

supplies and the Level 4 increment would result in the acres of habitat identified in the

Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations (Reclamation, 1989). Table 4-3 shows the acres of

each habitat type that would be managed using firm Level 2 water supplies, as well as the

Level 4 increment, based on the assumptions for the No Action Alternative.

Mosquito Abatement

Under the No Action Alternative, mosquito-monitoring and -control programs would

follow existing practices. The local Mosquito and Vector Control Districts are responsible for

monitoring and control programs on public and private lands, including the NWRs. Active

programs occur on Sacramento, Colusa, and Sutter NWRs. Program objectives include

preventing populations of adult mosquitoes from reaching levels that could pose a public

health risk or significant nuisance. Mosquito and Vector Control District activities are

conducted in accordance with approved Pesticide Use Proposals and special use permits,

which are prepared and submitted annually. The Sacramento NWR Complex has a Draft

Integrated Pest Management Plan for mosquito abatement that will eventually be approved

by the Regional Office. Control actions may occur on none to all of the NWRs, depending on

the mosquito populations, the detected presence of viral disease in mosquito populations or

birds, and environmental conditions (such as ambient temperature, wind speed/direction).

Typically, Colusa and Sutter NWRs have received the greatest control efforts.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-8 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC)

TABLE 4-3

Acres of Habitat Expected on Sacramento NWR Complex Refuges under the No Action Alternative and Proposed Actiona

No Action Alternative Proposed Actionb

Habitat Level 2 Level 4 Level 4

Sacramento NWR

Permanent pond 155 155 379 to 1,137

Seasonal marsh 6,180 6,180 4,925 to 6,819

Moist soil impoundment 565 565 379 to 1,515

Rice 287 287 -

Total managed wetland 7,187 7,187 7,577

Delevan NWR

Permanent pond 53 86 221 to 665

Seasonal marsh 3,407 4,000 2,880 to 3,988

Moist soil impoundment 316 450 221 to 886

Rice 204 204 -

Total managed wetland 3,980 4,740 4,431

Colusa NWR

Permanent pond 455 455 160 to 481

Seasonal marsh 2,280 2,280 2,083 to 2,885

Moist soil impoundment 535 535 160 to 641

Rice 86 86 -

Total managed wetland 3,356 3,356 3,205

Sutter NWR

Permanent pond 73 85 101 to 303

Seasonal marsh 1,047 1,250 1,312 to 1,817

Moist soil impoundment 865 1,100 101 to 404

Rice - - -

Total managed wetland 1,985 2,435 2,019

a Acres of habitat for the Proposed Action assumes full Level 4 water supplies. Habitat acreages for the Proposed

Action are refinements of prior assumptions and are discussed in detail later in this section.

b

 Of the managed wetland acres, the refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex are expected to contain 5 to 15

percent permanent wetlands and summer water, 5 to 20 percent moist soil impoundments, and 65 to 90 percent

seasonal marsh with full Level 4 water supplies (G. Mensik, pers. comm., January 3, 2000). As a result, a range is

shown for each habitat type. Total managed wetland indicates the total acreage of wetland habitat is composed of

permanent pond/summer water, seasonal marsh, and moist soil impoundment. The actual composition of the

managed wetland acres would vary from year to year within the percentages noted.

Mosquito control would follow an ordered succession, using nonchemcial treatments first

(water control strategies, mosquitofish, Bacillus thuringiensis israeli, etc.), resorting to

chemical treatment only when necessary, as determined through standard mosquito-
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC) 4-9

monitoring procedures. Whenever possible, mosquito production areas would be treated

with mosquitofish or nonchemical treatments before larvacides or adulticides are applied.

Wetlands that have produced large mosquito populations in the past would be flooded as

quickly as possible to minimize multiple emergences that may cause a need for adulticiding.

Listed Species Management

The Sacramento NWR Complex completed consultation with the Service’s Ecological

Services Division pursuant to the federal ESA for the following listed species that occur on

the refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex:

• Giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas)

• Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia)

• Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus)

• Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio)

• Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)

• Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi)

• Palmate-bracted bird’s beak (Cordylanthus palmatus)

• Hairy orcutt grass (Orcuttia pilosa)

• Green’s tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei)

• Hoover’s spurge (Chamaesyce hooveri)

In addition to these species, the Service determined that activities covered under the

Biological Opinion were not likely to adversely affect bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and

Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus); these species were not considered in the

Biological Opinion. The Service prepared a Biological Opinion (April 28, 1999) on the effects

of routine projects, activities, and programs undertaken on the refuges of the Sacramento

NWR Complex on listed species. Activities addressed in the Biological Opinion are:

• Fire management

• Herbicide/pesticide use

• Mosquito abatement

• Public use

• Routine maintenance (includes levee repair; ditch/canal cleaning and excavation;

vegetation control; clearing of tree and shrub limbs crossing roadway and utility

easements; maintenance and replacement of water-control structures; road maintenance,

grading, and clearing; construction; and trail maintenance)

• Special use permits

• Biological surveys

• Habitat restoration and enhancement activities

• Water-management activities

• Prescribed livestock grazing

• Animal damage control

• Water conveyance
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-10 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC)

While the Biological Opinion focused on routine management activities, provisions were

included to address additional projects or programs not covered by the programmatic

Biological Opinion. Most importantly, the Biological Opinion covered habitat conditions

expected with full use of Level 4 water supplies.

Management practices on the Sacramento NWR Complex include measures to conserve and

protect listed species. In addition to the conservation measures routinely practiced by the

Sacramento NWR Complex, the Service required additional terms and conditions to protect

listed species. With implementation of all of the measures for listed species, the Service

determined that the level of anticipated take on the Sacramento NWR Complex was not

likely to result in jeopardy to any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat. These management practices for the protection of listed

species would continue under the No Action Alternative.

Proposed Action

Since 1993, following passage of the CVPIA, refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex have

been receiving Level 2 water supplies, except in drought years, and an increasing amount of

the Level 4 increment. This firm reliable water will provide the refuge managers with an

opportunity to refine habitat management to provide the greatest benefit to wildlife on the

refuge. As a result, the habitat management objectives with full Level 4 water supplies have

been updated from those predicted when the CVPIA PEIS was prepared. Of the managed

wetland acres, the refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex are expected to contain 5 to

15 percent permanent wetlands and summer water, 5 to 20 percent moist soil

impoundments and 65 to 90 percent seasonal marsh with full Level 4 water supplies

(G. Mensik, pers. comm., January 3, 2000). The Proposed Action includes these revised

management objectives. Table 4-3 shows the expected habitat conditions on each of the

refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex with Level 4 supplies.

Mosquito Abatement

Mosquito-abatement practices would be the same as those described for the No Action

Alternative.

Listed-Species Management

Listed-species management would be the same as those described for the No Action

Alternative.

4.3.2 Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area is managed to achieve the following three primary objectives:

1. Provide optimal habitat for wintering waterfowl

2. Provide relief from depredation by waterfowl of agricultural crops

3. Provide recreational opportunity

Habitats on Gray Lodge WA include permanent pond, seasonal wetlands, agricultural fields

managed for cereal grains, and other uplands.

Seasonal wetlands are managed to provide food and cover for wintering waterfowl,

shorebirds, and other wildlife. Food plants grown at Gray Lodge in seasonal wetlands

include alkali bulrush (Scirpus robustus), swamp timothy (Heleochloa schoenoides),
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC) 4-11

pricklegrass (Crypsis niliaca), jointgrass (Paspalum distichum), watergrass (Echinochloa

crusgalli), smartweed (Polygonum lapthifolium), spikerush, and sago pondweed (Potamogeton

pectinatus). Management of seasonal wetlands and permanent ponds is similar to that

described for the Sacramento NWR Complex. However, if water is available, Gray Lodge

WA irrigates moist soil impoundments several times during the summer. In addition, Gray

Lodge WA grows a variety of crops to provide food and nesting cover for waterfowl.

Irrigated crops include cereal grains and pasture, and require approximately 3.5 acre-feet of

water per year. Actual water requirements in any given year would vary, depending on

weather conditions. Management of these habitats on Gray Lodge WA would be similar

under the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, on-refuge management at Gray Lodge WA would be in

accordance with the assumptions of the CVPIA PEIS Preferred Alternative, as defined in the

Record of Decision. The CVPIA assumed that provision of Level 2 water supplies and the

Level 4 increment would result in the acres of habitat identified in Report on Refuge Water

Supply Investigations (Reclamation, 1989). Table 4-4 shows the acres of each habitat type that

would be managed using firm Level 2 water supplies and the Level 4 increment.

TABLE 4-4

Acres of Habitat Expected on the Gray Lodge WA under the No Action Alternative and Proposed Actiona

No Action Alternative Proposed Action

Habitat Level 2 Level 4 Level 4

Permanent pond 2,200 2,700 400 to 600

Seasonal wetland 3,800 3,800 5,356 to 5,556

Irrigated upland

(pasture and cereal grains)

2,000 1,500 1,955

Total managed wetland

and irrigated upland 8,000 8,000 7,911

a

Acres of habitat for the Proposed Action assumes full Level 4 water supplies. Habitat acreages for the Proposed

Action are refinements of prior assumptions and are discussed in detail later in this section.

Mosquito Abatement

The Butte and Yuba-Sutter Mosquito Districts are responsible for control of mosquitoes on

Gray Lodge WA. Gray Lodge WA has a contract with these districts whereby, Gray Lodge

WA pays the Mosquito District for any control efforts the district undertake. The Mosquito

Districts determine when control is necessary and what measures to employ with the

restriction that CDFG regulates the use of toxic chemicals on the wildlife area.

Mosquito-control methods on Gray Lodge WA include a variety of biological controls such

as introduction of mosquito-eating Gambusia fish, or the larvicide bacteria Bacillus

thuringiensis israeli, to the more traditional aerial application of toxic chemicals. Given the

negative impacts known to result from the bioaccumulation of certain classes of toxic

chemicals in the food chain, Gray Lodge WA and the CDFG strongly discourage the use of

toxic chemicals for mosquito abatement on the wildlife area when alternative biological

controls can be used. Extreme care is taken to minimize mosquito production on the wildlife
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-12 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC)

area by closely coordinating irrigation and fall flooding activities with the Butte and YubaSutter Mosquito Districts.

Listed-Species Management

Gray Lodge WA provides habitat for a number of state-listed and federally listed species. It

is CDFG’s goal to preserve existing populations of all threatened and endangered species,

and to improve the overall conditions and status of those species, where possible. It is also

CDFG’s policy, as well as state law, to not conduct any type of “project” on wildlife areas

without first holding internal consultation with the CDFG’s Environmental Services

Division. Management of Gray Lodge WA underwent consultation as required by the

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) regarding the effects of implementing the Gray

Lodge Management Plan on listed species (CDFG, 1989). Furthermore, because Gray Lodge

WA receives federal funding, consultation with the Service was held to evaluate the effects

of the management on federally listed species.

The species addressed in the federal consultation were Aleutian Canada goose and valley

elderberry longhorn beetle. Giant garter snakes were state-listed at the time and were also

included in the CESA consultation. However, because the giant garter snake was not

federally listed at the time, the Service’s concurrence did not extend to this species. Bald

eagles, federally listed as threatened, only occasionally use the area during winter, and no

impacts to bald eagles were identified as a result of implementing the Management Plan

(CDFG, 1989).

The Management Plan includes measures to protect listed species on the WA and the CDFG

consultation concluded that the Management Plan would not jeopardize the continued

existence of these species. The Service concurred with these findings. Under the No Action

Alternative, management activities on Gray Lodge WA would continue to be in accordance

with the conservation measures specified in the Gray Lodge Management Plan for the listed

species identified above.

Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, Gray Lodge WA would use Level 4 water supplies to achieve

the habitat acreages shown in Table 4-4. Gray Lodge WA would increase the acreage of

irrigated upland. About 80 percent of the managed upland areas would be irrigated.

Seasonal wetlands, which include moist soil management units, would be the primary

wetland habitat.

In the CVPIA PEIS, Gray Lodge WA was projected to have 2,700 acres of permanent pond

habitat with Level 4 water supplies. Current management objectives for Gray Lodge WA focus

on providing seasonal marsh habitats. This current management objective reflects the focus of

Gray Lodge WA as providing waterfowl habitat, as well as habitat for upland game birds.

While permanent ponds were previously considered to provide the best habitat quality for

wildlife, more recently, seasonal marshes have been found to provide better insect and seed

food sources. As a result, Gray Lodge WA’s current and expected management direction

focuses more on seasonal wetlands than projected in the 1989 Report. Still, Gray Lodge WA

would provide 400 to 600 acres of permanent wetland and pond habitat.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC) 4-13

Mosquito Abatement

Mosquito-abatement practices would be the same as those described for the No Action

Alternative.

Listed-Species Management

Under the Proposed Action, Gray Lodge WA would implement conservation and take

avoidance measures for the giant garter snake, which was federally listed as threatened after

preparation of the Gray Lodge WA Management Plan and CESA Biological Opinion. In

addition, Gray Lodge WA would implement revised conservation and take avoidance

measures for valley elderberry longhorn beetles, Aleutian Canada geese, and bald eagles.

The revised measures for these species are necessary for consistency with the Biological

Opinion being prepared for implementation of the CVPIA. Measures that Gray Lodge WA

would implement for giant garter snakes include:

• Earth-moving activities would be restricted to May through October, during the

majority of the giant garter snake’s active period. During the giant garter snake’s

inactive period (November 1 through April 1), some small-scale emergency levee repair

could occur.

• The majority of earth-moving activities would occur within wetlands that have been

drained. Drained areas would be dry for 2 weeks before earth-moving activities.

Drained areas would also be checked for ponded areas that could concentrate prey and

attract giant garter snakes.

• To the extent possible, the majority of canal cleaning and excavation would be

performed only from May 1 to October 1. If it is necessary for water conveyance canals

to be cleaned prior to or after the giant garter snake’s active period (May 1 through

October 30), cleaning shall only occur below the highest water line as evidenced on the

sides of the canal as high water marks.

• Excavation would typically occur from only one side of the canal during a given year.

When possible, one side of the canal would be left undisturbed indefinitely.

• Excavation above the high-flow watermark would be avoided whenever possible to

minimize disturbance to burrows and retreat sites.

• Vegetation on the tops and sides of canals would be left as undisturbed as possible.

• Roads adjacent to giant garter snake habitat would: (a) not be mowed unless necessary

for regular access; (b) be mowed between March 1 and October 31; (c) be mowed with

mowers adjusted to leave no less than 6 inches of standing vegetation.

• Burning would be conducted during the spring, summer, and fall months on thoroughly

dried wetlands or uplands. Where possible, only one bank of vegetation would be

subject to prescribed burns. Vegetation along canal banks would be left undisturbed as

much as possible, and bank vegetation passed over by the fire would not be reignited.

Any giant garter snakes observed within the prescribed burn areas would be captured

and relocated or attempts would be made to flush them away from areas where the fire

is likely to travel.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-14 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC)

• Discing would be conducted in dried wetlands or in uplands. Winter discing and

planting for spring production of wildlife forage would be restricted to upland areas.

Discing activities would be avoided directly adjacent to waterways and summer

wetlands unless they have been allowed to dry.

• Implement the Service’s Standard Avoidance and Minimization Measures During

Construction Activities in Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat.

• No Construction or activities that destroy or modify giant garter snake habitat shall take

place between October 1 through April 30.

• If a giant garter snake is encountered during maintenance or construction activities, the

activity should temporarily halt in the vicinity of the snake until it can be determined

the snake will not be harmed. The snake should be observed and monitored to

determine if it leaves the area or retreats into burrows or other areas. If possible, all

activity in the vicinity should cease and the areas should be fenced or flagged and

avoided to allow the snake to move away from the area on its own. Capture or handling

of giant garter snakes will be avoided unless impending harm to the snake is apparent.

If it is necessary to relocate a snake out of harm’s way, the snake should be moved to the

nearest available suitable habitat; doing so will maximize the probability that the giant

garter snake will be familiar with available retreat sites and cover and minimize the risk

that the snake will attempt to cross roads and/or construction areas to return to a

familiar area. Any encounters with giant garter snakes shall be reported to the Service

and CDFG. The report will include date(s), location(s), habitat description, and any

corrective measures taken to protect the giant garter snake(s) found.

These measures are the same as those required under the Biological Opinion for the

Sacramento NWR Complex.

For valley elderberry longhorn beetle, Gray Lodge WA would implement the following

conservation and take avoidance measures:

• A qualified biologist would survey proposed project sites within the range of the valley

elderberry longhorn beetle for the presence of the beetle and its elderberry host plant.

• A core avoidance area would be established around elderberry plants. The core

avoidance area includes all area within 20 feet of the dripline of any elderberry plant

with a stem measuring 1 inch or greater in diameter at ground level. Core avoidance

areas should not be disturbed during or after construction, or during operation of the

project. The buffer-avoidance area includes all area within 100 feet of any elderberry

plant with a stem measuring 1 inch or greater in diameter at ground level. Firebreaks

may not be included in the buffer zone. In buffer areas construction-related disturbance

should be minimized, and any damaged area should be promptly restored following

construction.

• All areas to be avoided would be fenced and flagged, and a minimum setback of at least

20 feet from the dripline of each elderberry plant shall be provided. Contractors shall be

briefed on the need to avoid damaging the elderberry plants and the possible penalties

for not complying with these requirements. Work crews shall be instructed as to the

status of the beetle and the need to protect its elderberry host plant.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC) 4-15

• Signs shall be erected every 50 feet along the edge of the avoidance area; these signs

should state: “This area is habitat of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, a threatened

species, and must not be disturbed. This species is protected by the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended. Violators are subject to prosecution, fines, and imprisonment.”

The signs should be clearly readable from a distance of 20 feet, and must be maintained

for the duration of construction.

• Any damage done to the buffer area (area within 100 feet of elderberry plants) during

construction shall be restored to its original conditions, erosion control shall be

provided, and the area shall be revegetated with appropriate native plants.

• Both core and buffer avoidance areas must continue to be protected after construction

from adverse effects of the project. Measures, such as fencing, signs, weeding, and trash

removal, are usually appropriate.

