U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, AND

GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT

REFUGE WATER SUPPLY

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN

LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENTS

JANUARY 2001

FINAL NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AND CEQA INITIAL STUDIES




State of California

The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

Amendment to the Negative Declarations for the

Los Banos, North Grasslands, and Mendota Wildlife Areas

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 Los Banos, North Grasslands, and Mendota Wildlife

Areas. 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 Management

Plans for the Los Banos, North Grasslands, and Mendota Wildlife Areas 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 Declarations for implementation of

the Management Plans for the Los Banos, North Grasslands, and Mendota Wildlife

Areas, 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 Studies prepared

for implementation of the Los Banos, North Grasslands, and Mendota Management

Plans, 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/SJ LETTER 1.DOC 

Responses to CommentsResponse 1This comment raises a concern regarding San Joaquin River water quality from incrdiversions from the Delta to provide the mwater supplies south of the Delta. This issthe PEIS, however, and the Project considnot involve any increases in the total amofrom the Delta. The analysis presented in conditions under the No Action AlternatiPEIS Preferred Alternative at the Year 202Action. Both alternative include delivery 4 refuge water supplies at the same annuThe historical reduction in flows on the Sincreased salinity in the river near VernalChapter II of the Surface Water Supplies aOperations Technical Appendix and AttaFisheries Technical Appendix of the PEISinformation presented in the 1980 draft rereports. The water quality and quantities CVPIA operations with projected land uswere defined in the PEIS No Action Alterbasis for comparison for PEIS alternativesfor the PEIS No Action Alternative includsupply that was equal to the Level 2 watethe definition of Level 2 water volume deand 1984. The description of water quality PEIS No Action Alternative states that waare not met in drier year types when watedelivery of water rights and environmentfrequency of months in which the Vernalistandard is exceeded will be greater and thigher in the dry years under the PEIS Pr

123
SAC/155333\JAN 2001/SJ LETTER 1.DOC 

compared to the PEIS No Action Alternrecognizes that methods to increase comquality standards are being considered iprojects, including the continued evaluaAdaptive Management Plan and San JoaAgreement programs and the GrasslandAs described previously, the analysis of operations presented in this EA was bascomparison of the Proposed Action to thAlternative which was defined as condiwith implementation of CVPIA as definPreferred Alternative. While both of theinclude delivery of Level 2 and Level 4 rat the same annual delivery amount, ondifferences in operations between these the pattern of delivery (and therefore of Joaquin River) and the use of the water Therefore, this EA focuses on an analysichanges that would occur due to the chapattern, use of the water, and associated There would not be an overall change in diverted from the Delta for the refuges uconsidered in this EA as compared to thAlternative.Response 2The information presented in Tables 5-2 presented as background information redescription of the No Action Alternativewas developed based upon analyses in tJoaquin Basin Action Plan and North GrConveyance Facilities Final EnvironmenAssessment/Initial Study. As discussed Comment 1, the PEIS did indicate that imCVPIA actions in the PEIS Preferred Alt
SAC/155333\JAN 2001/SJ LETTER 1.DOC 

Level 4 refuge water supplies, would rsalinity in the San Joaquin River at Vercontinuing to evaluate methods to redevents when the Vernalis water quality Information presented in Tables 5-2 anthe No Action Alternative, increases in delivery of Level 4 refuge water supplLevel 2 refuge water supplies alone woincrease in the frequency of violations quality standard.Response 3The EA includes an analysis of the Proconditions as compared to the No Acticritically dry years in Tables 5-8 and 5-The volume assumptions for annual dwater supplies are identical in the No Aand the Proposed Action. The only issuthis analysis is how the water is used. Action, more water is used in drier yeawetlands than under the No Action Althe amount of water discharged into thincreases under the Proposed Action aAction Alternative.The analysis summarized in these tablunder critically dry conditions, the charefuge water management will increasdischarged into the San Joaquin River No Action Alternative. The analysis prand 5-9 also indicates that this increase dilution water to reduce the salinity cothe Vernalis water quality standard, ancould be provided by the Vernalis AdaPlan (VAMP). The No Action Alternat
SAC/155333\JAN 2001/SJ LETTER 1.DOC 