• No insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other chemicals that might harm the beetle or

its host plant would be used in core and buffer avoidance areas, or within 100 feet of any

elderberry plant with one or more stems measuring 1 inch or greater in diameter at

ground level.

• Mowing of grasses/groundcover may occur from July through April to reduce fire

hazard. No mowing should occur within 5 feet of elderberry shrub stems. Mowing

would be performed in a manner that avoids damaging shrubs (stripping away bark

through careless use of mowing/trimming equipment).

• In the event that take cannot be avoided, CDFG would contact the Service for

information before starting the action.

For Aleutian Canada geese, CDFG would implement the following take avoidance and

conservation measures at the Gray Lodge WA:

• Agricultural lands would not be converted to other uses. In the event that agricultural

land is proposed for conversion to another use, CDFG would consult with the Service.

• To the extent practicable, construction activities in areas used by Aleutian Canada geese

for wintering would be restricted to the period between May 15 and September 30.

• To the extent practicable, disturbance to flocks and foraging geese would be avoided

during the first and last two hours of daylight.

• In the 3vent that take cannot be avoided, CDFG would contact the Service before

starting the action.

For bald eagles, CDFG would implement the following take avoidance and conservation

measures at the Gray Lodge WA.

• If construction activities would occur near areas with suitable nesting sites (i.e., snags or

trees over 20 inches in diameter at breast height), the area would be surveyed for eagle

activity prior to construction.

• Construction activities would not occur within 0.5 mile of an active nest site between

January 1 and August 31.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-16 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC)

• Construction activities would not occur within 0.5 mile of an active roost site between

November 15 and March 15.

• Removal of large, mature trees or snags over 22 inches in diameter at breast height along

watercourses, lakes, and reservoirs would be avoided.

• CDFG would take actions to maintain and protect the local fish population from

sedimentation and other disturbance.

• If nest surveys are conducted, surveys would be initiated after mid-April.

• In the event that take cannot be avoided, CDFG would contact the Service before

starting the action.

4.4 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail

The Proposed Action was selected and the No Action Alternative was developed following

consideration of a broader range of possible alternatives. This section describes other

alternatives that were considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis. All of the

alternatives considered included full Level 2 and Level 4 water deliveries, per CVPIA directives.

4.4.1 Annual Agreements

Under an alternative based on annual water service agreements, Reclamation would

negotiate annual agreements with the Service and CDFG for Level 2 supplies and the

available Level 4 increment. Such an alternative would provide maximum flexibility in

Reclamation’s water supply planning, but this alternative was not selected for detailed

analysis because of several disadvantages. Primary among these disadvantages was that

annual contracts did not appear to meet the intent of the CVPIA. Bolstering Central Valley

wetland habitats by providing reliable refuge water supplies is a long-term proposition, and

year-to-year contracts would not provide enough certainty to promote effective

management of on-refuge habitats. However, flexibility has been built into the proposed

long-term agreements in a manner consistent with CVPIA directives. In addition to the

inherent flexibility provided by Reclamation’s Water Acquisition Program, Level 2 supplies

can be reduced in dry years, and pooling of water supplies between refuges can occur in dry

years under the direction of a refuge water management team. Because annual contracts do

not appear to meet CVPIA directives, and because some flexibility is obtained through longterm agreements, an alternative involving annual agreements was not carried forward for

detailed consideration.

4.4.2 Long-Term Level 2 Agreements

Another potential alternative is to enter into long-term agreements for Level 2 supplies only.

The Level 4 increment would be provided under annual interim agreements subject to

availability of water from the Water Acquisition Program. This alternative was not selected

for detailed analysis because it did not offer any clear advantages over the Proposed Action

and may not be consistent with the CVPIA. Reclamation’s commitment to provide Level 2

supplies would remain the same under this alternative as under the Proposed Action.

Reclamation’s obligation to provide the Level 4 increment would also not differ between the
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180006 (SAC 004.DOC) 4-17

two alternatives. In both cases, the Level 4 increment would be provided through voluntary

measures (e.g., water conservation, conjunctive use, purchase, lease, donations, or similar

activities). If the Level 4 increment were not available, then it would not be provided to the

refuges. Because an alternative to only enter into long-term agreements for Level 2 supplies

would not fulfill the objectives of the CVPIA, it was not carried forward for detailed

consideration.
Section 5: Affected Environment and

Environmental Consequences
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-1

SECTION 5

Affected Environment and Environmental

Consequences

5.1 Introduction

This section describes the environmental setting of the refuges in the Sacramento River

basin, and describes potential environmental consequences regarding the following

resource categories:

• Biological Resources

• Water Quality

• Agricultural Land Use

• Recreation

• Regional Economics

• Social Conditions

• Cultural Resources

• Visual Resources

• Power

Other resources were either fully covered in the CVPIA PEIS (such as CVP-wide issues such

as surface water and groundwater), or were not likely to be affected under the Proposed

Action (such as mineral resources, noise). The PEIS provides an appropriate cumulative

impacts analysis for this document, and additional cumulative impacts are not considered.

As a NEPA document, the effects of the alternatives are considered at an equal level of

detail, and the primary focus is on how the Proposed Action would impact the environment

relative to the No Action Alternative. In other words, environmental consequences would

occur if the Proposed Action was not implemented, and the focus of the environmental

analysis is identifying how the environment would be affected with the project versus how

it would be affected without the project. As described in Section 4, the No Action

Alternative has two primary components:

• Reclamation would continue to provide Level 2 water supplies and the Level 4

increment under long-term agreements of unspecified duration

• On-refuge use of the water would be in accordance with the assumptions of the CVPIA

PEIS

The analysis of the impacts of the Proposed Action considers how on-refuge habitat

conditions would differ between the current management objectives assumed under the

Proposed Action and the habitat conditions assumed in the CVPIA PEIS Preferred

Alternative. For both alternatives, the impact analysis considers conditions that would occur

with full Level 4 water supplies.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-2 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

This document is being prepared as a joint Environmental Assessment/Initial Study

(EA/IS). As described in Section 1.5, additional CEQA analysis is necessary in order to

supplement the Negative Declaration prepared for the Gray Lodge Management Plan. In

order for the analysis in this section to meet CEQA requirements, the effects of the Proposed

Action on the Gray Lodge WA are compared to existing conditions in addition to being

compared to the No Action Alternative. The information described in the Existing

Conditions assessment will be used in the preparation of an Addendum to the Negative

Declaration for the Gray Lodge Management Plan.

5.2 Biological Resources

This section describes the biological resources present on the refuges and adjacent

agricultural lands, and how these resources may be affected as a result of the Proposed

Action.

5.2.1 Affected Environment

The affected environment for biological resources includes four refuges of the Sacramento

NWR Complex (Sacramento NWR, Delevan NWR, Colusa NWR, and Sutter NWR) and the

Gray Lodge WA. The refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex are owned and managed by

the Service; Gray Lodge WA is a state wildlife area and is managed by CDFG. All of these

refuges are in the Sacramento River Basin.

The Sacramento River Basin forms the northern portion of the Central Valley. Historically,

the Central Valley supported three major landscape types: wetlands, grassland-prairies, and

riparian woodlands. These habitats were hydrologically and biologically linked to the river

systems. Prior to their containment by the construction of dams and levees, the major rivers

meandered, forming oxbows and riparian habitat. Winter floods would inundate and scour

areas along these rivers, creating marshes and early-succession riparian scrub. Expanses of

seasonal wetlands were also created by winter flooding. These seasonal wetlands formed

important habitat for overwintering and migrating waterfowl.

Habitat areas such as wetlands are now intensively managed to support large numbers of

birds and other wildlife within small and fragmented areas. Remnant wetlands and

agricultural lands in the Central Valley support approximately 60 percent of the waterfowl

wintering in the Pacific Flyway region. In addition, another 20 percent of the Pacific Flyway

population passes through the Central Valley, using the wetlands for foraging and resting

on their migratory passage through the region. The Sacramento Valley alone winters

44 percent of the Pacific Flyway waterfowl. The wetland and associated habitat are also

important to several federally listed and proposed species, and other special-status species

such as the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),

Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia), giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas),

and California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense).

The refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex contain permanent ponds, seasonal wetlands,

irrigated moist soil impoundments, and uplands. The wetlands support watergrass, swamp

timothy, and sprangletop, as well as invertebrate populations that serve as a food source for

migrating and overwintering waterfowl. Upland areas of the refuge support large
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-3

concentrations of geese, upland birds, and other wildlife species (Reclamation, 1995). The

management objectives for the NWRs of the Sacramento Valley are:

• Provide a diversity of wetland habitats for an abundance of migratory birds, particularly

waterfowl and water birds

• Provide natural habitat and manage to restore and perpetuate endangered, threatened

and proposed species, and species of special concern

• Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of flora and fauna

• Alleviate crop depredation on private lands by providing sufficient alternative food

sources for waterfowl on refuge property

• Provide opportunities for the understanding and appreciation of wildlife ecology and

the human role in the environment

• Provide high-quality wildlife-dependent recreation, education and research

These goals are achieved through an ecosystem management approach that strives to

maintain a diversity of habitats that support a diversity of wildlife species.

The Gray Lodge WA supports permanent and seasonal wetlands, crops, and pasture.

Wetland areas support waterfowl plant food sources and invertebrate populations;

managed upland areas provide habitat for geese, upland birds, and other wildlife species.

Gray Lodge WA is managed in accordance with the following objectives (CDFG, 1989):

• Provide optimal habitat for wintering waterfowl species

• Provide relief from depredation of agricultural crops by waterfowl

• Provide recreational opportunity

Vegetation and Wildlife

Management of the Sacramento NWR Complex and Gray Lodge WA focuses on providing

wetland habitats. Small grain crops and pasture are also managed on Gray Lodge WA. The

vegetation and associated wildlife communities of the Sacramento NWR Complex and Gray

Lodge WA can be divided into four general types:

• Upland habitats

• Wetland habitats

• Riparian habitats

• Irrigated pasture and crops

Upland habitats consist of annual and perennial grasslands, alkali meadows, and vernal

pool complexes. All of these habitats occur on the refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex.

Gray Lodge WA has been intensively managed for waterfowl and upland game bird

production since its establishment. As a result, native upland habitats do not occur on the

refuge. Water is not used to manage the upland habitats, and would not be affected by the

Proposed Action. For the remaining habitat types (wetland, riparian, and irrigated pasture

and crops) active water management is necessary to produce and maintain good-quality

wildlife habitat. Therefore, these habitats have the potential to be affected by the proposed
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-4 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

water service agreements. The affected environment discussion and environmental

consequences focuses on these habitat types.

Wetland Habitats

Wetland habitats consist of seasonally flooded marshes, including moist soil

impoundments, and permanent ponds/summer water. The characteristics and wildlife

species associated with each of the wetland types are described below.

Seasonally flooded marsh is by far the most numerous and diverse of the wetland habitat

types on the state and federal refuges of the Sacramento River Basin. Wetland units

managed as seasonally flooded marsh are typically flooded from early September through

mid-April. Their diversity is the product of a variety of water depths that result in an array

of vegetative species that, in combination, provide habitat for the greatest number of

wildlife species throughout the course of a year. Through the fall and winter, seasonally

flooded marshes are used by large concentrations of waterfowl and smaller numbers of

egrets, herons, ibis, and grebes, to name a few. In addition, a full complement of raptors take

advantage of the water bird prey base. Water is removed in the spring, so large

concentrations of shorebirds use the shallow depth and exposed mudflats on their northern

migration. Seed-producing plants germinate and grow to maturity on the moist pond

bottoms during the spring and early summer. Wetland flooding in the fall makes this food

available to early migrant waterfowl and other waterfowl.

Moist soil impoundments are similar to seasonally flooded marshes except that they are

irrigated in summer to improve production of watergrass, sprangletop, and swamp

timothy, the primary food species for waterfowl. Moist soil impoundments are typically

irrigated during the summer to bolster plant growth and to enhance seed production. An

irrigation is usually performed in mid-June to increase plant biomass and seed production

of watergrass, sprangletop, and smartweed plants. During these irrigation periods, these

units are often used by locally nesting colonial water birds (egrets, herons). Though not as

diverse, once flooded, these units provide an abundant food source for waterfowl at an

important (potential crop depredation) time of the year. In addition, a number of wading

birds species frequent them throughout the year.

Permanent ponds and summer water provide wetland habitat for year-round and summer

resident species. Permanent ponds remain flooded throughout the year, while units

managed for summer water are flooded through June or July. Characterized by both

emergent and submergent aquatic plants, permanent ponds and summer water units

provide brood and molting areas for waterfowl, secure roosting and nesting sites for

wading birds and other over-water nesters, and feeding areas for species like cormorants

and pelicans. Permanent wetland habitats are also important to a number of special-status

species, such as the giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi),

and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor).

Riparian Habitat

Valley-foothill riparian habitats are found along low- to mid-elevation streams and

waterways. On the refuges, riparian vegetation is supported by seepage along canals. Where

riparian trees and shrubs are planted to restore or enhance riparian habitat, water may be

used to irrigate the plantings until they are established. Riparian habitats provide nesting,

roosting, and feeding areas for passerines, raptors, herons, egrets, waterfowl, and small
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-5

mammals. These areas also provide important corridors for local and migratory wildlife.

Riparian woodland habitats are characterized by even-aged, broad-leafed, deciduous trees

with open canopies that reflect flood-mediated episodic events. Cottonwoods (Populus sp.),

willows (Salix spp.), alders (Alnus spp.), and oaks (Quercus spp.) are common trees found in

riparian woodlands. Riparian scrub habitats are described as streamside thickets dominated

by one or more willow species, as well as other fast-growing shrubs and vines (California

Native Plant Society, 1994).

Irrigated Pasture and Crops

Agricultural land use within refuges includes irrigated small-grain crops as a food source

for migrating ducks, geese, and sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) and irrigated pasture for

nesting cover for waterfowl and upland game birds. Only Gray Lodge WA manages

irrigated pasture and small grain crops. Cropland and pastures consist of corn, vetch, milo,

mixed grasses, and safflower.

Fish

With many miles of irrigation ditches and canals available as aquatic habitat, the refuges

support resident fish species. The most common species include largemouth bass

(Micropterus salmoides), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), sunfish, and carp. These species

are adapted to the warm, murky waters of the area, and their only special habitat

requirement is year-round permanent water. Maintenance of permanent water in most of

the ditches is complementary to the primary goal of maintaining wintering waterfowl

habitat. On Gray Lodge WA, a popular warmwater fishery is supported and provides

recreational opportunities for anglers. Fishing is not permitted on the Sacramento NWR

Complex.

With the exception of Sutter NWR, anadromous salmonids and the federally listed

Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) do not occur on the refuges. Anadromous

salmonids and Sacramento splittail can occur on Sutter NWR when flood flows are

bypassed from the Sacramento River into the Sutter Bypass. Juvenile and adult anadromous

salmonids can enter the refuge with floodwaters. When the bypass is flooded, splittail

spawn in the Sutter Bypass and could occur on Sutter NWR.

Special-Status Species

Table 5-1 lists special-status species known to or potentially occurring on the Sacramento

NWR Complex and Gray Lodge WA and their habitat associations. These species were

identified on a list provided to Reclamation by the Service in a March 20, 2000, letter. In

addition to the list from the Service the following documents were reviewed to identify any

additional special-status species potentially occurring at the refuges:

• Gray Lodge Wildlife Area Management Plan (CDFG, 1989)

• Biological Opinion on Management, Operations and Maintenance of the Sacramento

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Willows, California (Service, 1999)

• CVPIA PEIS and associated Draft Biological Opinion (Service, 2000)

• EA/IS for Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply Project East Sacramento Valley Study

Area (Reclamation and CDFG, 1997a)
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-6 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

• EA/IS for Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply Project West Sacramento Valley Study

Area (Reclamation and CDFG, 1997)

TABLE 5-1

Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring on or Downstream of Refuges of the Sacramento

River Basin

Common Name

Scientific Name Status General Habitat Association

Invertebrates

Conservancy fairy shrimp

Branchinecta conservatio

Federal – E

State – none

Vernal pools

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

Branchinecta lynchi

Federal – T

State – none

Vernal pools

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp

Lepidurus packardi

Federal – E

State – none

Vernal pools

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle

Desmocerus californicus dimorphus

Federal – T

State - none

Riparian habitat (elderberry bushes)

Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle

Anthicus antiochensis

Federal – SC

State- none

Sandy deposits along rivers and

sloughs

Sacramento anthicid beetle

Anthicus sacramento

Federal – SC

State – none

Sandy deposits along rivers and

sloughs

California linderiella

Linderiella occidentalis

Federal – SC

State – none

Vernal pools

Molestan blister beetle

Lytta molesta

Federal – SC

State – none

Vernal pools; grassland habitat

Sacramento Valley tiger beetle

Cicindela hirticollis abrupta

Federal – SC

State – none

Riparian habitat

Fish

Sacramento splittail

Pogonichthys macrolepidotus

Federal – T

State – CSC

Bay-Delta estuary; rivers

Central Valley steelhead

Oncorhynchus mykiss

Federal – T

State – none

Rivers and streams

Sacramento River winter-run chinook

salmon

O. tshawytscha

Federal – T

State – E

Rivers and streams

Sacramento River winter-run chinook

salmon critical habitat

Federal – NA

State – NA

Rivers and streams

Central Valley fall-run/late-fall-run

chinook salmon

O. tshawytscha

Federal – C

State - CSC

Rivers and streams

Central Valley spring-run chinook

salmon

O. tshawytscha

Federal – T

State – T

Rivers and streams

Central Valley spring-run chinook

proposed critical habitat

Federal – NA

State – NA

Rivers and streams
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-7

TABLE 5-1

Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring on or Downstream of Refuges of the Sacramento

River Basin

Common Name

Scientific Name Status General Habitat Association

Green sturgeon

Acipenser medriostris

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Rivers

River lamprey

Lampetra ayresi

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Rivers and streams

Pacific lamprey

Lampetra tridentata

Federal – SC

State – none

Rivers and streams

Amphibians

Western spadefoot toad

Scaphiopus hammondii

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Vernal pools

California red-legged frog

Rana aurora draytonni

Federal – T

State – CSC

Wetland and aquatic habitat

Foothill yellow-legged frog

Rana boylii

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Rivers and streams

Reptiles

Western pond turtle

Clemmys marmorata

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Wetland and riparian habitats

Giant garter snake

Thamnophis gigas

Federal – T

State – T

Wetland habitat

Birds

White-faced ibis

Plegadis chihi

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Wetland habitat, irrigated pasture and

croplands

Aleutian Canada goose

Branta canadensis leucopareia

Federal – T

State – none

Wetland habitat; irrigated pasture and

croplands

Cooper’s hawk

Accipiter cooperi

Federal – none

State – CSC

Riparian habitat

Sharp-shinned hawk

Accipiter striatus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Riparian habitat

Golden eagle

Aquila chrysaetos

Federal – none

State – CSC

Grassland, scrub and wetland habitats;

irrigated pasture

Ferruginous hawk

Buteo regalis

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grassland and scrub habitat; irrigated

pasture

Swainson’s hawk

Buteo swainsoni

Federal – none

State - T

Grassland habitat; irrigated pasture

Northern harrier

Circus cyaneus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Grassland and wetland habitats

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Federal – T

State – E

Wetland and riparian habitat

Osprey

Pandion haliaetus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Riparian habitat
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-8 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

TABLE 5-1

Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring on or Downstream of Refuges of the Sacramento

River Basin

Common Name

Scientific Name Status General Habitat Association

Merlin

Falco columbarius

Federal – none

State – CSC

Wetland habitat

Prairie falcon

Falco mexicanus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Grassland and scrub habitat

American peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus anatum

Federal – none

State – E

Wetland and grassland habitat

Greater sandhill crane

Grus canadensis tabida

Federal – none

State – T

Irrigated pasture and croplands

Mountain plover

Charadrius montanus

Federal – PT

State – CSC

Grassland and scrub habitat

Long-billed curlew

Numenius americanus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Grassland habitat

Short-eared owl

Asio flammeus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Grassland and wetland habitat

Burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grassland habitat

Willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii

Federal – none

State – E

Wetland and riparian habitat

Purple martin

Progne subis

Federal – none

State - CSC

Wetland and riparian habitats

Bank swallow

Riparia riparia

Federal – none

State – T

Riparian habitat

Loggerhead shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grassland habitat and irrigated pasture

Tricolored blackbird

Agelaius tricolor

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Wetland habitat

Yellow warbler

Dendroica petechia brewsteri

Federal – none

State – CSC

Wetland and riparian habitats

Yellow-breasted chat

Icteria virens

Federal – none

State – CSC

Wetland and riparian habitats

Mammals

Pallid bat

Antrozous pallidus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Grassland habitat

Spotted bat

Euderma maculatum

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Riparian, wetland, and grassland

habitats

Occult little brown myotis

Myotis lucifugus occultus

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Riparian and wetland habitats

Yuma myotis

Myotis yumanensis

Federal – SC

State – none

Riparian habitat
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-9

TABLE 5-1

Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring on or Downstream of Refuges of the Sacramento

River Basin

Common Name

Scientific Name Status General Habitat Association

Long-eared myotis

Myotis evotis

Federal – SC

State – none

Riparian habitat

Fringed myotis

Myotis thysanodes

Federal – SC

State – none

Riparian habitat

Long-legged myotis

Myotis volans

Federal – SC

State – none

Riparian habitat

Western small-footed myotis

Myotis cilolabrum

Federal – SC

State – none

Scrub habitat

Pacific western big-eared bat

Plecotus townsendii townsendii

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Riparian habitat

Pale western big-eared bat

Plecotus townsendii pallescens

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Riparian habitat

Marysville Heermann’s kangaroo rat

Dipodomys californicus eximius

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grassland habitat

San Joaquin pocket mouse

Perognathus inornatus inornatus

Federal – SC

State - none

Grassland habitat

Plants

Henderson’s bent grass

Agrostis hendersonii

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland habitat

Ferris’s milk-vetch

Astragalus rattanii var. ferrisiae

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland habitat

Heartscale

Atriplex cordulata

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland and scrub habitats

Valleyspearscale

Atriplex joaquiniana

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland and scrub habitats

Vernal pool saltbrush

Atriplex persistens

Federal – SC

State – none

Vernal pools; grassland habitat

Hoover’s spurge

Chamaesyce hooveri

Federal – PT

State – none

Vernal pools

Palmate-bracted bird’s beak

Cordylanthus palmatus

Federal – E

State – E

Grassland and scrub habitats

Recurved larkspur

Delphinium recurvatum

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland and scrub habitats

Diamond-petaled California poppy

Escholzia rhombipetala

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland habitat

Adobe lily

Fritillaria pluriflora

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland habitat

Rose mallow

Hibiscus lasiocarpus

Federal – SC

State – none

Wetland habitat

Ahart’s dwarf rush

Juncus leiospermus var. ahartii

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland habitat
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-10 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

TABLE 5-1

Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring on or Downstream of Refuges of the Sacramento

River Basin

Common Name

Scientific Name Status General Habitat Association

Red Bluff dwarf rush

Juncus leiospermus var. leiospermus

Federal –SC

State – none

Grassland habitat

Butte County meadowfoam

Limnanthes flocossa ssp. californica

Federal – E

State – E

Vernal pools; grassland habitat

Wooly meadowfoam

Limnanthes flocossa ssp. flocossa

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland habitat

Red-fllowered lotus

Lotus rubriflorus

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland habitat

Little mousetail

Myosurus minimus ssp. apus

Federal – SC

State – none

Vernal pools

Colusa grass

Neostapfia colusana

Federal – T

State – E

Vernal pools

Hairy orcutt grass

Orcuttia pilosa

Federal – E

State – E

Vernal pools

Ahart’s paronychia

Paronychia ahartii

Federal – SC

State – none

Vernal pools; grassland habitat

Hartweg’s golden sunburst

Psuedobahia bahiifolia

Federal – E

State – E

Grassland habitat

Sanford’s arrowhead

Sagittaria sanfordii

Federal – SC

State – none

Wetland habitat

Caper-fruited tropidocarpum

Tropidocarpum capparideum

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland habitat

Green’s tuctoria

Tuctoria greenei

Federal – E

State – Rare

Vernal pools

Status Definitions

E = Listed as Endangered by the state or federal government.

T = Listed as Threatened by the state or federal government.

PE = Proposed to list as Endangered by the state or federal government.

PE = Proposed to list as Threatened by the state or federal government.

SC = Federal Species of Concern.

CSC = California Species of Special Concern.

Rare = Designated as rare by the State of California.

NA = Not applicable.

5.2.2 Environmental Consequences

The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to provide Level 2 water

supplies and up to the full Level 4 increment to the refuges of the Sacramento NWR

Complex (the Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter NWRs) and the Gray Lodge WA.

The impacts of providing this water have been evaluated programmatically in the CVPIA

PEIS, as described in Section 3 of this EA/IS. However, additional site-specific analysis on

the effects of using the water on the refuges is warranted. This section focuses on the sitespecific effects that may occur to biological resources within these areas.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-11

Sacramento NWR Complex

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would continue to provide Level 2 water

supplies and up to the full Level 4 increment to the refuges of the Sacramento NWR

Complex. In recent years, the refuges have been receiving Level 2 water supplies and a

portion of the Level 4 increment. However, until recently, habitat management has been

restricted because GCID’s conveyance facilities that are used to deliver water to Sacramento,

Colusa, and Delevan NWRs were dewatered in the fall and winter, and water could not be

delivered to refuges during these months. With no deliveries in the winter when water is

needed on the refuge to maintain wintering waterfowl habitat, the refuge had to “stockpile”

water. Stockpiling water consists of flooding wetland areas 2 to 3 feet deep and holding the

water through the winter. This management strategy was necessary to ensure that habitat

was available for waterfowl throughout the winter. However, stockpiling water resulted in

wetland areas being flooded deeper than optimal levels for waterfowl feeding (1 foot or

less). As a result, while wetland habitat was available for waterfowl, its quality was

impaired because of the deep water that limited access to food sources (G. Mensik, pers.

comm., December 13, 1999). With the completion of conveyance facilities improvements, the

increase in reliable water supplies to full Level 4 under the No Action Alternative would

allow for optimal management of refuge habitats. Under the No Action Alternative, the

refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex would support the acreages of habitats shown in

Table 4-3.

The habitat improvements expected under the No Action Alternative do not include

expansion of wetland habitats, but rather result from the ability and flexibility to more

effectively manage existing wetland units resulting from increased, year-round water

supplies. Expected improvements in habitat management include:

• Earlier, expanded, and prolonged fall flooding of seasonal wetlands to allow increased

wildlife use

• Additional maintenance of summer water, wetland/moist soil, riparian, and irrigated

pasture habitat types for wildlife use and vegetation improvement

• Increased management of moist soil impoundments through more frequent irrigation, to

provide a high-quality carbohydrate food source for waterfowl and other water birds,

while easing potential waterfowl crop depredation problems on nearby agricultural

lands

• Maintenance of water depths, using year-round water delivery, that provide optimum

foraging conditions for the majority of avian species

• Use of flow-through management rather than stockpiling water to improve water

quality, reduce disease outbeaks, and maintain optimal water depths for waterfowl

foraging

• Control of undesirable vegetation species using deep irrigation and maintenance for

periods of two to four weeks during the summer
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-12 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

As these improved management capabilities continue to develop, optimal habitat conditions

can be maintained under drought conditions and during flood/storm conditions to provide

suitable and stable habitat conditions for resident and migratory wildlife. In particular, full

Level 4 water supplies would increase the availability of wetland habitat and provide water

for spring/summer irrigation. Level 4 water would also allow early flooding of seasonal

wetlands and increase the extent of seasonal wetlands in the fall and winter. The availability

of permanent ponds and summer water would also increase. Overall, higher-quality

wetland habitat would be available for a longer period of time each year.

Improved habitat quality and availability of seasonal wetlands would continue to benefit

migratory waterfowl. The Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations (Reclamation, 1989)

projected 150 million bird-use-days for waterfowl, geese, and other migratory shorebirds on

refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex each year under habitat management with full

Level 4 water supplies. Improvements in wetland habitat quality and availability would

have beneficial effects for other wetland-associated wildlife, including a variety of

invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and shorebirds, by providing foraging and

resting areas. A number of special-status species would also benefit from the increased

habitat diversity and stability provided under optimal habitat management of wetland

units. These species include the tricolored blackbird, white-faced ibis, and giant garter

snakes. Golden and bald eagles, and the American peregrine falcon could indirectly benefit

from an increase in their seasonal food supply of wintering waterfowl. In addition, the

Sacramento NWR Complex conducts management and operational activities in accordance

with its Biological Opinion, which specifies conservation and avoidance measures to protect

federally listed species. These conservation measures, in combination with the habitat

improvements expected with full Level 4 water supplies under the No Action Alternative,

would protect and potentially enhance recovery of listed species.

An additional benefit of maximizing waterfowl retention on the refuges is control of avian

diseases that are potentially transmittable to domestic fowl. Potential benefits to the refuges

under the No Action Alternative are two-fold: (1) increased on-refuge retention of

waterfowl would reduce potential exposure of domestic fowl to migratory waterfowl, and

(2) increased ability for refuge managers to effectively manage water supplies would help

reduce outbreaks of avian cholera, botulism, and other bird diseases. Because these effects

are expected as the availability of Level 4 water increases under the No Action Alternative,

there would be a continuing beneficial effect associated with limiting the spread of avian

diseases.

Increased water supplies would augment return flows from the refuge. This increase could

seasonally increase the availability of water in conveyance channels on the refuge and

beneficially affect riparian vegetation and associated wildlife. Return-flow water from the

Sacramento NWR leaves the refuge via Logan Creek and eventually flows into the

Sacramento River. Return flows from both the Delevan and Colusa NWRs flow through the

R.D. 2047 drain to the Sacramento River. While the volume of return flows would continue

to increase under the No Action Alternative, the increase would not adversely impact water

quality or anadromous salmonids in downstream areas because: (1) the quality of the water

that would be delivered to the refuge would be similar to or better than what is currently

used, and (2) reliable year-round water supplies would allow flow-through management

that will improve water quality.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-13

On Sutter NWR, anadromous salmonids and splittail currently can enter the refuge with

rising floodwaters during flood events in the bypass. The fish that enter the refuge lands

could become stranded when the floodwaters recede and the refuge lands dry. This is a

naturally occurring phenomenon that is not related to water management practices on the

refuge. Potential concerns relate to changes in the water conveyance system or the

topography on the refuge that could alter the potential for fish to become stranded on the

refuge. Use of Level 2 and up to Level 4 water supplies to optimally manage existing habitat

would not include changes in the conveyance facilities or topography of the refuge.

Therefore, no impacts to anadromous salmonids or splittail are expected. This assessment is

consistent with the 1997 Biological Opinion that concluded that maintenance and

operational activities on the refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex would not adversely

affect splittail.

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would have the same benefits to wetland habitats and associated

wildlife species, including special-status species, as described for the No Action Alternative.

Habitat conditions under the Proposed Action would be similar to those for the No Action

Alternative. The Proposed Action primarily differs from the No Action Alternative in

providing greater flexibility in the delivery schedule of Level 2 water supplies and the Level

4 increment, and in a slightly greater emphasis on summer water on Sacramento and

Delevan NWRs (Table 4-3). Under the No Action Alternative, Level 2 water supplies and the

Level 4 increment, would be delivered on the monthly pattern identified in the Report on

Refuge Water Supplies Investigations (Reclamation, 1989). In contrast, the water service

agreement for the Proposed Action would provide greater flexibility and allow year-to-year

adjustments in the delivery pattern. This difference would further enhance the refuge

managers’ ability to optimally manage wetland habitats, as managers could better adjust the

water delivery schedule in response to habitat management needs and wildlife use.

The greater emphasis on permanent wetlands under the Proposed Action would extend the

benefits of increased water supplies to resident species and summer migrants. Permanent

wetlands and summer water provide habitat for nesting birds and a diversity of resident

wildlife species. Permanent wetland habitats are also important to a number of specialstatus species, such as the giant garter snake, white-faced ibis, and tricolored blackbird.

Under the Proposed Action, the Sacramento NWR Complex would continue to conduct

management and operational activities in accordance with the 1997 Biological Opinion. As a

result, the Proposed Action would have similar benefits to federally listed species as would

the No Action Alternative. As under the No Action Alternative, no adverse impacts to

anadromous salmonids or splittail are expected with implementation of the Proposed

Action.

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would continue to ensure that Gray Lodge

WA receives Level 2 water supplies and up to the full Level 4 increment. The increase in

reliable water supplies to full Level 4 under the No Action Alternative would allow optimal

management of on-refuge habitats. Currently, Gray Lodge WA supports 455 acres of

permanent wetland and aquatic habitat, and 5,501 acres of seasonal wetlands (A. Atkinson,
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-14 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

pers. comm., January 5, 2000). The remainder of the WA is managed upland, consisting of

cereal grains and pasture, and riparian habitat. Based on the habitat expectations detailed in

the Refuge Water Supply Investigations, the No Action Alternative assumes that with full

Level 4 water supplies, Gray Lodge WA would support approximately 2,700 acres of

permanent wetland habitat, 3,800 acres of seasonal wetland habitat, and 1,500 acres of

irrigated upland. The difference in the level of permanent wetlands between the No Action

Alternative and existing conditions reflects an increased understanding of wetland and

waterfowl ecology. Permanent ponds were previously considered to provide the best

habitat quality for wildlife, but, more recently, seasonal wetlands have been found to

provide better insect and seed food sources. The current habitat composition of Gray Lodge

WA reflects this understanding developed since preparation of the Report on Refuge Water

Supply Investigations.

As with the refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex, expansion of wetland habitats to

nonwetland areas would not occur on Gray Lodge WA. Rather, increased and reliable water

supplies would enable more effective management of existing habitats. Improvements in

management capabilities and the subsequent benefits to wetland habitat quality and

availability and wetland-associated species would be the same as those described for the

Sacramento NWR Complex. The Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations (Reclamation,

1989) projected 72 million bird-use-days for waterfowl, geese, and other migratory

shorebirds on Gray Lodge WA each year under optimal habitat management. As for the

Sacramento NWR Complex, the potential for outbreaks of avian diseases and transmission

of diseases to domestic fowl would be reduced with optimal management of wetland

habitats. Special-status species associated with wetland habitats would similarly benefit

from improved quality and availability of wetland habitats.

Full Level 4 water supplies would also support an increase in irrigated pasture and

croplands. This increase would benefit sandhill cranes, geese, raptors, and other birds and

mammals, including special-status species, that forage on small grains and/or insects and

small mammals found in these habitats. Pasture could also provide habitat for grassland

birds, such as sparrows, pheasants, and northern harriers.

Return flows from Gray Lodge WA reach the Sacramento River through various drains and

channels. The volume of return flows from Gray Lodge WA is expected to increase with the

additional Level 4 increment of water provided to the refuge. This increase in return flows is

not expected to adversely impact water quality or anadromous salmonids in downstream

watercourses. In addition, the improved water quality from increased water supplies and

management flexibility could have a beneficial effect for downstream uses.

Proposed Action

Habitat conditions under the Proposed Action would be similar to existing conditions, but

would differ from the assumptions of the No Action Alternative primarily with respect to

permanent wetlands. As under the No Action Alternative, seasonal wetlands would be the

predominant wetland type on the refuge. However, while the No Action Alternative

assumed that full Level 4 water supplies would be used to support approximately

2,700 acres of permanent wetland and aquatic habitat, the Proposed Action would provide

400 to 600 acres of permanent wetland and aquatic habitat. The emphasis on seasonal

wetlands reflects the current understanding that seasonal wetland can be managed to

provide better habitat quality for migratory waterfowl than can permanent wetlands. In
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-15

addition, permanent wetlands have never been the predominant wetland type on Gray

Lodge WA. Thus, the difference in the acreage of permanent wetlands between the

Proposed Action and No Action Alternative does not reflect an actual physical difference

that would occur on the refuge under each of the alternatives.