assumption that VAMP or a similar prograinto the Year 2025. The inclusion of VAMP water releases to eliminate the need for addwater from New Melones Reservoir to dilufrom the refuges.This analysis is incremental in nature and iof the PEIS Preferred Alternative. That anathe irrigation season from April through Afrequency and the total concentration of sain the PEIS Preferred Alternative as compaAction Alternative. Therefore, if the increasdrier year corresponded with a period of tidilution water was not available from New the overall salinity in the San Joaquin River Vernalis water quality standard. If this eveas indicated in Tables 5-8 and 5-9, the montviolations would not be greater under the Pcompared to the No Action Alternative.
SAC/155333\JAN 2001/SJ LETTER 1.DOC 

Response 4The No Action Alternative is based upon the PEIS Preferred Alternative is implemeAlternative includes the assumption that program will be continued into the Years assumption is not affected by the actions Action, therefore, the Proposed Action alsVAMP or a similar program will be conti2025.The assumptions for VAMP releases were Reclamation for the initial VAMP environdocumentation. One of the primary purpwas to develop pulse flows in April and Mcritical dry years. These pulse flows coincthe refuges are predicting releases of largunder dry year operations. Therefore, the reduce the salinity in the San Joaquin RivResponse 5As described in Response to Comment 1, does not increase the amount of water to rather modifies the diversion and discharaccordance with existing standards. Progdischarge requirements for the San Joaquto in Chapter 5. As these programs procethose programs would consider the need quality standards and discharge requiremrequirements for the refuges are modified refuge managers would need to comply win accordance with the water supply agre

3 cont.4567
SAC/155333\JAN 2001/SJ LETTER 1.DOC 

Response 6The analysis in the EA assumes that rewould be delivered in the same manneAction Alternative and the Proposed Aassumption, based upon the analysis pfor the PEIS Preferred Alternative does assumption of the joint point pumping analysis assumes that refuge water supfrom the Delta would be delivered by directly from the Delta or from water sReservoir. The PEIS indicates that thesreduce water deliveries to CVP water slocated South of the Delta and the mitiparticipation in programs identified by programs are implemented on a long-tenvironmental documentation will be the potential for adverse impacts to all Response 7Reclamation is working through severthe salinity problems in the San JoaquiGrasslands Bypass program and VAMsimilar programs are assumed to conti2025 in the alternatives considered in treduce the salinity problems.
SAC/155333\JAN 2001/SJ LETTER 2.DOC 

Regional Board Responses Response 1-1Current water quality objectives are redocument.Response 1-2The text will be modified to reflect thaResources Control Board set the VernaResponse1-3The text will be modified to reflect thafor drinking water for the lower San Joas low as 0.6 mg/L.Response 1-4This comment references the proposed contracts/agreements. A requirement objectives must be met is included in tcontracts/agreements.

1-11-21-31-4
SAC/155333\JAN 2001/SJ LETTER 2.DOC 
SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180013 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 ................................................................ 1-5

1.4 Public Scoping.................................................................................................................. 1-6

1.5 Relationship to California Environmental Quality Act.............................................. 1-7

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

2.1 National Wildlife Refuges .............................................................................................. 2-2

2.2 State Wildlife Areas......................................................................................................... 2-8

2.3 Grassland Resource Conservation District ................................................................ 2-14

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 the San Joaquin River Basin ................. 3-24

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

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

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

4.2 Water Service Agreement............................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 On-Refuge Management................................................................................................. 4-7

4.4 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail.............................................. 4-21

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

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

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

5.3 Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 5-16

5.4 Agricultural Land Use .................................................................................................. 5-29

5.5 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 5-37

5.6 Regional Economics....................................................................................................... 5-44

5.7 Social Conditions ........................................................................................................... 5-46

5.8 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................... 5-48

5.9 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 5-52

5.10 Power............................................................................................................................. 5-53

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

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

6.2 Federal Endangered Species Act ................................................................................... 6-1
iv SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180013 CONTENTS.DOC

6.3 California Endangered Species Act ...............................................................................6-2

6.4 Cultural Resources Coordination ..................................................................................6-2

6.5 Indian Trust Assets ..........................................................................................................6-2