The benefits to wetland habitat quality through improved management capabilities

identified under the No Action Alternative would also be realized under the Proposed

Action. Furthermore, the Proposed Action could result in somewhat better habitat quality

than would the No Action Alternative, given an increased flexibility in the delivery

schedule of Level 2 water supplies and the Level 4 increment. Under the No Action

Alternative, Level 2 water supplies and the Level 4 increment would be delivered on the

monthly pattern identified in the Report on Refuge Water Supplies Investigations (Reclamation,

1989). In contrast, the water service agreement for the Proposed Action would provide

greater flexibility and year-to-year adjustments in the delivery pattern. This difference

would further enhance the refuge managers’ ability to optimally manage wetland riparian

and upland (crops) habitats, thereby benefiting a diversity of wildlife species (including

special-status species).

Under the Proposed Action, Gray Lodge WA would implement additional conservation

measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts to special-status species, particularly

giant garter snakes, from a wide range habitat management activities and operational

regimes. These conservation measures would improve protection of special-status species

relative to the No Action Alternative. In combination, the improvements in habitat quality

and availability, and the additional conservation measures of the Proposed Action would

provide greater benefit to special-status species than would the No Action Alternative. As

under the No Action Alternative, no adverse effects to anadromous salmonids would occur

under the Proposed Action.

5.3 Water Quality

This section describes the water quality conditions that exist on the Sacramento NWR

Complex and the Gray Lodge WA, and how these conditions may change as a result of the

Proposed Action.

5.3.1 Affected Environment

Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge

Before passage of the CVPIA, the Sacramento NWR received CVP water from the

Sacramento River through GCID. Under contracts with the Service, GCID conveyed a

maximum of 50,000 acre-feet of CVP water to the refuge. The Sacramento NWR has

continued to receive CVP water through GCID facilities to meet Level 2 water supplies and

the annual Level 4 increment.

The quality of surface water from the Sacramento River is adequate for refuge and

agricultural uses (Reclamation, 1994). In general, levels of salinity, organic and inorganic

contaminants, and pathogens are low. For example, this surface water is widely used for

drinking water after disinfection, and supports special-status anadromous fish and other

fish species of management concern. The GCID Main Canal and associated conveyance
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-16 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

canals receive some agricultural return flow, but water quality remains adequate for refuge

and agricultural uses, as demonstrated by its current, successful use for irrigation of

agricultural fields and wildlife habitat.

Until recently, GCID’s facilities were dewatered for maintenance and cleaning during the

late fall and winter months. As a result, the refuge received CVP water only from April

through the end of November. With no deliveries in the winter when water is needed to

maintain waterfowl habitat, the refuge has had to “stockpile” water. Stockpiling water

consists of flooding wetland areas 2 to 3 feet deep and holding the water through the winter.

This management strategy was necessary to ensure that habitat was available for waterfowl

throughout the winter. However, in the absence of fresh water inflows, poor water quality

conditions resulted from this management strategy, which, in turn, may have contributed to

disease losses. In some years, more than 14,000 birds died on the Sacramento NWR

Complex as a result of these diseases (Dileanis, et al., 1992).

The Sacramento NWR also diverts agricultural return flows from Logan Creek under

appropriative water rights. The refuge holds four appropriative water licenses to divert up

to 60 cfs from Logan Creek to supply 4,575 acres of the refuge. Typically, the refuge

exercised its water rights on Logan Creek during the period when the GCID Main Canal

was dewatered for winter maintenance and there was natural flow in the creek

(Reclamation, 1992). Water from the GCID canals is considered to be of higher quality and is

preferred over Logan Creek water (Dileanis, et al., 1992). Water quality of the water

currently diverted from Logan Creek is unknown, but samples collected in 1988 did not

indicate any water quality parameters of concern, and this water has been successfully used

for irrigation of agricultural fields and wildlife habitat. Currently, two wells exist on the

Sacramento NWR. These wells are not used for water supply because of groundwater

quality concerns.

Delevan National Wildlife Refuge

The Delevan NWR has no firm water supply and no groundwater supply. Before passage of

the CVPIA, the refuge received up to 30,000 acre-feet of CVP water from the Sacramento

River through annual contracts between the Service and GCID. The Delevan NWR

continues to receive CVP water via GCID facilities to meet Level 2 water supplies, and the

annual Level 4 increment.

As described for the Sacramento NWR, the quality of surface water from the Sacramento

River is adequate for refuge and agricultural uses (Reclamation, 1994). In addition to CVP

water, GCID conveys agricultural return flows to the refuge. Agricultural return flows are of

poorer quality than CVP supplies, but are of adequate quality for refuge uses.

Until recently, GCID only delivered water to Delevan NWR from April through November.

As described for Sacramento NWR, wetland habitat management practices resulting from

this water delivery pattern could contribute to poor water-quality conditions and

subsequent disease outbreaks. The lack of other water supplies to draw on when GCID

facilities were shut down further restricted wetland management options on Delevan NWR.

Outbreaks of avian cholera and botulism have occurred on Delevan NWR, although not to

the degree as on the Sacramento NWR.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-17

Colusa National Wildlife Refuge

Colusa NWR has no firm water supply. Before passage of the CVPIA, the refuge obtained

most of its water from the R.D. 2047 Drain. Most of the water in the R.D. 2047 Drain during

the irrigation season is from agricultural return flows, which are of poorer quality than CVP

water but are acceptable for refuge use. The refuge has one appropriative water right for

diversion from the R.D. 2047 Drain. However, because of prior appropriations, water was

generally not available for the refuge during July and August. The refuge also received

agricultural return flows from fields outside of the refuge through the “J” Drain

(Reclamation, 1989).

These water supplies were supplemented with CVP water conveyed through GCID’s

facilities. At times, a significant part of the water in GCID’s canal has been agricultural

return flows. Agricultural return flows delivered to the refuge are of poorer quality than

CVP supplies, but are of adequate quality for refuge uses. Currently, the Colusa NWR has

been receiving CVP water via GCID facilities to meet Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies.

GCID's facilities are dewatered for maintenance and cleaning during the late fall and winter

months. As at Sacramento and Delevan NWRs, water was stockpiled at Colusa NWR

because water was generally not available during the late fall and winter. Water quality and

avian disease concerns were the same as those described for Sacramento and Delevan

NWRs. However, outbreaks of avian cholera and botulism have occurred less frequently at

Colusa NWR than at other refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex (Dileanis, et al., 1992).

Sutter National Wildlife Refuge

The Sutter NWR receives surface-water supplies from two sources: the Sutter Extension

Water District and the Sutter Bypass. More than 85 percent of the water supply for the

refuge has come from irrigation and return flows in the East and West Borrow Ditches of

Sutter Bypass, if and when they have been available. Agricultural return flows provide the

majority of the summer flows. The quality of agricultural return flows is suitable for refuge

uses. Because rainfall, runoff, and flood flows provide the majority of winter flows, the

refuge has not had to stockpile water, as has been done at the other refuges of the

Sacramento NWR Complex. Still, outbreaks of avian cholera and botulism have occurred at

Sutter NWR, although not to the extent as at the other refuges of the Sacramento NWR,

Complex (Dileanis, et al., 1992). The refuge has five groundwater wells, but groundwater

has not been used because it contains high levels of arsenic, boron, and, possibly, mercury

(Reclamation, 1995).

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

Before passage of the CVPIA, as well as now, Gray Lodge WA received water from a

combination of surface water and groundwater sources. Gray Lodge WA is served by the

Biggs-West Gridley Water District, which diverts SWP water from Thermalito Afterbay.

Gray Lodge WA receives 8,000 acre-feet of dependable water from Biggs-West Gridley

Water District and R.D. 833 and 2054. The quality of water from Thermolito Afterbay is

adequate for agricultural, urban, and wildlife habitat management uses.

The refuge has also diverted water from the R.D. 833 Drain and the R.D. 2054 Drain. These

canals convey agricultural return flows. The return flows are only available during the
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-18 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

summer and early fall, when the rice fields are drained. This water has been of adequate

quality for refuge uses.

Groundwater has been used to supply a portion of the annual demand on the Gray Lodge

WA. There are 21 deep groundwater wells used onsite, as necessary, to supplement surfacewater deliveries and to supply water to portions of the Gray Lodge WA that cannot be

reached by gravity flow from surface supplies. No water-quality concerns have been

identified regarding the use of groundwater for wetland habitat management at Gray Lodge

WA.

5.3.2 Environmental Consequences

The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water

supplies to the refuges of the Sacramento NWR complex (the Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa,

and Sutter NWRs) and Gray Lodge WA. The impacts of providing this water have been

evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, as described in Section 3 of this EA/IS. However, additional

site-specific analysis is warranted. This section focuses on the site-specific water-quality

impacts that may occur with increased water supply.

Sacramento NWR Complex

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, on-refuge management at the Sacramento NWR Complex

would be in accordance with the assumptions of the CVPIA PEIS Preferred Alternative.

Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would continue to provide Level 2 water to

the refuges from CVP yield and the Level 4 increment, as acquired through the Water

Acquisition Program. The Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies for the refuges of the

Sacramento NWR Complex were identified previously in Section 4.3.1.

Refuges in the Sacramento NWR Complex rely solely on surface water for refuge

management. Most of the surface water used on the refuges is diverted from the Sacramento

River. Water from the Sacramento River would continue to make up most of the refuge’s

water supply. Water quality of the additional water conveyed to the refuges would be

similar to what is currently being delivered.

As described above, the refuges had to “stockpile” water for use during the winter. This

management resulted in extended ponding of water that, at times, contributed to poor water

quality on the refuges and subsequent disease outbreaks. With more reliable and yearround water supplies under the No Action Alternative, management of wildlife habitat

would not require “stockpiling” of water. Rather, a flow-through management strategy

would be followed. With flow-through management, water levels are maintained at a

constant level by adding fresh water and draining water that was previously applied to the

wetland units. This management results in a continuous supply of fresh water to the

wetland units and decreases the potential for poor water-quality conditions to develop.

Because of improved water quality, flow-through management is expected to decrease the

potential for disease outbreaks among wintering waterfowl, which would be a beneficial

water-quality effect both on the refuge and for downstream uses.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-19

Drainage from the Sacramento NWR Complex eventually reaches the Sacramento River

through Logan Creek (Sacramento NWR), the R.D. 2047 Drain (Delevan and Colusa NWRs),

or the Sutter Bypass (Sutter NWR). Delivery of up to Level 4 water under the No Action

Alternative would increase return flows from these areas. Table 5-2 presents the estimated

increase in return flows from delivery of full Level 4 water. This increase in drainage is not

expected to impact water quality, because on-refuge levels of trace elements and pesticides

are generally within established guidelines and criteria (Dileanis et al., 1992). In addition, no

concerns regarding water quality of return flows coming off the refuges have been

identified (G. Mensik, pers. comm., January 13, 2000). Continued improvement in water

quality as a result of flow-through management would be expected to have a beneficial

effect with respect to downstream uses.

TABLE 5-2

Estimated Increase in Drainage from Individual Refuges with Delivery of Level 4 Water

Refuge Area Receiving Water

Drainage

(ac-ft)

Increased Drainage

(ac-ft)

Total Drainage

(ac-ft)

Sacramento NWR Logan Creek 6,000 to 8,000 4,600 10,600 to 12,600

Delevan NWR 2047 Drain 2,500 to 3,500 450 2,950 to 3,950

Colusa NWR 2047 Drain 2,000 to 3,000 0 2,000 to 3,000

Sutter NWR Sutter Bypass 2,820 to 6,345 1,500 4,320 to 7,845

Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, Reclamation would ensure that Level 2 water supplies are

delivered, as well as the Level 4 increment as acquired through the Water Acquisition

Program. This water would be used to manage wetland habitats on the Sacramento NWR

Complex in accordance with revised management objectives. The acreage of permanent

ponds and summer water would generally be greater at the Sacramento NWR Complex

than was assumed under the No Action Alternative. Acres of the other wetland habitat

types (moist soil impoundments and seasonal wetlands) would be similar to the No Action

Alternative.

Although an increased acreage of permanent and summer water would be available on the

Sacramento NWR Complex, management of wetland habitats would be similar to the No

Action Alternative. The availability of reliable, year-round water supplies would allow

flow-through management of wetland habitats, which would result in similar water-quality

benefits as those described for the No Action Alternative.

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would continue to provide Level 2 water to

Gray Lodge WA from CVP yield, and would provide the Level 4 increment, as available

through the Water Acquisition Program. The Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies for Gray

Lodge WA were identified earlier in Section 4.3.2. Gray Lodge WA would receive surface

water from Reclamation throughout the year. It is expected that Gray Lodge WA would
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-20 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

continue to use groundwater to supplement surface water, primarily in drought years when

water deliveries to the refuge would be reduced. Both sources of water would be of suitable

quality for wetland management.

The availability of reliable, year-round water supplies would increase management

flexibility at Gray Lodge WA. Stockpiling water has not been necessary to the same extent as

on the federal refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex. Nonetheless, providing Level 2

water supplies and up to the Level 4 increment would result in greater flexibility and

certainty that a flow-through management strategy could be followed. This would act to

improve water-quality conditions on the refuge and would decrease the potential for

disease outbreaks, as described for the refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex.

Drainage flows at Gray Lodge WA would continue to increase as a result of the additional

Level 4 increment of approximately 8,600 acre-feet of water applied to the refuge. This

increase in drainage is not expected to impact water quality, as on-refuge levels of trace

elements and pesticides are within acceptable levels from established criteria. In addition,

the improved water quality from increased water supplies and management flexibility

would have a beneficial effect on downstream uses.

Proposed Action

As under the No Action Alternative, the availability of reliable, year-round water under the

Proposed Action would provide greater flexibility and certainty such that a flow-through

management strategy could be followed. Because the quantity and quality of water

available to Gray Lodge WA under the Proposed Action would be similar to the No Action

Alternative, the same water quality conditions identified under the No Action Alternative

would be expected under this alternative. Likewise, the quality of return flows would be

similar to the No Action Alternative.

5.4 Agricultural Land Use

This section describes the interaction between the refuges and adjacent agricultural lands,

and how these conditions may change as a result of the Proposed Action.

5.4.1 Affected Environment

Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge

The Sacramento NWR is located in rural Glenn and Colusa Counties in the northern

Sacramento Valley. The lands surrounding the refuge are primarily agricultural with large

acreages of rice as the predominant crop. Several duck clubs are also present in the

surrounding area. Interstate 5 abuts the refuge’s western boundary.

The Sacramento NWR is designated as “Open Space/Public Lands” in the Glenn County

General Plan, whereas surrounding farmlands are designated as “Intensive Agriculture.” In

addition, surrounding lands in Glenn County have a special overlay designation of

“Restorable Wetlands,” which facilitates the use of designated farmlands for wildlife

conservation purposes. All refuge lands within Colusa County are designated “Resource

Conservation” in the Colusa County General Plan, whereas surrounding land uses are

considered “General Agriculture.” Land use policies in both of the two county General
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-21

Plans support measures to ensure the compatibility of farmlands and wetland/wildlife

areas. For example, policy CO-20 of the Colusa County General Plan states:

Protection of Resource Conservation areas may at times conflict with agricultural and

recreation practices on adjacent lands. Such conflicts should be resolved on a case-by-case

basis in a manner which recognizes the public interests in both habitat resource protection

and the sound management of agriculture and recreation resources.

No equivalent policy exists in the Glenn County General Plan.

Delevan National Wildlife Refuge

The Delevan NWR is located entirely within Colusa County. The refuge area is surrounded

by rice farms, and the refuge itself was formerly used for rice farming. The Delevan NWR is

designated as “Resource Conservation” by the Colusa County General Plan. Adjacent lands

are designated as “General Agriculture,” and the immediate eastern boundary is designated

as a “Drainage Facility” (the R.D. 2047 Drain). Policy CO-20 of the Colusa County General

Plan, described above, also applies to the Delevan NWR and surrounding lands.

Colusa National Wildlife Refuge

The Colusa NWR is located entirely within Colusa County. The refuge area is surrounded

by rice farms, and portions of the refuge were previously used for rice farming. The Colusa

NWR is designated as “Resource Conservation” by the Colusa County General Plan.

Adjacent lands are designated as “General Agriculture,” with the northeastern border of the

refuge abutting the City of Colusa planning area. Land use designations within this portion

of the City of Colusa planning area are industrial and public (the City’s sewer ponds). Policy

CO-20 of the Colusa County General Plan, described above, also applies to the Colusa NWR

and surrounding lands.

Sutter National Wildlife Refuge

The Sutter NWR is located entirely within rural Sutter County, and most of its land area is

contained within the Sutter Bypass, a major flood overflow channel from the Sacramento

River. Lands to the east and west of the bypass levees are in rice production, and other lands

within the bypass to the north and south of the refuge are under cultivation. The refuge is

designated as “Key Wildlife Area” in the Sutter County General Plan, and surrounding land

uses are considered “Intensive Agriculture.” The General Plan does not identify specific

policies relating to the interface between farmlands and public wetland/wildlife areas.

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

The Gray Lodge WA is located in rural Butte and Sutter counties. Adjacent lands to the

north, south, and east are primarily agricultural, most of which are rice fields with some

limited pasture and orchards. Some of this surrounding farmland is flooded in winter for

private waterfowl hunting. Lands to the west are primarily unfarmed wetlands of the Butte

Sink, most of which is preserved as waterfowl habitat in private hunting clubs.

The Gray Lodge WA is designated as “Public” in the Butte County General Plan, whereas

surrounding farmlands are designated as “Orchard and Field Crop.” All lands of the Gray

Lodge WA in Sutter County are considered “Key Wildlife Areas” in the Sutter County

General Plan, whereas surrounding land uses are considered “Intensive Agriculture.”
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-22 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

Neither of the two county General Plans identifies specific policies relating to the interface

between farmlands and public wetland/wildlife areas.

Two contractual arrangements exist with property owners. One property owner has a right

of access to his property, which is surrounded on three sides by the Gray Lodge WA. The

Tule Goose Hunting Club has a contractual right to all drainage water from the refuge on

demand. The Gray Lodge WA may acquire additional lands in the future, as parcels come

up for sale. The Gray Lodge Management Plan (CDFG, 1989) identifies six adjacent

properties that Gray Lodge will consider purchasing if the opportunity presents itself.

5.4.2 Environmental Consequences

The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water

supplies to the refuges of the Sacramento NWR complex (the Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa,

and Sutter NWRs) and the Gray Lodge WA. The impacts of providing this water have been

evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, as described in Section 3 of this EA/IS. However, additional

site-specific analysis is warranted. This section focuses on the site-specific land use conflicts

that may occur with surrounding agricultural land uses. Key issues of concern to farm

owners surrounding the refuges include economic impacts (primarily from crop

depredation by waterfowl and spread of avian diseases) and refuge expansion. Other land

use and nuisance issues are considered minor and would not change under the Proposed

Action (such as weed control and beaver and muskrat damage). The issue of mosquito

control was addressed in Section 4.

In order to understand how changing water supplies on the refuges may impact adjacent

agricultural lands, available refuge management information was reviewed. The purpose of

this reconnaissance was to understand current refuge management practices and how these

practices affect surrounding land uses. A similar process was undertaken to evaluate how

the Proposed Action may affect these current practices.

Sacramento NWR Complex

No Action Alternative

The objectives of the Sacramento NWR Complex include alleviating the problem of

depredation of agricultural crops by wintering waterfowl, and this continues to be a part of

the refuges’ primary mission. This objective would continue to be supported under the No

Action Alternative. As described in Section 5.2 (Biological Resources), improvements to onrefuge habitats are expected to occur under the No Action Alternative. Continuing to

provide Level 2 and Level 4 water would result in substantial improvements to the ability of

the Service to manage waterfowl habitat on the refuge. The improvements expected do not

include expansion of wetland habitats to nonwetland areas, but rather provide the ability to

more effectively manage existing habitats. One of the benefits of effectively managing

wetland habitats with a reliable water supply is the increased ability to produce waterfowl

forage on the refuge. The ability to more effectively grow food items is expected to help

maintain waterfowl on the refuge and, therefore, reduce the potential for depredation on

surrounding farmland. Accordingly, a beneficial land use effect is expected under the No

Action Alternative.

An additional benefit of maximizing waterfowl retention on the refuges is control of avian

diseases that are potentially transmittable to domestic fowl. Potential benefits to the refuges
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-23

under the No Action Alternative are two-fold: (1) increased on-refuge retention of

waterfowl would reduce potential exposure of domestic fowl to migratory waterfowl, and

(2) increased ability for refuge managers to effectively manage water supplies would help

reduce outbreaks of avian cholera, botulism, and other bird diseases. Because these benefits

are expected to increase as the availability of refuge water supplies increases under the No

Action Alternative, there would be a beneficial effect associated with limiting the spread of

avian diseases.

No additional refuge lands would be acquired under the No Action Alternative. The

amount of water provided to the refuge under interim water service agreements is intended

for optimum management of current refuge lands per the Report on Refuge Water Supply

Investigations. The Service currently owns all lands of the four refuges of the Complex, and

no expansion of the refuges is planned.

Proposed Action

Habitat conditions under the Proposed Action would be similar to the No Action

Alternative, with the primary difference being a slight increase in permanent wetlands on

the Sacramento and Delevan NWRs. This increase in permanent wetlands and other minor

changes in habitat under the Proposed Action would not substantially change potential

impacts to adjacent farmlands relative to the No Action Alternative, so the level of impact

would be about the same as described above. As is the case under the No Action

Alternative, no additional refuge lands would be acquired under the Proposed Action.

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

No Action Alternative

One of the primary objectives of the Gray Lodge WA is to provide relief from depredation

of agricultural crops by waterfowl (CDFG, 1989). This objective would continue to be

supported under the No Action Alternative. As described in Section 5.2 (Biological

Resources), improvements to on-refuge habitats are expected to occur under the No Action

Alternative. Continuing to provide Level 2 supplies, and eventually expanding conveyance

infrastructure to fully use up to Level 4 supplies, would result in substantial improvements

to the ability of CDFG to manage waterfowl habitat on the refuge. As with the Sacramento

NWR Complex, expansion of wetland habitats to nonwetland areas is not planned, but

CDFG would have the ability to more effectively manage existing habitats. With the reliable

water supply under the No Action Alternative, the ability to more effectively grow food

items is expected to help maintain waterfowl on the refuge, thereby reducing the potential

for depredation on surrounding farmland. Accordingly, a beneficial land use effect is

expected under the No Action Alternative.

An additional benefit of maximizing waterfowl retention on the refuges is control of avian

diseases, which are potentially transmittable to domestic fowl. For the Gray Lodge WA,

beneficial impacts with regard to controlling avian diseases would be the same as those

described for the Sacramento NWR Complex.

No additional refuge lands would be acquired under the No Action Alternative. The

amount of water provided to the refuge under the No Action Alternative is intended for

optimum management of refuge lands per the Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-24 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

Proposed Action

Habitat conditions under the Proposed Action would be similar to the No Action

Alternative, with the primary difference being a slight increase in permanent wetlands. This

increase in permanent wetlands and other minor changes in habitat under the Proposed

Action would not substantially change potential impacts to adjacent farmlands relative to

the No Action Alternative. Therefore, the level of impact would be about the same as was

described above. As is the case under the No Action Alternative, no additional refuge lands

would be acquired as part of the Proposed Action.

The potential land use impacts of the Proposed Action relative to existing conditions would

be similar to the beneficial effects described above under the No Action Alternative. Part of

the benefit described above has been realized as a result of delivery of Level 2 water

supplies to the Gray Lodge WA, with additional benefits having occurred in those years in

which Level 4 water supplies were available on the refuge. Additional benefits would occur

relative to existing conditions until full Level 2 and Level 4 water is available on the Gray

Lodge WA.

5.5 Recreation

The quality of on-refuge habitats, both for waterfowl and other species, affects recreation

opportunities and experiences. This section describes the potential for habitat changes

associated with the Proposed Action to affect consumptive (hunting and fishing) and

nonconsumptive (bird watching) recreation uses on the refuges.

5.5.1 Affected Environment

Sacramento NWR Complex

The goals and objectives for the Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter NWRs support

public recreation activities. Consumptive recreation activities on the four refuges are limited

to waterfowl and pheasant hunting programs administered by the refuges in cooperation

with CDFG. Fishing is not allowed at the Sacramento NWR Complex refuges.

Nonconsumptive recreation activities have expanded at the refuges, and now support more

visitor-use days than hunting. Table 5-3 shows current recreation use at the four refuges.

As indicated on Table 5-3, recreation use at the complex, especially nonconsumptive use, is

focused around the Sacramento NWR. The Sacramento NWR is the headquarters of the

complex and contains a visitor center and other developed public uses, including a six-mile

auto tour route and a walking trail. The presence of the visitor center and interpretive staff

at the Sacramento NWR makes the refuge a focus of local environmental education

activities. The Colusa NWR has an auto tour route and walking trail, but the Delevan and

Sutter NWRs are not developed for nonconsumptive recreation use.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-25

TABLE 5-3

Recreation Use on the Sacramento NWR Complex

Refuge

Consumptive

(visitor-use days)

Nonconsumptive

(visitor-use days)

Total

(visitor-use days)

Sacramento NWR 7,950 55,000 62,950

Delevan NWR 7,000 0 7,000

Colusa NWR 3,800 35,000 38,800

Sutter NWR 4,500 0 4,500

Total for all Refuges: 23,250 90,000 113,250

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

The Gray Lodge WA has traditionally supported numerous recreation activities including

waterfowl and pheasant hunting, angling, and nonconsumptive uses, such as bird watching,

photography, and hiking. Although CDFG’s primary consideration is the needs of wildlife

(CDFG, 1989), public recreation opportunity is one of the three primary missions of the

refuge. As stated in its management plan, CDFG’s future goals for the Gray Lodge WA

include continuation of hunting, expansion of fishing, and development of new interpretive

programs for nonconsumptive users.

Hunting has been the traditional recreation use at the Gray Lodge WA. The original Gray

Lodge area was a gun club before its acquisition by the State of California, and many of the

additions to the refuge came with the stipulation to allow public hunting. Today, the Gray

Lodge WA is one of the most popular public waterfowl and pheasant hunting areas in

California, and supports approximately 16,000 hunter-days per year (CDFG, 1989). CDFG’s

intent is to continue to provide the maximum public hunting opportunity as is practical and

consistent with sound ecological practices (CDFG, 1989).

Approximately 50 miles of ditches on the Gray Lodge WA are open to public fishing outside

of the waterfowl hunting season. The fishery consists primarily of black bass, bullhead, and

several other warmwater game fish. Several of CDFG’s goals in its management plan

include maintaining permanent water in ditches and ponds to support the warmwater

fishery on the refuge. Maintenance of permanent water is considered complementary to the

CDFG’s primary goals, but maintenance of the fishery must not interfere with waterfowl

habitat and production. It is estimated that the Gray Lodge WA supports approximately

15,000 angler-days per year.

In recent years, the nonconsumptive uses of wildlife have become increasingly significant

and, with an estimated 168,000 visitor-days per year, are now the primary recreation use at

the Gray Lodge WA. The bulk of nonconsumptive users are bird watchers. Hunters and bird

watchers are separated into hunting areas and nonhunting areas; during hunting season,

bird watchers are restricted to nonhunting areas even on nonshoot days, but in nonhunting

season, bird watchers can use most of the refuge.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-26 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

5.5.2 Environmental Consequences

Entering into the proposed long-term refuge water supply agreements may affect recreation

uses in several ways. This section focuses on on-refuge habitat changes that may contribute

to changes in recreation use. Other potential recreation effects have been evaluated in the

CVPIA PEIS, as summarized in Section 3.

Policies affecting on-refuge recreation uses are not expected to change significantly, so any

changes to habitats on the refuges are expected to directly correspond to changes in

recreation use. The conclusions of Section 5.2 (Biological Resources) have been carried

forward to this section (for example, benefits to waterfowl habitat will improve recreation

opportunities for hunters and bird watchers).

Sacramento NWR Complex

No Action Alternative

As described in Section 5.2, habitat conditions are expected to continue to improve on the

refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex. Expected improvements include an increased

ability to manage for year-round habitat conditions and to irrigate for waterfowl forage

crops. As a result of these continued improvements, waterfowl populations are expected to

increase. Accordingly, recreation use is expected to increase along with waterfowl

populations.

Overall recreation conditions are expected to improve, reflecting the expectation that almost

every type of recreation use is expected to benefit from the delivery of Level 2 and Level 4

water supplies. In addition to the recreation benefits that are directly related to increased

waterfowl populations (waterfowl hunting, bird watching), other benefits are expected. For

example, increased forage crop production would benefit pheasant populations and, as a

result, pheasant hunting.

Proposed Action

Recreation benefits under the Proposed Action are expected to be similar to the No Action

Alternative. Although minor habitat changes are expected (increased permanent wetlands

on the Sacramento and Delevan NWRs), these changes are not expected to result in

substantially different recreation benefits than those described under the No Action

Alternative. Accordingly, there would be no impact to recreation use under the Proposed

Action relative to the No Action Alternative.

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

No Action Alternative

As described in Section 5.2, habitat conditions are expected to continue to improve on the

Gray Lodge WA. Similar to the above discussion for the Sacramento NWR Complex,

improved habitat conditions are expected to result in improved conditions for recreation

users. As described above, recreation improvements include an increase in waterfowl

hunting and bird-watching potential, as well as increased pheasant hunting. In addition,

increased water in internal conveyance ditches and increased year-round water would

benefit warmwater fish populations and, therefore, would benefit angling.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-27

Proposed Action

Recreation benefits under the Proposed Action are expected to be similar to the No Action

Alternative. Although minor habitat changes are expected (such as increased permanent

wetlands), these changes are not expected to result in substantially different recreation

benefits from those described under the No Action Alternative. Accordingly, there would be

no impact to recreation use under the Proposed Action relative to the No Action Alternative.

In addition, recreation benefits are expected to occur relative to existing conditions. As

described in Section 2, water supplies available for use on the Gray Lodge WA have been

equivalent to Level 4 amounts in recent years, but additional conveyance infrastructure is

needed to ensure that up to Level 4 supplies are provided in a reliable manner. Completion

of these infrastructure improvements in the near future would allow for continued

improvement to habitat conditions on the Gray Lodge WA, which is expected to benefit

recreation users relative to existing conditions. Accordingly, entering into the proposed

long-term water supply contract would result in a beneficial impact to recreation.

5.6 Regional Economics

This section describes how the refuges contribute to regional economic conditions and the

potential changes in these conditions from implementing the long-term refuge water supply

agreements. This section focuses on economic benefits associated with public use of the

refuges. Effects associated with employment are discussed in Section 5.7 (Social Conditions).

Effects on adjacent agricultural operations associated with providing full Level 2 and Level

4 water supplies to the refuges are discussed in Section 5.4 (Agricultural Land Use).

5.6.1 Affected Environment

Significant economic benefits have resulted from wetland-based recreation activities, both

public and private. Nationwide, it is estimated that $3.3 billion is spent annually on

nonconsumptive uses of migratory waterfowl, and another $0.5 billion is spent annually on

migratory waterfowl hunting (Southwick Associates, 1995). California is considered the

largest state consumer of migratory waterfowl-related recreation spending (Southwick

Associates, 1995), but few studies have been specifically performed regarding the economic

benefits of wildlife refuges in the Sacramento Valley.

Economic benefits associated with wetland-based recreation activities are dispersed (there is

a “non-point” economic benefit), so changes to economic outputs would occur across

market sectors and communities. According to Southwick Associates (1995), travel-related

costs are the most significant economic outputs, because a majority of consumers travel long

distances (from urban areas) to the refuges. Travel-related costs include gas, food, and

lodging; these expenses can be entirely attributed to the refuges because waterfowl-based

recreation is the primary purpose of these trips. In contrast, the economic benefits of

waterfowl-based recreation by local residents is difficult to estimate because items such as

fuel and refreshments may not be directly related to on-refuge recreation activities. Other

economic benefits associated with waterfowl-based recreation uses include employment

and wages (discussed in more detail in Section 5.7), revenues to state and federal

governments from permits and licenses, and the purchase of sporting equipment, such as

guns and ammunition.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-28 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

The affected environment for regional economic impacts is primarily the local communities

in the vicinity of the refuges (Willows, Williams, Colusa, Yuba City, Gridley). These

communities are likely to capture a portion of the trip-related expenses associated with

refuge-based recreation. Expenditures tend to be highest during the fall and winter in

conjunction with the primary hunting and birdwatching seasons.

5.6.2 Environmental Consequences

The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water

supplies to the refuges of the Sacramento NWR complex and the Gray Lodge WA. At a

broad scale, the economic impacts of implementing the CVPIA have been evaluated in the

CVPIA PEIS, as summarized in Section 3. However, additional site-specific analysis is

warranted. This section focuses on potential economic impacts resulting from changes in

water deliveries to the specific refuges, and focuses primarily on trip-related expenses

captured by local communities.

As described by Southwick Associates (1995), annual hunting depends, at least in part, on

the population of waterfowl available for hunters to target. Similarly, birdwatching trips are

likely to depend on waterfowl (and other bird) populations to some degree. For the

purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that demand for hunting and birdwatching is

positively correlated with waterfowl populations. In other words, recreation use will

increase or decrease in relation to waterfowl populations. Therefore, in order to assess

potential economic impacts, Sections 5.2 (Biological Resources) and 5.5 (Recreation) were

reviewed to determine how changes in refuge habitats may affect waterfowl populations

and recreation use.

All Refuges

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Level 2 and up to full Level 4 water supplies would

continue to be provided to the Sacramento NWR Complex and to the Gray Lodge WA, with

the amount of water gradually increasing on most refuges until full Level 4 supplies are

provided. As described in Section 5.2 (Biological Resources), reliable water supplies,

together with other post-CVPIA actions (such as improvements to conveyance facilities),

would continue to result in improvements to on-refuge habitats and to waterfowl (and other

bird) populations. As wildlife populations continue to increase, hunter and birdwatcher use

is expected to respond in a similar manner. In addition, as is expected for wildlife

populations, drastic changes in recreation are not expected to occur; rather, modest

increases over time are more likely. The positive economic benefits would be experienced by

local communities (such as through increased travel-related expenditures) and to other

economic sectors. Benefits to local communities would likely be a dispersed benefit to the

service sector (gas stations, restaurants). Because of limited data regarding the economic

effects of waterfowl-based recreation, it is not possible to quantify the specific benefits to the

economy of the northern Sacramento Valley region in a site-specific manner. However,

changes are expected to be beneficial.

Proposed Action

Similar economic benefits are expected to occur under the Proposed Action, as under the No

Action Alternative. Refuge management under the assumptions for the Proposed Action
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-29

would be somewhat different than under the No Action Alternative, primarily in terms of

additional summer water/permanent ponds on several of the refuges. As described in

Section 5.5 (Recreation), these differences in habitat are not expected to result in significant,

if any, changes to onsite recreation use, either relative to the No Action Alternative or to

existing conditions. Accordingly, no changes to regional economic benefits are expected

under the Proposed Action.

5.7 Social Conditions

This section describes how the refuges contribute to local and regional social conditions and

the potential changes in these conditions resulting from implementation of the long-term

refuge water service agreements. This section focuses on the indicators of social well-being

(such as employment) that affect key social groups.

5.7.1 Affected Environment

Providing Level 2 and Level 4 refuge water supplies would affect some individuals to a

greater degree than others. In order to simplify the analysis, the effects of the refuge water

supply project are considered in the context of three broad social groups: (1) individuals

who participate in refuge-dependent recreation activities (hunting, birdwatching); (2) local

communities that benefit from the refuges being located nearby; and (3) neighboring

farmers.