6.6 Environmental Justice......................................................................................................6-2

6.7 Farmlands Policy..............................................................................................................6-3

Attachments

Environmental Commitments

References

List of Preparers

Appendices

A CEQA Initial Study Checklist – State Wildlife Areas

B CEQA Initial Study Checklist – Grassland Water District

C Management Measures for Listed Species and Other Special-Status Species

Tables

1-1 Annual Water Supplies for San Joaquin 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 in the San Joaquin River

Basin 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 Refuge Water Supply

Contracts with the California Department of Fish and Game and the

Grassland Water District ....................................................................................................4-4

4-3 Dry Year Management Priorities for Wetland Habitat Management in the

Grassland RCD.....................................................................................................................4-9

4-4 Acres of Habitat Expected on the San Luis NWR Complex under the No

Action and Proposed Action that Would Be Managed Using Water

Provided under the CVPIA..............................................................................................4-10

4-5 Special-Status Species for which the Service Would Implement Conservation

and Take-Avoidance Measures under the Proposed Action.......................................4-13

4-6 Acres of Habitat Expected on the CDFG’s WAs in the San Joaquin River Basin

under the No Action and Proposed Action that Would Be Managed with Water

Provided under the CVPIA..............................................................................................4-14

4-7 Special-Status Species for Which CDFG Would Implement Conservation and

Take-Avoidance Measures under the Proposed Action ..............................................4-17
CONTENTS

SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180013 CONTENTS.DOC v

4-8 Acres of Habitat Expected on Private Lands Within the Grassland RCD under

the No Action and Proposed Actiona that Would be Managed with Water

Provided under the CVPIA ............................................................................................. 4-18

4-9 Acres Benefited in the Grassland RCD under Each Water

Management Activity ...................................................................................................... 4-20

4-10 Special-Status Species for which the Grassland WD Would Implement

Conservation and Take-Avoidance Measures under the Proposed Action ............. 4-21

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

Downstream of Refuges of the San Joaquin River Basin............................................... 5-6

5-2 Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet

Vernalis Standards Without Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin

River on an Average Annual Basis for Level II and Level IV Water Supplies

as Described in the Programmatic EIS ........................................................................... 5-24

5-3 Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet

Vernalis Standards With Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin

River on an Average Annual Basis for Level II and Level IV Water Supplies

as Described in the Programmatic EIS ........................................................................... 5-26

5-4 Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet

Vernalis Standards Without Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin

River in Critical Dry Years for Level II and Level IV Water Supplies as

Described in the Programmatic EIS................................................................................ 5-27

5-5 Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet

Vernalis Standards With Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin

River in Critical Dry Years for Level II and Level IV Water Supplies as

Described in the Programmatic EIS................................................................................ 5-28

5-6 Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet

Vernalis Standards Without Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin

River on an Average Annual Basis for Level II and Level IV Under No Action

Alternative and Proposed Action ................................................................................... 5-30

5-7 Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet

Vernalis Standards With Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin

River on an Average Annual Basis for Level IV Under No Action Alternative

and Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 5-31

5-8 Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet

Vernalis Standards Without Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin

River in Critical Dry Years for Level IV Under No Action Alternative and

Proposed Action................................................................................................................ 5-32

5-9 Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet

Vernalis Standards With Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin

River in Critical Dry Years for Level IV Under No Action Alternative and

Proposed Action................................................................................................................ 5-33

Figures

2-1 San Joaquin River Basin Refuges ...................................................................................... 2-1
Section 1: Purpose and Need
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180014 SJ-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), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the Grassland Water

District (Grassland WD) pursuant to Sections 3406(d)(1) and 3406(d)(2) of Title 34 of Public

Law 102-575, 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 Assessment (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 San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex, including the San Luis, West

Bear Creek, Kesterson, Freitas, Merced, and East Bear Creek Units

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

WA, Volta WA, portions of the North Grasslands WA (China Island and Salt Slough

Units), and the Mendota WA

• A contract between Reclamation and the Grassland WD for delivery of water to private

lands within the Grassland RCD

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

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

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

 

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 2001/010180014 SJ-001.DOC

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.