As described in the CVPIA PEIS, waterfowl hunters are primarily concerned with the

preservation of habitat and refuge lands. The organizations representing waterfowl hunters

(California Waterfowl Association, Ducks Unlimited) support efforts to restore or improve

waterfowl habitats. Birdwatchers share the same goals as waterfowl hunters, but place a

higher value on other aspects of the natural environment. For example, birdwatchers

generally support restoration of riparian areas and permanent ponds to a similar degree as

seasonal wetlands. Members of both groups generally believe that environmental

considerations should play a larger role in water resources decisionmaking.

The key indicators of social well-being for local communities are business income and

employment potential. Local services businesses are primarily concerned with how changes

in on-refuge management affect their customer base. In general, local businesses are

assumed to support changes in refuge management that improve recreation use, because

increased recreation use would translate into an increased customer base and higher

business income. Employment potential could also be affected as business staffing needs

change. Other potential employment opportunities for local residents could result from

changes in refuge management (on-refuge staffing, construction of facilities).

In general, changes in refuge management are not of concern to neighboring farmers unless

the changes result in decreased crop revenues (from depredation by migratory waterfowl)

or a decrease in water supply reliability. Because one of the primary goals of wildlife

refuges is to reduce depredation by waterfowl, farmers are generally supportive of the

refuges. However, individual nuisance problems may occur where the two different land

uses abut.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-30 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

5.7.2 Environmental Consequences

The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water

supplies to the refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex and the Gray Lodge WA. At a

broad scale, changes in social conditions resulting from implementation of the CVPIA have

been evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, as summarized in Section 3. This section focuses on

potential impacts to the indicators of social well-being for refuge-dependent recreation users

and local business owners resulting from changes in water deliveries to the Sacramento

Valley refuges.

Potential benefits to recreation users and local communities are closely related to waterfowl

populations and recreation use. Therefore, in order to assess impacts to social conditions,

Sections 5.2 (Biological Resources) and 5.5 (Recreation) were reviewed to determine how

changes in refuge habitats might affect waterfowl populations and recreation use. Potential

impacts to surrounding farmlands were evaluated in Section 5.4 (Agricultural Land Use).

All Refuges

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies would continue to be

provided to the Sacramento NWR Complex and to the Gray Lodge WA, with the amount of

CVPIA water continuing to increase on most refuges. As described in Section 5.4

(Recreation), hunter and birdwatcher use would continue to increase in response to

improved waterfowl conditions and increased numbers of birds. This is a beneficial social

effect, as well. The recreation user group is expected to have a more satisfying recreation

experience as a result of improved conditions on the refuges.

As described in Section 5.6 (Regional Economics), local communities would continue to

have positive economic benefits through increased travel-related expenditures by recreation

users. Benefits to local businesses would likely be a dispersed benefit to the service sector

(gas stations, restaurants), also considered a beneficial social effect to local businesses

because revenues would increase. Employment opportunities are expected to increase

because economic benefits to local service businesses (increased revenues) may result in job

growth in the affected businesses. In addition, the refuges may expand staffing levels in

response to increased recreation demand, which may be especially true for the Gray Lodge

WA because full implementation of its Management Plan (including staffing levels) depends

on providing a reliable water supply. Economic and employment factors all contribute to a

positive social benefit resulting from continuing to provide refuge water supplies pursuant

to the No Action Alternative.

Proposed Action

Similar social benefits are expected to occur under the Proposed Action as under the No

Action Alternative. Refuge management under the assumptions for the Proposed Action

would be slightly different than those under the No Action Alternative, but these

differences are not expected to result in any changes to social conditions relative to the No

Action Alternative.

The Proposed Action is expected to result in minor differences in social conditions relative

to existing conditions on the Gray Lodge WA. As described in Section 2, an increasing

amount of the full Level 4 water supplies has been provided to the Gray Lodge WA in
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-31

recent years, so most of the social benefits potentially associated with this expanded water

supply have already been realized.

5.8 Cultural Resources

This section describes the historical and prehistoric conditions in the refuge areas, and

describes known cultural resources on each refuge. The evaluation focuses on how the

proposed action may impact known and unknown cultural resources.

5.8.1 Affected Environment

General Overview of Prehistoric Resources

The study area lies in a boundary zone between the ethnographically known territories of

three different Native American groups. The Konkow to the north and the Nisenan to the

south spoke closely related languages of the Maiduan language family. The Patwin, located

primarily west of the Sacramento River, but controlling part of the east bank, spoke a more

divergent language. All three languages belong to the Penutian superstock (Shipley, 1978).

The refuges generally lie between the highly productive areas near the river and the interior

valleys of the surrounding foothills. Both areas were more heavily used in recent prehistory

than were the grassy plains in the middle. It is probable that the area was used by foraging

parties from the people based along the river. No matter which group controlled the plains

between the Sacramento and the lower Feather at any given time, the way of life was

similar.

The pattern of "village communities" (Kroeber, 1925) constituted the only political

organization. A community was composed of several geographically related villages with

one maintaining a large semisubterranean ceremonial lodge (Riddell, 1978). This larger

lodge may also have been the dwelling of the headman, who was the more authoritative

person in the community. The headman acted only as a spokesman and advisor to the

people and, apparently, lacked magisterial powers. Each village community held a known

territory in which all community members had hunting and fishing rights (Kroeber, 1925;

Riddell, 1978). All three groups practiced hunting, gathering, and fishing subsistence

strategies. Their intimate knowledge of the flora and fauna ensured an efficient exploitation

of their environs. The largest game animal that was hunted for its meat was the deer.

Fishing produced salmon, trout, steelhead, eels, and other fish, and freshwater clams and

mussels were obtained from the main rivers (Wilson, 1978).

Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge

The lands of the Sacramento NWR are flat, with some natural slough courses. Much of the

area that became the Sacramento NWR in 1937 was designated as "Swamp and Overflow

Land" by the early surveyors for the General Land Office. Because the area lies along the

course of the Southern Pacific Line, alternating sections of the land were granted to the

railroad very early, forcing settlers either to purchase the land from the railroad or to select

other lands for their farms or ranches. The remainder of the area was purchased from the

government in the late 1860s to mid-1870s. Farms and ranches were quite scattered,

suggesting that a large tract of land was necessary for economic success in this region.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-32 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

The Northeast Information Center indicated that there has been no previous cultural

resources surveys within the Sacramento NWR. The Northeast Information Center did point

out that the Lookout Tower and Refuge Headquarters within the refuge boundary are listed

as historic properties in the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Property Data File.

Delevan National Wildlife Refuge

At the Delevan NWR, the pattern of land acquisition is much the same as for the Sacramento

NWR, suggesting some possibility for early settlement. The Northwest Information Center

indicated that there have been four previous cultural resources surveys within the Delevan

NWR. One of the studies described the R.D. 2047 Drain as a historic structure

(Neuenschwander, 1997). The R.D. 2047 Drain, which runs for about 75 miles through the

Colusa Basin, was constructed in 1919 to provide a channel for floodwaters, and also serves

as an irrigation canal. No other historical structures or archaeological sites were identified in

the other three studies, and review of historical literature and maps by the Northwest

Information Center gave no indication of archaeological sites or other historic structures in

the project area.

Colusa National Wildlife Refuge

At the Colusa NWR, the pattern of land acquisition is much the same as for the Sacramento

NWR. Examination of historic maps did not reveal the presence of old structures within the

survey areas. The Northwest Information Center indicated that there has only been one

previous survey on the Colusa NWR; this survey was conducted for the Tract 15 project just

north of Abel Road. No archaeological sites or historic structures were identified in this

study, nor are they indicated in other reports or maps on file with the Northwest

Information Center. However, the R.D. 2047 Drain, as described under the Delevan NWR,

has been recorded as a historical resource.

Sutter National Wildlife Refuge

The Sutter NWR is near the boundaries of three Mexican grants – New Helvetia, Boga, and

Honcut. The Boga plat map shows a number of historic period features along the early road

from Marysville to Hamilton, including houses, fences, fields, a tavern, farms, and barns,

some of which lie near the alignment. Also shown on the Boga Rancho plat are several

"Indian Rancherias," one of which was the village of “Boga,” the source of the rancho's name

and, apparently, occupied at the time of contact. The land was fairly rich not only in the

bottomlands along the various drainages, but throughout the study area, and there was a

plentiful water supply. Outside of what is now the Sutter Bypass, shown as “Swamp and

Overflow Land,” early survey maps of the southern portion of the study area show a

number of structures, fences, and roads in the area in the 1860s and 1870s. Most of the land

outside the ranchos was taken up as homesteads or purchased as cash entry patents in the

1860s.

The Northeast Information Center indicated that there have been three previous surveys on

the Sutter NWR, two in the Hughes Road area (for the Hughes Road Bridge project and the

Greenleaf Power pipeline project) and one in the southeastern corner of the refuge (for the

Depco pipeline project). No archaeological sites or historic structures were identified in

these studies, nor are they indicated in other reports or maps on file with the Northeast

Information Center.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-33

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

Along the western and southern ends of the Gray Lodge WA, much of the study area was

taken up in smaller parcels (40 and 80 acres), with alternating sections granted to the

Southern Pacific Railroad. The remainder of the area was also in a “checkerboard” pattern,

with alternating sections acquired by the railroad, and 160-acre parcels acquired by settlers

in the 1860s to 1870s. The Sacramento Northern Railroad also crosses the study area, as well

as several early water-conveyance features.

The Northeast Information Center indicated that there has only been one previous survey

on the Gray Lodge WA; this survey was conducted for the Wild Goose Gas Storage Project

pipeline along the northern refuge boundary. No archaeological sites or historic structures

were identified in this study, nor are they indicated in other reports or maps on file with the

Northeast Information Center.

5.8.2 Environmental Consequences

The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water

supplies to the refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex (the Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa,

and Sutter NWRs) and the state Gray Lodge WA. The impacts of providing this water have

been evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, as described in Section 3 of this EA/IS. However,

additional site-specific analysis is warranted. This section focuses on the site-specific

cultural resources impacts that may occur as a result of implementing the Proposed Action.

Sacramento NWR Complex

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would continue to provide Level 2 and Level

4 water to the refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex. The effect of this water delivery

would be to allow more efficient management of existing wetlands on the refuges (allow for

year-round management), and would not result in the conversion of existing uplands to

wetland habitat. Activities that cause disturbance below the ground surface (conveyance

improvements, habitat conversion) may affect unknown cultural resources, but such

activities would not occur on the refuges because of delivery of water under the No Action

Alternative. Therefore, the increase in water supplies to allow the efficient management of

existing wetland areas would not affect cultural resources. In order to assess the potential

effects of on-refuge management activities on cultural resources, the Service has entered into

a Programmatic Agreement with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) under

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.3 The agreement covers all Service

lands in California, including Sacramento NWR Complex. The purpose of the Programmatic

Agreement is to establish procedures for cultural resources review for routing undertakings

on the refuges, without each individual undertaking requiring SHPO consultation. The

result is full compliance with Section 106 requirements in a streamlined manner. Activities

on the Sacramento NWR Complex are consistent with the terms of the Programmatic

Agreement. Accordingly, full compliance with Section 106 is expected without separate

SHPO consultation.

 

3 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires consideration of the effects of federal actions on resources

listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places. The determination of effect is made by the SHPO in the

State Office of Historic Preservation.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-34 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

Proposed Action

Management activities on the Sacramento NWR Complex under the Proposed Action would

be similar to management activities under the No Action Alternative; differences would

consist only of minor changes in how some wetland habitats are managed. Accordingly, the

potential to impact cultural resources is the same as that under the No Action Alternative

(no impact). Any potential for adverse effects would be minimized by full compliance with

the requirements of the Programmatic Agreement, which would remain in effect under the

Proposed Action.

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would continue to provide Level 2 water to

the Gray Lodge WA, and would provide the additional Level 4 increment pending

completion of conveyance improvements. The effect of this water delivery would be to

allow more efficient management of existing wetlands on the refuge (allow for year-round

management), and would not result in the conversion of existing uplands to wetland

habitat. These changes in management practices do not have the potential to disturb cultural

resources.

In its Management Plan for the Gray Lodge WA, CDFG states that pursuant to CEQA, a

CDFG archaeologist or consultant would conduct a preconstruction archaeological survey

in the area of a certain project (e.g., projects that require subsurface excavation). This

standard process, which would happen at the time specific improvements are proposed, is

considered appropriate mitigation to minimize any potential cultural resources impacts that

may occur as part of routine management activities.

Proposed Action

Similar management activities would occur under the Proposed Action as under the No

Action Alternative, and CDFG would undertake the same cultural resources review process

as described above. Because no changes in potential management activities would occur

relative to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect

cultural resources. As with the No Action Alternative, no cultural resources impacts are

expected to occur as a result of using Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies provided under the

Proposed Action.

Potential effects on cultural resources relative to existing conditions would be the same as

would occur under the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. Accordingly,

potential cultural resources impacts relative to existing conditions would be less-thansignificant.

5.9 Visual Resources

This section describes the visual quality of the refuges and potential changes in visual

quality resulting from implementing the long-term refuge water supply agreements.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-35

5.9.1 Affected Environment

All wildlife refuges considered in this EA/IS are located within agricultural viewsheds in

the Central Valley. The refuges provide visual contrast with surrounding agricultural lands,

primarily because of their natural vegetation and water. Scenic quality is also enhanced by

the large numbers and variety of waterfowl.

5.9.2 Environmental Consequences

The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water

supplies to the refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex and the Gray Lodge WA. At a

broad scale, the visual resource impacts of implementing the CVPIA have been evaluated in

the CVPIA PEIS, as summarized in Section 3. However, additional site-specific analysis is

warranted. This section focuses on potential site-specific visual resource impacts.

As mentioned above, scenic quality of the refuges is related to the visual contrast between

the refuge lands and surrounding farmlands and waterfowl populations. To assess visual

resource impacts, Section 5.2 (Biological Resources) was reviewed to determine how

changes in refuge habitats may affect these scenic qualities.

All Refuges

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Level 2 water supplies would continue to be delivered to

the refuges, and Level 4 deliveries would continue to increase. Refuge management

practices would not change in any noticeable manner with the primary difference being an

increase in permanent pond/summer water habitat on the Gray Lodge WA with the

delivery of full Level 4 supplies. An increase in permanent wetlands would continue to

improve visual conditions in the summer by providing a natural contrast between the Gray

Lodge WA and the surrounding lands.

Section 5.2 (Biological Resources) describes how the No Action Alternative would continue

to contribute to improved habitat conditions on the refuges, and how these changes in

habitat would help improve waterfowl populations. Increases in the size and health of the

waterfowl population would translate into a positive scenic effect for refuge visitors.

Proposed Action

Similar visual benefits are expected to occur under the Proposed Action as under the No

Action Alternative. Refuge management under the assumptions for the Proposed Action

would be slightly different than that under the No Action Alternative (additional summer

water/permanent ponds on the Sacramento and Delevan NWRs). However, these changes

are minor and would not result in a substantial change to the scenic environment in these

refuge areas. Visual resources under the Proposed Action are expected to be similar to those

for the No Action Alternative.

Visual resources on the Gray Lodge WA with full Level 4 water supplies would be similar

to existing conditions. The habitat types expected under the No Action Alternative have not

been developed, and the current habitat distribution is closer to that expected under the

Proposed Action (emphasis on seasonal wetlands and irrigated uplands). Because few, if

any, changes would occur to lands on the refuge, there would be a less-than-significant

visual impact as a result of implementing the Proposed Action.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-36 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC)

5.10 Power

This section describes power use by the refuges, and how power use for refuge management

may change as a result of implementing the long-term refuge water supply agreements.

5.10.1 Affected Environment

Sacramento NWR Complex

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) supplies power to the Sacramento NWR Complex refuges,

but power use is not significant at any of the refuges. Groundwater pumping, usually the

most significant refuge power cost, does not occur because of unacceptable groundwater

quality.

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

PG&E supplies power to the Gray Lodge WA. Groundwater pumping has historically been

a significant component of the Gray Lodge WA’s water supply, providing up to 40 percent

of its total water supply in below-normal water years. Although the well system provides

valuable security for the maintenance of on-refuge habitats, groundwater pumping costs are

significant and, in the past, has consumed an average of 75 percent of the refuge’s

operations budget (CDFG, 1989). An objective of the Gray Lodge WA Management Plan is

to increase reliance on surface water in order to unencumber operations funds currently

spent on groundwater pumping costs.

5.10.2 Environmental Consequences

The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water

supplies to the refuges of the Sacramento NWR Complex and the Gray Lodge WA. The

power impacts of providing this water have been evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, as

summarized in Section 3. However, site-specific impacts on the refuges (power use and cost)

were not described. Accordingly, this analysis focuses on the changes in on-refuge power

use and costs associated with the proposed long-term water supply agreements. Because

groundwater pumping is typically the most significant power use on the refuges, the

amount of water expected to be provided from groundwater under the Proposed Action

was compared to the amount of groundwater pumping under the No Action Alternative.

Sacramento NWR Complex

No Action Alternative

Because groundwater pumping and its associated power use is not a significant activity at

the Sacramento NWR Complex refuges, the No Action Alternative would have little effect

on refuge power use.

Proposed Action

Implementing the proposed long-term agreement with the Service would have little effect

on refuge power use relative to the No Action Alternative, primarily because groundwater

pumping does not occur on the Sacramento NWR Complex.
SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180007 (SAC 005.DOC) 5-37

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area

No Action Alternative

As described in Section 2, groundwater pumping, in combination with the other water

supplies, has been used to meet the water demands of the Gray Lodge WA. Under the No

Action Alternative, it is assumed that Reclamation would deliver up to full Level 4 supplies

from surface water, so no groundwater pumping would be necessary. It is expected,

however, that the Gray Lodge WA would continue to use groundwater to supplement

surface water in drought years, when water deliveries to the refuge would be reduced, or

during times when conveyance facilities are not available to deliver water to the WA.

Since the passage of the CVPIA and initiation of Reclamation’s refuge water supply

program, power use and costs on the Gray Lodge WA have been reduced as a result of

reduced groundwater pumping.4 This situation is expected to continue as Level 4 water

becomes available through the water acquisition program. Accordingly, water deliveries

under the No Action Alternative would maintain this beneficial effect to power (reduction

in power use relative to pre-CVPIA conditions).

Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, Gray Lodge WA would continue to pump groundwater to meet

some of the Level 2 water supply. Groundwater is currently used to meet much of the

refuge’s water needs. Thus, the Proposed Action would not result in increased power needs

for groundwater pumping. The Level 4 increment is expected to be provided from surface

water and power costs to convey this water would be minor.

Power costs are paid to PG&E from CDFG’s operations budget for the Gray Lodge WA.

Discussions have occurred for providing CVP Project Use Power to wildlife refuges, which

would result in significant cost savings for the Gray Lodge WA and other refuges that rely

on groundwater. However, at this time, no commitment has been made to make CVP

Project Use Power available to the Gray Lodge WA.

 

4 In 1996, groundwater pumping was necessary because of problems with delivering the required Level 2 water. Because

Level 2 supplies are required under the CVPIA, Reclamation reimbursed CDFG for the costs of pumping groundwater.
Section 6: Consultation and Coordination
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180008 (SAC 006.DOC) 6-1

SECTION 6

Consultation and Coordination

This EA/IS has been prepared to comply with the environmental review and consultation

requirements of NEPA and CEQA. Compliance with specific environmental review and

consultation requirements to implement the Proposed Action are identified below.

6.1 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires Reclamation to consult with the Service

before undertaking projects that control or modify surface water. This consultation is

intended both to promote the conservation of wildlife resources by preventing loss of or

damage to wildlife resources, and to provide for the development and improvement of

wildlife resources in connection with water projects. Federal agencies undertaking water

projects are required to include the Service’s recommendations in their project reports, give

full consideration to these recommendations, and include justifiable means and measures

for wildlife purposes in their project plans.

Reclamation contacted the Service about the need for a formal Coordination Act report for

the project, and the Service determined that a formal report is not required for the project.

The Service, as a project participant, reviewer, and commentor, ensures that the intent of the

Coordination Act is fully addressed as part of the project formulation and ongoing

cooperative efforts. Technical memoranda to the official project files have served the

purpose of information tracking. Reclamation and the Service are closely coordinating

several ongoing activities associated with the CVPIA.

6.2 Endangered Species Act

Compliance efforts under the federal ESA for the Sacramento NWR Complex, including

refuge management with Level 2 water supplies and the Level 4 increment, were completed

in 1999 with the issuance of a Biological Opinion. Management of the Complex under the

Proposed Action would continue to follow this Biological Opinion, and no additional ESA

compliance actions with the Service are necessary.

CDFG has received a state Biological Opinion under the CESA for management of the Gray

Lodge WA, but federal consultation has been limited to Service concurrence on the state

Biological Opinion for Aleutian Canada goose and valley elderberry longhorn beetle.

Reclamation conducted formal consultation with the Service to address potential effects of

the Proposed Action on giant garter snakes. The consultation was completed with issuance

of a biological opinion on December 27, 2000.

Reclamation also conducted informal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) to address the effects of the Proposed Action on anadromous salmonids in

the Sacramento River basin. NMFS concurred that the Proposed Action is not likely to

adversely affect anadromous salmonids.
SECTION 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

6-2 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180008 (SAC 006.DOC)

6.3 Cultural Resources Coordination

This project has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the National Historic

Preservation Act. Notification of and information about the project has been provided by

Reclamation to tribes for which the project area may have historical or cultural significance;

no concerns have been raised. The assessment of project effects on cultural resources

(Section 5.8) concludes that the potential for impacts is low due to the nature of the project

(i.e., change in water management on the refuges), and therefore Reclamation has concluded

that additional compliance activity under the National Historic Preservation Act is not

necessary.

6.4 Indian Trust Assets

Indian Trust Assets (ITAs) are legal interests in property or rights held in trust by the U.S.

for Indian Tribes or individuals. Trust status originates from rights imparted by treaties,

statutes, or Executive Orders. These rights are reserved for or granted to tribes. A defining

characteristic of an ITA is that such assets cannot be sold, leased, or otherwise alienated

without federal approval. Indian reservations, rancherias, and allotments are common ITAs.

Allotments can occur both within and outside of reservation boundaries and are parcels of

land where title is held in trust for specific individuals. Additionally, ITAs include the right

to access certain traditional use areas and to perform certain traditional activities.

Reclamation’s ITA database was searched for this project, and it was determined that no

ITAs are located within the refuge areas (Welch, 2000). Therefore, implementation of the

Proposed Action will not affect ITAs.

6.5 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency to achieve environmental justice as part

of its mission, by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human

health or environmental effects (including social and economic) of its programs, policies,

and activities on minority populations and low-income populations of the U.S. Reclamation

has determined that entering into long-term water supply agreements with the refuges

would not disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. The social and

economic impacts identified in Section 5 are generally anticipated to be beneficial, in

addition to being shared across income levels.

6.6 Farmlands Policy

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) memorandums to heads of agencies, dated

August 30, 1976, and August 11, 1980, and the Farmlands Protection Policy Act of 1981

require agencies to prepare farmlands assessments designed to minimize adverse impacts

on prime and unique farmlands. As described in Section 5.4 (“Agricultural Land Use”), the

Proposed Action would have no adverse impacts on adjacent farmlands.
Attachments
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180009 SACENV~1.DOC 1

Environmental Commitments

Significant impacts have not been identified for the Proposed Action. However, the Service

and CDFG have identified conservation measures to be implemented for the Gray Lodge

WA pursuant to the Service’s December 27, 2000, Biological Opinion, for the following

species:

• Aleutian Canada goose

• bald eagle

• giant garter snake

• valley elderberry longhorn beetle
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180010 SACREF~1.DOC 1

References

Atkinson, A. 1999. A. Atkinson, Wildlife Biologist, Gray Lodge Wildlife Area, personal

communication with Stan Yarbrough, Reclamation. July 28, 1999.

Atkinson, A. 2000. A. Atkinson, Wildlife Biologist, Gray Lodge Wilderness Area, personal

communication with Sandy Taylor, CH2M HILL. January 5, 2000.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1983. “A plan for protecting, enhancing,

and increasing California’s wetlands for waterfowl.” Sacramento, California.

CDFG. 1989. Gray Lodge Wildlife Area Management Plan.

California Native Plant Society. 1994. “Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of

California.” California Native Plant Society Special Publication No. 1. 5th Edition.

Sacramento, CA.

Colusa County. 1989. Final Colusa County General Plan. Prepared by Sedway Cooke

Associates. March 1989.

Dileanis, P.D., S.K. Sorenson, S. E. Schwarzbach, and T.C. Maurer. 1992. “Reconnaisance

investigation of water quality, bottom sediment, and biota associated with irrigation

drainage in the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex, California, 1988-89.” U.S.

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4036. Sacramento, CA.

Forrest, K., M. Peters, and S. Baird. 1996. Draft Water Management Strategy for the National

Wildlife Refuges of the Central Valley of California. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

Forrest, K., M. Peters, S. Baird. No date. “Draft Water Management Strategy for the National

Wildlife Refuges of the Central Valley of California.”

Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology

Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C.

Mensik, G. 1999. G. Mensik, Supervisory Wildlife Biololgist, Sacramento National Wildlife

Refuge Complex, personal communication with Sandy Taylor, CH2M HILL.

December 13, 1999.

Mensik, G. 2000. G. Mensik, Supervisory Wildlife Biololgist, Sacramento National Wildlife

Refuge Complex, personal communication with Sandy Taylor, CH2M HILL.

January 13, 2000.

Nuenschwander, Neil. 1997. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation,

Primary Record No. P-06000249. Recorded May 14, 1997.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 1950. “Waterfowl conservation in the lower San

Joaquin Valley.” Sacramento, California.
REFERENCES

2 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180010 SACREF~1.DOC

Reclamation. 1978a. “Water availability study for California wetlands.” Prepared by

CH2M HILL.

Reclamation. 1978b. “Fish and wildlife problems, opportunities, and solutions.” Working

Document No. 12, USBR, Sacramento, California.

Reclamation. 1986. “Central Valley Fish and Wildlife Management Study: New waterfowl

habitat potential within the Central Valley, California.” Special Report, September 1986.

Reclamation. 1989. “Report on refuge water supply investigations: Central Valley

hydrologic basin, California.” Sacramento, California.

Reclamation. 1992. “Refuge water supply study, plan coordination team interim report.

Mid-Pacific Region, Sacramento, California.”

Reclamation. 1998. “Final Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Finding of No

Significant Impact/Negative Declaration for the Acquisition of water from the Corning,

Proberta, and Thomes Creek Water Districts.” Sacramento, CA.

Reclamation and CDFG. 1997a. “Environmental Assessment/Initial Study for Conveyance

of Refuge Water Supply Project, East Sacramento Valley Study Area.” Sacramento, CA.

Reclamation and CDFG. 1997b. “Environmental Assessment/Initial Study for Conveyance

of Refuge Water Supply Project, West Sacramento Valley Study Area.” Sacramento, CA.

Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CDFG, and Grassland Resource Conservation

District. 1998. “Final Task Force Report: An interagency coordinated program for wetland

water use planning, Central Valley, California.” Prepared by Tetra Tech, Environmental

Science Associates, and CONCUR.

Riddell, F.A. 1978. Maidu and Konkow: California, pp. 370-387, edited by Robert F. Heizer.

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1978. “Concept plan for waterfowl wintering habitat

preservation.” Region 1, Portland, Oregon.

Service. 1990. “Central Valley habitat joint venture implementation plan.” Portland, Oregon.

Service. 1999. “Biological Opinion on Management, Operations, and Maintenance of the

Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Willows California.” Sacramento Fish and

Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California.

Southwick Associates. 1995. “The economic contributions of bird and waterfowl recreation

in the United States During 1991.” Prepared for the International Association of Fish and

Wildlife Agencies and the USFWS North American Waterfowl and Wetlands Office. March

1995.

Stoddard & Associates Civil Engineers. 1998. “Water management plan for Grassland Water

District.” Los Banos, California.

Welch, Patrick. 2000. Patrick Welch, Archaeologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Memorandum to Matt Franck, CH2M HILL, January 31, 2000.
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180011 LISTOF~1.DOC 1

List of Preparers

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Mona Jefferies-Soniea Project Manager

Stan Yarbrough CVPIA Negotiations Specialist

Jim West Archaeologist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Joel Miller Refuge Wildlife Program Specialist

Jill Wright Fish and Wildlife Biologist

Mirriam Morrill Fish and Wildlife Biologist

California Department of Fish and Game

Jim Steele Environmental Specialist

Mike Womack Refuge Manager, Gray Lodge WA

CH2M HILL

Sandy Taylor Project Manager

Matt Franck NEPA Compliance

Beth Doolittle NEPA Compliance

Laurel Karren NEPA Compliance

Gwen Buchholz CVPIA Consistency
Appendix A:

CEQA Initial Study Checklist
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A) A-1

APPENDIX A

CEQA Initial Study Checklist

1. Project Title: Refuge Water Supply – Long-Term Contract with U.S. Bureau

of Reclamation

2. Lead Agency: Department of Fish and Game

3. Contact Person: Mr. Jim Steele

Environmental Specialist

1516 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 653-1485

4. Project Location: Gray Lodge Wildlife Area in Butte and Sutter Counties

5. Project Sponsor: Department of Fish and Game

6. General Plan

Designation: Public (Butte County General Plan)

Key Wildlife Area (Sutter County General Plan)

7. Zoning: Varies

8. Description of Project:

Under the proposed project, the Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) would enter into a

long-term contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to provide water

supplies pursuant to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). The proposed

contract would ensure that water supplies are provided as described in Reclamation’s Report

on Refuge Water Supply Investigations. Pursuant to this report, Reclamation would ensure that

the Gray Lodge Wildlife Area (WA) is provided with a firm, reliable water supply of 35,400

acre-feet per year (afa), subject to deficiencies. In addition, Reclamation would seek to

supply the Gray Lodge WA with up to an additional increment of 8,600 afa if that water can

be acquired through its Water Acquisition Program. This water (up to a total of 44,000 afa

under the proposed contract) would be used by CDFG to support the efficient use of

existing wetland habitats on the Gray Lodge WA.

CDFG’s water demands for the Gray Lodge WA have been met in recent years through

water delivery from various sources, including on-refuge groundwater pumping. However,

this situation will not be the case in all water years unless additional actions are taken. Part

of Reclamation’s actions to ensure that sufficient water is provided to the Gray Lodge WA

has been to undertake a program to improve local conveyance facilities. Under this

program, the proposed conveyance improvements will provide sufficient capacity to deliver

the needed water supplies to the Gray Lodge WA. Reclamation and CDFG completed

review of the refuge water conveyance project under CEQA and the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1997. Construction of these facilities would remove a
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-2 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A)

key barrier to ensuring that up to 44,000 afa is provided to the Gray Lodge WA. In order to

fully use a water supply of 44,000 afa, additional on-refuge conveyance improvements will

probably be necessary. These improvements will likely consist of minor alterations to

existing on-refuge surface water delivery canals and appurtenant structures, but specific

improvement projects have not been defined at this time. On-refuge conveyance

improvement projects will be constructed, as necessary, in the future as part of ongoing

implementation of the Gray Lodge Management Plan.1

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

Adjacent lands to the north, south, and east of the Gray Lodge WA are primarily

agricultural, mostly rice fields with some limited pasture and orchards. Some of this

surrounding farmland is flooded in winter for private waterfowl hunting. Lands to the west

are primarily unfarmed wetlands of the Butte Sink, most preserved as waterfowl habitat in

private hunting clubs.

10. Other agencies whose approval is required:

None.

11. References:

This Initial Study Checklist augments the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS)

prepared for the project, and is intended to be an attachment to the main EA/IS document.

A detailed list of references in support of the findings of this Initial Study Checklist can be

found in the attached EA/IS.

12. List of Preparers:

The individuals primarily responsible for preparing this Initial Study are:

Mike Womack, Manager, Gray Lodge WA

Sandra Taylor, Biologist, CH2M HILL

Matt Franck, CEQA Compliance, CH2M HILL

Additional assistance has been provided by the Refuge Water Supply environmental review

team, consisting of staff of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

and the California Department of Fish and Game.

 

1

 Minor on-refuge improvements of the sort envisioned for the Gray Lodge WA are typically “Categorically Exempt” under the

CEQA Guidelines, meaning that project-specific environmental review is not required.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A) A-3

Determination

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and

a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been

made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially

significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been

adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has

been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached

sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the

effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR

or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided

or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions

or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

 

Signature

 

Date

 

Title
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-4 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A)

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,

involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the

checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils

Hazards & Hazardous

Materials Hydrology / WaterQuality Land Use / Planning

Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing

Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic

Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:

(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a

scenic vista? 

(b) Substantially damage scenic resources,

including, but not limited to, trees,

rock outcroppings, and historic

buildings within a state scenic

highway?



(c) Substantially degrade the existing

visual character or quality of the site

and its surroundings?



Comment: The Gray Lodge WA has a high degree of visual intactness including wetland, upland,

and riparian areas with views of the Sutter Buttes. Implementing the proposed project would

allow existing wetland areas to be managed more effectively, including the use of permanent

wetlands. Providing for year-round use of wetlands will slightly increase visual quality, so this

impact is considered to be beneficial.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A) A-5

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(d) Create a new source of substantial

light or glare which would adversely

affect day or nighttime views in the

area?



Comment: The proposed project will provide water for the more effective management of existing

wetlands, and would not result in any new light or glare sources.

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are

significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land

Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of

Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

Would the project:

(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique

Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide

Importance (Farmland), as shown on

the maps prepared pursuant to the

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring

Program of the California Resources

Agency, to non-agricultural use?



Comment: Because the proposed project is for increased delivery of water to existing wetland

areas, no farmland would be converted to non-farm uses.

(b) Conflict with existing zoning for

agricultural use, or a Williamson Act

contract?



Comment: Continued use of Gray Lodge WA for waterfowl and other wildlife habitat purposes is

consistent with the policies of the Butte and Sutter County General Plans.

(c) Involve other changes in the existing

environment which, due to their

location or nature, could result in

conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use?



Comment: No aspect of the proposed project would converted farmland to non-farm use.

III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air

quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following

determinations. Would the project:

(a) Conflict with or obstruct

implementation of the applicable air

quality plan?


CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-6 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A)

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(b) Violate any air quality standard or

contribute substantially to an existing

or projected air quality violation?



(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable

net increase of any criteria pollutant for

which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal

or state ambient air quality standard

(including releasing emissions which

exceed quantitative thresholds for

ozone precursors)?



(d) Expose sensitive receptors to

substantial pollutant concentrations? 

Comment: The proposed project would provide additional water supplies to existing wetlands to

improve management of wetland habitats, and would therefore have no potential to substantially

degrade air quality in the northern Sacramento Valley.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

(a) Have a substantial adverse effect,

either directly or through habitat

modifications, on any species

identified as a candidate, sensitive, or

special status species in local or

regional plans, policies, or regulations,

or by the California Department of

Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service?



Comment: A detailed description of the Biological Resources-affected environment can be found

in the NEPA documentation prepared for Refuge Water Supply – Long-Term Agreements project.

The reader is referred to this analysis for an understanding of the habitat and associated plant and

animal resources of the Gray Lodge WA.

The proposed increase in reliable water supplies would allow for the optimal management of onrefuge habitats. Currently, Gray Lodge WA supports approximately 555 acres of permanent

wetland and aquatic habitat, 469 acres of semi-permanent wetlands, and 5,779 acres of seasonal

wetlands. The remainder of the WA is managed upland, consisting of cereal grains and pasture,

and riparian habitat. Under the proposed project, the Gray Lodge WA is expected to support

400 to 600 acres of permanent wetland and aquatic habitat. The amount of semi-permanent and

permanent wetlands would remain about the same as under existing conditions.