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 in private ownership, 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, nearly 10 to 12 million ducks and geese, along with millions of other

water birds, annually winter in or pass through the Central Valley. 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 are treaties between the U.S. and

Canada, and the U.S. and Mexico, respectively. The conventions 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; it was updated

in 1994 to include the Republic of Mexico.

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

joint ventures that include individuals, corporations, conservation organizations, and local,

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

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
SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180014 SJ-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.

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

Grassland RCD

• Secure Central Valley Project power for the NWRs, State WAs, the Grassland RCD, and

other private and public lands dedicated to wetland management

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, and the

waterfowl of the Pacific Flyway, as well as providing for 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, 1978a)

• Water Availability Study for California Wetlands (Reclamation, 1978b)

• 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, as well as the water supplies

required for optimum habitat management for
SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

1-4 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180014 SJ-001.DOC

Action Plan lands to be provided with water

under the proposed long-term agreements:

• Freitas Ranch

• China Island (aka Freitas-McPike)

• Salt Slough (aka San Luis Ranch)

• West Bear Creek (aka West Gallo)

• East Bear Creek (aka East Gallo)

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.

San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan

The San Joaquin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan report (Action Plan) was prepared

by Reclamation, the Service, and CDFG in 1989. The Action Plan was developed to

contribute to meeting multiple objectives. The habitat acquisition and enhancement

described in the Action Plan are intended to meet both the requirements of long-term

mitigation for Kesterson Reservoir, as well as implementation of the objectives of the

Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture in support of the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan. Implementation of the Action Plan was initiated on October 9, 1990, by a

cooperative agreement among Reclamation, the Service, and CDFG. The primary goals of

the Action Plan include:

• Ensure permanent habitat preservation of lands of vital importance to Pacific Flyway

ducks and geese, other migratory birds, state and federally listed threatened and

endangered species, and resident species

• Create wetlands for migratory birds and other wetland-dependent species on

agricultural lands suitable for conversion

• Protect and enhance riparian habitat and fishery resources in the San Joaquin River and

its tributaries

• Increase opportunities for public use based on wildlife and wildlife habitats when

compatible with other objectives

• Provide adequate sanctuary to encourage wider distribution of migratory birds and to

provide adequate protection from disturbance for other birds, as well as state and

federally listed threatened and endangered species

• Identify and protect cultural resources sites

• Protect and enhance existing natural biological communities

The Action Plan provides a framework within which

several contiguous state and federal refuges can be

developed and managed in a coordinated manner. The

existing state and federal refuges included in the Action

Plan are Kesterson NWR, San Luis NWR, Merced NWR,

and Los Banos WA. The Action Plan identified actions to

improve the reliability, availability, and quality of the

water supplies for these wetlands to enhance wetland

habitat. In addition, the Action Plan identified

approximately 23,500 acres of private lands within the northern San Joaquin River Basin that

were historic wetlands or would be suitable for management as wildlife habitat. These lands

were not fully developed as wetland habitats and were used for grazing or other agricultural

purposes. The Action Plan identified wetland and riparian restoration for each of the lands to be

acquired. The water supplies necessary for full habitat development of the Action Plan lands

were also identified, and were adopted by reference into the CVPIA. At this time, most of the
SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180014 SJ-001.DOC 1-5

Action Plan lands have been acquired and have been integrated into the existing federal and

state refuge system.

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 San Luis NWR Complex; the Los Banos, Volta,

North Grasslands, and Mendota WAs; and the Grassland RCD.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.

The purposes of the CVPIA are identified in Section 3402 of the CVPIA to include

protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in the

Central Valley, and to achieve 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). The water supplies required

pursuant to Section 3406(d)(1) are for “Level 2” supplies, which 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. Section 3406(d)(1) also states

that two-thirds of the water supplies necessary for full habitat development on the Action

Plan lands are also required. (For convenience, this amount is also referred to as Level 2.)

The water supplies identified from the Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations and the

Action Plan are summarized in 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 year, the Secretary of the Interior may

reduce 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

 

2 The San Luis NWR Complex also includes the San Joaquin River NWR and the Arena Plains Unit of the Merced NWR.

However, these refuge units were not considered in the Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations, so are not receiving

water pursuant to the CVPIA. The Blue Goose Unit of the San Luis NWR Complex and the Gadwall Unit of the North

Grasslands WA were private refuges in the Grassland RCD at the time of the Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations

and will, therefore, receive water under the CVPIA from the Grassland WD.
SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

1-6 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180014 SJ-001.DOC

identified in the 1989 Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations. Section 3406(d)(2) also

refers to the amount of water required for full habitat development on the Action Plan

lands. (For convenience, this amount is also referred to as Level 4.) The increment of water

above Level 2 amounts must be acquired from voluntary sources (e.g., willing sellers).

Section 3406(d)(2) states that upon enactment of the CVPIA, this increment of water must be

provided in 10 percent cumulative increments per year, with full supplies provided after

10 years. Reclamation has been acquiring incremental amounts of Level 4 water on a shortterm basis from willing sellers since 1992 and expects to acquire and provide full supplies to

the refuges by 2002. The long-term water supply contracts/agreements would provide for

delivery of the total Level 4 water supply by 2002, as required by Sections 3406(d)(1) and

3406(d)(2).

TABLE 1-1

Annual Water Supplies for San Joaquin River Basin Refuges

Water Supplies

(acre-feet)

Refuge Level 2a Level 4 Incrementb Total

San Luis NWR Complex:

San Luis Unit 13,350 5,650 19,000

West Bear Creek Unit 7,207 3,603 10,810

Kesterson Unit 3,500 6,500 10,000

Freitas Unit 3,527 1,763 5,290

Merced Unit 13,500 2,500 16,000

East Bear Creek Unitc 8,863 4,432 13,295

Los Banos Wildlife Area 16,670 8,330 25,000

Volta Wildlife Area 10,000 6,000 16,000

North Grassland WA:

China Island Unit 6,967 3,483 10,450

Salt Slough Unit 6,680 3,340 10,020

Mendota Wildlife Area 18,500 11,150 29,650

Grassland RCD 125,000 55,000 180,000

a

 Level 2 water supplies include those specifically identified as Level 2 in the Report on Refuge Water Supply

Investigations (Reclamation, 1989), and two-thirds of the amount needed for full habitat development per the San

Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan (Reclamation, et al., 1989). The amount of water diverted in order

to meet these demands at the refuge boundaries will be greater because of loss of water during conveyance. b

 Level 4 water supplies include those specifically identified as Level 4 in the Report on Refuge Water Supply

Investigations (Reclamation, 1989), and the incremental amount needed to provide full habitat development per the

San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan (Reclamation, et al., 1989). The amount of water diverted in

order to meet these demands at the refuge boundaries will be greater because of loss of water during conveyance.

c

 Numbers for the East Bear Creek Unit correspond to the portion of the entire East Bear Creek Unit identified in the

Action Plan that is currently under federal ownership.

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
SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180014 SJ-001.DOC 1-7

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

(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, CDFG, and the

Grassland WD 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 Management Plans for the Los Banos, North Grasslands, and Mendota WAs.

Initial Studies were performed under CEQA, and Negative Declarations were adopted

stating that implementing the Management Plans would not have a significant effect on the

environment. The resource management activities expected on these state WAs under the

full water supplies specified in the proposed long-term contract (Level 4 amounts) would be

consistent with the existing Management Plans. However, 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

agreements with the Service and Grassland WD, this document is being prepared as a joint

NEPA EA and CEQA Initial Study (IS). In support of this evaluation, a CEQA

environmental checklist has been prepared (Appendix A).

In addition, CDFG is in the process of completing its Management Plan for the Volta WA,

and is considering adoption of a Negative Declaration for the plan. Because a prior Negative

Declaration has not been adopted for the Volta WA, this joint EA/IS considers the effects of

the Proposed Action on the existing refuge conditions.