Expansion of wetland habitats to non-wetland areas would not occur on Gray Lodge WA. Rather,

increased and reliable water supplies would enable more effective management of existing

habitats. Expected improvements in habitat management include:
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A) A-7

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

• Earlier and expanded fall flooding of seasonal wetlands to allow increased wildlife use

• Maintenance of additional acres of summer water, wetland/moist soil, riparian, and irrigated

pasture habitat types for wildlife use and vegetation improvement

• Increased acreage of moist soil impoundments and increased frequency of irrigations, if

necessary, to provide a high-quality carbohydrate food source for waterfowl and other

waterbirds, while easing potential waterfowl crop depredation problems on nearby

agricultural lands

• Maintenance of water depths, using year-round water delivery, that provide optimum

foraging conditions for the majority of avian species

• Use of flow-through management rather than stockpiling water to improve water quality,

reduce disease outbreaks, and maintain optimal water depths for waterfowl foraging

• Control of undesirable vegetation species using deep irrigation and maintenance for periods

of 2 to 4 weeks during the summer

With these improved management capabilities resulting from increased and reliable water

supplies, optimal habitat conditions could be maintained during drought conditions and floods to

provide suitable and stable habitat conditions for resident and migratory wildlife. In particular,

the availability of wetland habitat would increase and additional water would be provided for

spring/summer irrigation. The additional water supplies would also allow early flooding of

seasonal wetlands and would increase the extent of seasonal wetlands in the fall and winter. The

availability of permanent ponds and summer water would also increase. Overall, higher quality

wetland habitat would be available for a longer period of time each year.

Approximately 72 million bird-use-days for waterfowl, geese, and migratory shorebirds are

expected to occur on the Gray Lodge WA each year under optimal habitat management. Specialstatus species associated with wetland habitats would similarly benefit from improved quality

and availability of wetland habitats.

The additional water supplies would also support an increase in irrigated pasture and croplands.

This increase would benefit sandhill cranes, geese, raptors and other birds and mammals

(including special-status species) that forage on small grains and/or insects and small mammals

found in these habitats. Pasture could also provide habitat for grassland birds, such as sparrows,

pheasants, and northern harriers.

An additional benefit of maximizing waterfowl retention on the refuges is control of avian

diseases that are potentially transmittable to domestic fowl. Potential benefits are two-fold:

(1) increased on-refuge retention of waterfowl would reduce potential exposure of domestic fowl

to migratory waterfowl, and (2) increased ability for the refuge manager to effectively manage

water supplies would help reduce outbreaks of avian cholera, botulism, and other bird diseases.

Because these effects are expected as the availability of water increases under the proposed

project, there would be a beneficial effect associated with limiting the spread of avian diseases.

Return flows from the Gray Lodge WA reach the Sacramento River through various drains and

channels. The volume of return flows from the Gray Lodge WA is expected to increase as a result

of the additional water provided to the refuge. This increase in return flows is not expected to

adversely impact water quality or anadromous salmonids in downstream watercourses. In
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-8 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A)

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

addition, the improved water quality from increased water supplies and management flexibility

could have a beneficial effect for downstream uses.

(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on

any riparian habitat or other sensitive

natural community identified in local

or regional plans, policies, regulations

or by the California Department of

Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service?



Comment: Habitat types found on the Gray Lodge WA are considered sensitive, but the proposed

project is intended to improve habitat management activities on the Gray Lodge WA.

(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on

federally protected wetlands as defined by

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

(including, but not limited to, marsh,

vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct

removal, filling, hydrological interruption,

or other means?



Comment: The proposed project would allow for the efficient management of existing wetland

areas. No filling of wetlands is proposed that would require notification under Section 404 of the

Clean Water Act.

(d) Interfere substantially with the

movement of any native resident or

migratory fish or wildlife species or with

established native resident or migratory

wildlife corridors, or impede the use of

native wildlife nursery sites?



Comment: Changes in management practices under the proposed project would not affect the

amount of wetlands, only the use of water on these wetlands (such as increased permanent

wetland habitat). The extent of these habitat changes is not expected to adversely affect wildlife

movement and dispersal.

(e) Conflict with any local policies or

ordinances protecting biological resources,

such as a tree preservation policy or

ordinance?



Comment: The project is consistent with the policies of the Butte and Sutter County General

Plans. In addition, the project facilitates the implementation of Gray Lodge WA Management

Plan.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A) A-9

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(f) Conflict with the provisions of an

adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,

Natural Community Conservation Plan, or

other approved local, regional, or state

habitat conservation plan?



Comment: No HCPs or NCCPs have been adopted for the project area.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in

the significance of a historical resource

as defined in Section 15064.5?



(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in

the significance of an archaeological

resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?



(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique

paleontological resource or site or

unique geologic feature?



(d) Disturb any human remains, including

those interred outside of formal

cemeteries?



Comment: Based on information obtained from the Northeast Information Center, the Gray

Lodge WA has a low to moderate potential for prehistoric cultural resources. Standard CDFG

processes for protection of cultural resources call for preconstruction surveys where subsurface

excavation is planned, and consultation with the Office of Historic Preservation where

appropriate. However, changes in water management under the proposed project would have no

effect on cultural resources.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:

(a) Expose people or structures to

potential substantial adverse effects,

including the risk of loss, injury, or

death involving:

(i) Rupture of a known earthquake

fault, as delineated on the most

recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake

Fault Zoning Map issued by the

State Geologist for the area or

based on other substantial

evidence of a known fault? Refer

to Division of Mines and Geology

Special Publication 42.


CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-10 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A)

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 

(iii) Seismic-related ground failure,

including liquefaction? 

(iv) Landslides? 

Comment: The proposed project does not involve any structural improvements that would

potentially be affected by, or expose people to, seismic or other geologic hazards.

(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the

loss of topsoil? 

(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil

that is unstable, or that would become

unstable as a result of the project, and

potentially result in on- or off-site

landslide, lateral spreading,

subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?



(d) Be located on expansive soil, as

defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform

Building Code (1994), creating

substantial risks to life or property?



Comment: The proposed project does not involve any structural improvements that would

potentially be affected by, or expose people to, soils-related hazards.

(e) Have soils incapable of adequately

supporting the use of septic tanks or

alternative waste water disposal

systems where sewers are not

available for the disposal of waste

water?



Comment: The use of septic tanks or other wastewater disposal systems is not a component of the

proposed project.

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:

(a) Create a significant hazard to the

public or the environment through the

routine transport, use, or disposal of

hazardous materials?


CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A) A-11

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(b) Create a significant hazard to the

public or the environment through

reasonably foreseeable upset and

accident conditions involving the

release of hazardous materials into the

environment?



(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle

hazardous or acutely hazardous

materials, substances, or waste within

one-quarter mile of an existing or

proposed school?



(d) Be located on a site which is included

on a list of hazardous materials sites

compiled pursuant to Government

Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,

would it create a significant hazard to

the public or the environment?



Comment: The proposed project involves the increased delivery of water supplies to the Gray

Lodge WA, and would not involve the use of or expose people to hazardous materials.

(e) For a project located within an airport

land use plan or, where such a plan

has not been adopted, within two

miles of a public airport or public use

airport, would the project result in a

safety hazard for people residing or

working in the project area?



(f) For a project within the vicinity of a

private airstrip, would the project

result in a safety hazard for people

residing or working in the project

area?



Comment: No airstrips are located on or near the Gray Lodge WA.

(g) Impair implementation of or

physically interfere with an adopted

emergency response plan or

emergency evacuation plan?



Comment: No emergency response or evacuation plans exist for the project area. Delivering

increased water supplies to the Gray Lodge WA would have no effect on emergency response or

evacuation.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-12 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A)

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(h) Expose people or structures to a

significant risk of loss, injury or death

involving wildland fires, including

where wildlands are adjacent to

urbanized areas or where residences

are intermixed with wildlands?



Comment: The risk of damage from wildfires at the Gray Lodge WA is extremely low, and would

not be affected by changes in water deliveries under the proposed project.

VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

(a) Violate any water quality standards or

waste discharge requirements? 

Comment: A detailed description of the affected environment with regard to water resources and

water quality can be found in the NEPA documentation prepared for the Refuge Water Supply

project. The reader is referred to this analysis for an understanding of the water resources on and

near the Gray Lodge WA.

The availability of reliable, year-round water supplies would increase management flexibility on

the Gray Lodge WA and would provide certainty that a flow-through management strategy could

be followed. Flow-through management would help improve water-quality conditions on the

refuge and decrease the potential for disease outbreaks, as described above under Biological

Resources.

Drainage flows at the Gray Lodge WA are expected to increase with flow-through management of

the refuge. This increase in drainage is not expected to impact water quality, because on-refuge

levels of trace elements and pesticides are within acceptable levels from established criteria. In

addition, the improved water quality from increased water supplies and management flexibility

would have a beneficial effect for downstream uses.

(b) Substantially deplete groundwater

supplies or interfere substantially with

groundwater recharge such that there

would be a net deficit in aquifer

volume or a lowering of the local

groundwater table level (e.g., the

production rate of pre-existing nearby

wells would drop to a level which

would not support existing land uses

or planned uses for which permits

have been granted)?



Comment: The delivery of additional water supplies to the Gray Lodge WA is expected to have a

beneficial effect on the local aquifer by allowing for additional recharge.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A) A-13

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(c) Substantially alter the existing

drainage pattern of the site or area,

including through the alteration of the

course of a stream or river, in a

manner which would result in

substantial erosion or siltation on- or

off-site?



Comment: Changes in water management on the Gray Lodge WA under the proposed project

would not affect onsite drainage patterns.

(d) Substantially alter the existing

drainage pattern of the site or area,

including through the alteration of the

course of a stream or river, or

substantially increase the rate or

amount of surface runoff in a manner

which would result in flooding on- or

off-site?



(e) Create or contribute runoff water

which would exceed the capacity of

existing or planned stormwater

drainage systems or provide

substantial additional sources of

polluted runoff?



Comment: Additional water would be applied to existing wetlands on the Gray Lodge WA.

Accordingly, the quantity of discharge water would increase. As described above, this increase in

drainage is not expected to impact water quality, because on-refuge levels of trace elements and

pesticides are within acceptable levels from established criteria.

(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water

quality? 

Comment: All potential water quality effects of the proposed project are described in the above

sections.

(g) Place housing within a 100-year flood

hazard area as mapped on a federal

Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood

Insurance Rate Map or other flood

hazard delineation map?



Comment: No housing units would be constructed under the proposed project.

(h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard

area structures which would impede

or redirect flood flows?


CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-14 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A)

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Comment: No structures would be constructed under the proposed project.

(i) Expose people or structures to a

significant risk of loss, injury or death

involving flooding, including flooding

as a result of the failure of a levee or

dam?



Comment: No changes to natural flood hydrology would occur as a result of the proposed project.

(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or

mudflow? 

Comment: The Gray Lodge WA is not subject to the effects of seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows.

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:

(a) Physically divide an established

community? 

Comment: There are no established communities within the Gray Lodge WA.

(b) Conflict with any applicable land use

plan, policy, or regulation of an agency

with jurisdiction over the project

(including, but not limited to, the

general plan, specific plan, local

coastal program, or zoning ordinance)

adopted for the purpose of avoiding or

mitigating an environmental effect?



Comment: The project is consistent with several plans that relate to the Gray Lodge WA,

including the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan (including the management plan of the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture),

the Gray Lodge Management Plan, and the Butte and Sutter County General Plans.

(c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat

Conservation Plan or Natural

Community Conservation Plan?



Comment: No HCPs or NCCPs have been adopted for the project area.

X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:

(a) Result in the loss of availability of a

known mineral resource that would be

of value to the region and the residents

of the state?


CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A) A-15

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(a) Result in the loss of availability of a

locally-important mineral resource

recovery site delineated on a local

general plan, specific plan or other

land use plan?



Comment: The proposed project does not involve paving or constructing structures on the Gray

Lodge WA in a manner that would preclude the extraction of mineral resources.

XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:

(a) Exposure of persons to or generation

of noise levels in excess of standards

established in the local general plan or

noise ordinance, or applicable

standards of other agencies?



(b) Exposure of persons to or generation

of excessive groundborne vibration or

groundborne noise levels?



(c) A substantial permanent increase in

ambient noise levels in the project

vicinity above levels existing without

the project?



(d) A substantial temporary or periodic

increase in ambient noise levels in the

project vicinity above levels existing

without the project?



Comment: The proposed project would result in changes to the management of existing wetland

areas. This would not expose people to significant noise sources.

(e) For a project located within an airport

land use plan or, where such a plan

has not been adopted, within two

miles of a public airport or public use

airport, would the project expose

people residing or working in the

project area to excessive noise levels?



(f) For a project within the vicinity of a

private airstrip, would the project

expose people residing or working in

the project area to excessive noise

levels?



Comment: No airstrips are located on or near the Gray Lodge WA.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-16 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A)

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:

(a) Induce substantial population growth

in an area, either directly (for example,

by proposing new homes and

businesses) or indirectly (for example,

through extension of roads or other

infrastructure)?



Comment: The proposed project would likely result in modest economic gains in the region from

enhanced recreational opportunities. The extent of these benefits, however, is not expected to

translate into noticeable population or housing growth.

(b) Displace substantial numbers of

existing housing, necessitating the

construction of replacement housing

elsewhere?



Comment: No housing units would be displaced by the proposed project.

(c) Displace substantial numbers of

people, necessitating the construction

of replacement housing elsewhere?



Comment: No individuals would be relocated under the proposed project.

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project:

(a) Result in substantial adverse physical

impacts associated with the provision

of new or physically altered

governmental facilities, need for new

or physically altered governmental

facilities, the construction of which

could cause significant environmental

impacts, in order to maintain

acceptable service ratios, response

times or other performance objectives

for any of the public services:

(i) Fire protection? 

(ii) Police protection? 

Comment: Public use of the Gray Lodge WA is primarily for recreational duck hunting and bird

watching. Recreational use may increase as a result of the more effective management of the

existing wetlands, but this is not expected to translate into an increased need for public services

such as police and fire protection.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A) A-17

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(iii) Schools? 

(iv) Parks? 

(v) Other public facilities? 

Comment: No aspect of the proposed project would affect local schools and parks.

XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:

(a) Increase the use of existing

neighborhood and regional parks or

other recreational facilities such that

substantial physical deterioration of

the facility would occur or be

accelerated?



Comment: The proposed project is expected to generate additional recreational use of the Gray

Lodge WA, which could lead to overall recreation benefits. However, public neighborhood and

regional park facilities would not be affected.

(b) Does the project include recreational

facilities or require the construction or

expansion of recreational facilities

which might have an adverse physical

effect on the environment?



Comment: No additional recreation facilities would be constructed under the proposed project.

XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:

(a) Cause an increase in traffic which is

substantial in relation to the existing

traffic load and capacity of the street

system (i.e., result in a substantial

increase in either the number of

vehicle trips, the volume to capacity

ratio on roads, or congestion at

intersections)?



(b) Exceed, either individually or

cumulatively, a level of service

standard established by the County

congestion management agency for

designated roads or highways?



(c) Result in a change in air traffic

patterns, including either an increase

in traffic levels or a change in location

that results in substantial safety risks?


CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-18 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A)

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a

design feature (e.g., sharp curves or

dangerous intersections) or

incompatible uses (e.g., farm

equipment)?



(e) Result in inadequate emergency

access? 

(f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 

(g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,

or programs supporting alternative

transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,

bicycle racks)?



Comment: Although positive recreation benefits are expected to occur from improvement of onrefuge habitats (resulting in improved duck populations), this is not expected to translate into a

noticeable difference in terms of traffic (from hunters and bird watchers traveling to the Gray

Lodge WA). Accordingly, traffic-related impacts (such as congestion, safety, parking) would not

be affected by the proposed project.

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:

(a) Exceed wastewater treatment

requirements of the applicable

Regional Water Quality Control

Board?



Comment: There are no wastewater treatment requirements applicable to the Gray Lodge WA.

Water quality is addressed in Section XIII(a) above.

(b) Require or result in the construction of

new water or wastewater treatment

facilities or expansion of existing

facilities, the construction of which

could cause significant environmental

effects?



Comment: No new water or wastewater treatment facilities would be required from

implementation of the proposed project.

(c) Require or result in the construction of

new storm water drainage facilities or

expansion of existing facilities, the

construction of which could cause

significant environmental effects?

CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A) A-19

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Comment: The amount of water discharged off the refuges is expected to increase, but this

discharge would occur into natural conveyance channels and would not affect storm drainage

facilities.

(d) Have sufficient water supplies

available to serve the project from

existing entitlements and resources, or

are new or expanded entitlements

needed?



Comment: The proposed project is to supply the Gray Lodge WA with sufficient water to

effectively manage wetland habitats per Reclamation’s Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations

and the Gray Lodge Management Plan.

(e) Result in a determination by the

wastewater treatment provider which

serves or may serve the project that it

has adequate capacity to serve the

project’s projected demand in addition

to the provider’s existing

commitments?



Comment: Wetland use on the Gray Lodge WA is not supported by a wastewater treatment

facility.

(f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient

permitted capacity to accommodate

the projects solid waste disposal

needs?



(g) Comply with federal, state, and local

statutes and regulations related to

solid waste?



Comment: Delivering water to the Gray Lodge WA would not generate solid waste.

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:

(a) Does the project have the potential to

degrade the quality of the

environment, substantially reduce the

habitat of a fish or wildlife species,

cause a fish or wildlife population to

drop below self-sustaining levels,

threaten to eliminate a plant or animal

community, reduce the number or

restrict the range of a rare or

endangered plant or animal or

eliminate important examples of the

major periods of California history or

prehistory?

CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-20 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180012 (SAC APPENDIX A)

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(b) Does the project have impacts that are

individually limited, but cumulatively

considerable? ("Cumulatively

considerable" means that the

incremental effects of a project are

considerable when viewed in

connection with the effects of past

projects, the effects of other current

projects, and the effects of probable

future projects)?



(c) Does the project have environmental

effects which will cause substantial

adverse effects on human beings,

either directly or indirectly?