The Grassland Water District’s action to enter into a contract with Reclamation is subject to

CEQA. No prior CEQA analysis has been specifically prepared for use of Level 4 water on

private lands within the Grassland RCD. Accordingly, this joint EA/IS also describes the

potential environmental effects of the proposed long-term contract with the Grassland

Water District, which would supply water to the private lands within the Grassland RCD. In

support of this evaluation, a second CEQA environmental checklist has been prepared

(Appendix B).
Section 2: Background
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC 2-1

SECTION 2

Background

This Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS) addresses state and federal refuges

and private wetland areas of the San Joaquin River Basin (Figure 2-1). Included in this

EA/IS are three NWRs (San Luis NWR, Kesterson NWR, and Merced NWR), four state

WAs (Los Banos WA, Volta WA, Mendota WA, and North Grasslands WA), three units of

the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan managed by the Service (East Bear Creek, West Bear

Creek, and Freitas), and private wetland areas within the Grassland RCD. The North

Grasslands WA includes three units: Salt Slough, China Island, and Gadwall. Salt Slough

and China Island are part of the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan and are evaluated in the EA.

5

5

99

152

41

99

165

33

180

33

MERCED

MERCED MADERA

MADERA

FRESNO SAN

BENITO

CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

FRESNO RIVER

SAN LUIS

RESERVOIR

MILLERTON

LAKE

3055_05 (5/10/00)

MERCED

UNIT

MENDOTA

MENDOTA WA

LOS BANOS

SAN LUIS GRASSLAND RESOURCE UNIT CONSERVATION DISTRICT

VOLTA WA

LOS BANOS WA

GRASSLAND RESOURCE

CONSERVATION DISTRICT

SALT SLOUGH

UNIT

EAST BEAR CREEK

UNIT

WEST BEAR CREEK CHINA ISLAND UNIT

UNIT

FREITAS

UNIT

KESTERSON

UNIT

With the exception of Merced NWR, Volta WA, Mendota WA, and the private lands of the

Grassland RCD, the refuges covered in this EA/IS are part of the Action Plan.

Implementation of the Action Plan included acquiring several tracts of land, specifically the

West Bear Creek, East Bear Creek, Freitas, Salt Slough, and China Island units. The Salt

Slough and China Island units were acquired by the State and are being managed

collectively as part of the North Grassland WA. The remaining three units, West Bear Creek,

East Bear Creek, and Freitas, were acquired by the federal government and are being

FIGURE 2-1

San Joaquin River Basin Refuges
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

2-2 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC

managed as part of the San Luis NWR Complex. The other state and federal refuges covered

in this document (Volta WA, Mendota WA, and Merced NWR) were originally established

to provide habitat for wintering waterfowl, but now serve a variety of wildlife and

conservation objectives. Similarly, the private wetland areas within the Grassland RCD

originally were managed primarily to attract waterfowl during the fall and winter to

support recreational hunting on private duck clubs, but today are managed to meet the

needs of a wide array of wetland-dependent wildlife.

2.1 National Wildlife Refuges

The San Luis NWR Complex has been reorganized since the 1989 Report on Refuge Water

Supply Investigations and the 1989 San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan. As

a result of implementation of the Action Plan, acquisition of the West Bear Creek and Freitas

Units of the Action Plan lands resulted in a contiguous land base among the San Luis and

Kesterson NWRs and the two Action Plan units. Therefore, the Service has redesignated the

two NWRs and Action Plan units as the San Luis NWR Complex, with each of the former

NWRs and Action Plan units designated as management units within the San Luis NWR

Complex. In addition, the San Luis NWR Complex includes the Merced Unit, which

includes the East Bear Creek Unit of the Action Plan. Because all of these lands are managed

collectively as the San Luis NWR Complex, they are addressed together in this section.

The management objectives for the San Luis NWR Complex are to:

• Provide feeding and resting habitat for wintering waterfowl

• Provide habitat and manage for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species of

concern

• Protect and provide habitat for neotropical migratory landbirds

• Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of flora and fauna

• Provide for compatible, management-oriented research

• Alleviate crop depredation

• Provide public use activities, such as wildlife observation, photography, environmental

education, and hunting

• Further the goals of the NWR system

In addition to these primary objectives, the San Luis NWR Complex is managed to

contribute to attaining the specific goals of the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture for the

San Joaquin Valley, which are to:

• Protect 53,000 acres of existing wetlands through fee or perpetual easement acquisition

• Increase wetland area by 20,000 acres through conversion of agricultural lands to

wetlands

• Enhance the 121,000 acres of existing wetlands that are under public and private

ownership
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC 2-3

To achieve these goals, the San Luis NWR complex is managed to provide seasonal wetland

habitat for migratory waterfowl, as well as to maintain various wetland and riparian

habitats to support a diversity of wildlife species.

In the past, the lack of firm, adequate-quality water has limited the variety of wetland

habitat, species diversity, and management flexibility of the NWRs in the San Joaquin

Valley. Permanent water, which is required by many Central Valley listed species and

species of special concern, was usually absent on the San Luis NWR Complex. Water for

riparian habitat was also absent, resulting in reduced habitat quality and availability for

neotropical migratory birds and warmwater fish. Seasonal wetland quality for waterfowl

was also limited by water availability, because sufficient water was not available to

maximize production of moist soil food plants for wintering waterfowl.

2.1.1 San Luis Unit

The 7,430-acre San Luis Unit was established in 1966 under the Migratory Bird Conservation

Act. The refuge is 12 miles northwest of the city of Los Banos. It is located on an interior

island in the San Joaquin River floodplain, flanked by riparian zones along Salt Slough on

the west and the San Joaquin River on the east. The refuge is managed to provide nesting,

migration and wintering habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds, endangered

species, and resident wildlife. San Luis Unit also supports natural grasslands.

Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

Water is used on the San Luis Unit to support permanent and seasonal wetlands. The refuge

holds 19,910 acre-feet of surface water rights on Salt Slough. Salt Slough is a permanent

stream that flows along the western refuge boundary and eventually into the San Joaquin

River. Most of the water in Salt Slough originates from either operational spills or from

return flow from the Grassland WD, San Luis Canal Company, and Central California

Irrigation District. In the San Joaquin Valley, agricultural return flows typically have

contained selenium concentrations above the two parts per billion objective deemed safe for

wetland and wildlife management. As a result, the Service generally has not used Salt

Slough water for wetland management since 1986.

Because of the unacceptable quality of Salt Slough water, the Service entered into a longterm (40-year) Grant of Easement in 1989 with San Luis Canal Company regarding water

deliveries to the refuge. Under the terms of the agreement, the San Luis Canal Company

delivers up to 25,125 acre-feet of CVP water to the refuge, keeping up to 25 percent to

compensate for seepage losses. Accounting for the 25 percent conveyance loss, San Luis Unit

typically receives approximately 19,000 acre-feet of water. Reclamation has made this water

available under the 1954 Central Valley Project Reauthorization Act (1954 Act), as

implemented through a 1990 Agreement, under which Reclamation provides this water for

mitigation for Kesterson Reservoir. The 1954 Act also provided 40,000 acre-feet per year for

a proposed 12,000-acre federal waterfowl management area from other than existing project

sources.

The Service also has an agreement, through deed encumbrances, to accept surface return

flows directly from agricultural lands serviced by the San Luis Canal Company. This source

is not dependable and has varied between 135 and 1,700 acre-feet per year.
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

2-4 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC

Existing Water Supplies

The San Luis Unit currently receives 19,000 acre-feet of CVP water as provided for by the

1954 Act and the 1990 Agreement. The Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations identified

Level 2 supplies for San Luis NWR as 13,350 acre-feet per year and the total Level 4 amount

as 19,000 acre-feet per year. Thus, current water supplies for the San Luis Unit constitute full

Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies.

Recent Water Acquisitions

Because the San Luis Unit has been receiving full Level 4 supplies through the 1990

Agreement and 1954 Act, no acquired water has been used at San Luis NWR.

2.1.2 West Bear Creek Unit

The West Bear Creek Unit was acquired by the federal government as part of the

implementation of the Action Plan. This 3,892-acre tract is located adjacent to and north of

San Luis Unit. The San Joaquin River forms the east boundary and Salt Slough and

Highway 165 form the west boundary. It is managed as part of the San Luis NWR Complex.

Before its acquisition, the unit was managed as a cattle ranch. Habitats on the unit consisted

of irrigated pasture with areas of native grasslands/vernal pool complex, riparian habitat,

and seasonal wetland basins. The Service recently completed the habitat restoration and

enhancement work identified in the Action Plan. The restoration focused on restoring the

floodplain of the San Joaquin River and Salt Slough by restoring the area’s natural

hydrology. The unit now supports a mix of riparian habitat, seasonal wetlands, and native

uplands.

Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

Although the West Bear Creek Unit is bounded on two sides by Salt Slough and the San

Joaquin River, the unit does not have water rights for either of these watercourses. When

managed as a cattle ranch, the unit’s water source was 10 groundwater wells. Three of those

wells are currently operational. However, high salinity of the groundwater has precluded its

use as a sole source of water for managed wetlands.

After the unit was acquired, the Service entered into a long-term contract with the San Luis

Canal Company to deliver 6,225 acre-feet of CVP water to the unit. This water has been

made available through annual contracts with Reclamation. Reclamation supplies the CVP

water under the authority of the 1954 Act (Reclamation, et al., 1989).

Existing Water Supplies

Wetland enhancement and restoration efforts were recently completed on the West Bear

Creek Unit. Existing water supplies consist of the water allocated to the unit under the

CVPIA. The unit began taking Level 2 water supplies and the year-specific Level 4

increment in 1999 (J. Miller, 2000a). The Level 2 water supply is 7,207 acre-feet, and the full

Level 4 supply is 10,810 acre-feet.
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC 2-5

Recent Water Acquisitions

Reclamation temporarily acquired 20,000 acre-feet of water from the San Joaquin River

Exchange Contractors Water Authority during the period from April 1999 to February 2000.

This water was delivered to San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas to partially meet the

1999/2000 Level 4 water requirements. Some of this acquired water was used to meet the

West Bear Creek Unit’s 1999/2000 Level 4 increment of 2,523 acre-feet (Reclamation, 1999).

2.1.3 Kesterson Unit

The Kesterson Unit was purchased by Reclamation in 1969 as part of the San Luis Drain

Project. The refuge is located 4 miles east of Gustine, in Merced County. The refuge consists

of wetlands and grassland/vernal pool habitat. Wetlands are managed to provide habitat

for migratory waterfowl, as well as for resident wildlife. Grassland/vernal pool habitat is

protected to provide habitat for federal- and state-listed species.

Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

Water is used on the Kesterson Unit to maintain seasonal wetlands and to irrigate moist soil

units to produce food sources for wintering waterfowl. Before implementation of the CVPIA,

the Kesterson Unit received CVP water from Reclamation under the requirements of 1954 Act.

Through the 1954 Act, the Kesterson Unit receives 3,500 acre-feet of firm CVP water each year

(between September 15 and November 15) through Grassland WD. This amount can be

reduced in drought years. Reclamation has also provided up to 7,000 acre-feet of CVP water

from the 40,000 acre-feet per year authorized under the 1954 Act.

Existing Water Supplies

Existing water supplies at the Kesterson Unit consist of 3,500 acre-feet of CVP water

provided under the 1954 Act and up to 7,000 acre-feet of CVP water provided through

annual contracts also authorized under the 1954 Act. The Report on Refuge Water Supply

Investigations identified Level 2 water supplies for the Kesterson Unit as 3,500 acre-feet and

the total Level 4 amount as 10,000 acre-feet. Thus, the Kesterson Unit is currently receiving

full Level 2 water supplies and the Level 4 increment.

Recent Water Acquisitions

Because the Kesterson Unit has been receiving full Level 4 supplies through the 1954 Act

and the 1990 Agreement, no acquired water has been used at the Kesterson Unit.

2.1.4 Freitas Unit

The Freitas Unit is part of the lands acquired pursuant to the Action Plan. This 5,600-acre

tract lies east of, and immediately adjacent to, the former Kesterson Reservoir site and is

bordered by the Great Valley Grasslands State Park on the east and north. The Freitas Unit

is managed as part of the San Luis NWR Complex. The unit consists of native grassland,

seasonal wetlands, slough, and oxbows. Before acquisition, it was managed as a cattle ranch.

Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

The Freitas Unit has no water rights to divert water from either the San Joaquin River or Salt

Slough. Before acquisition, the unit’s water supply consisted only of floodwater from the
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

2-6 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC

San Joaquin River and Salt Slough, and groundwater. Once acquired, the Freitas Unit

became eligible to receive water under the 1954 Act. Reclamation has made 5,290 acre-feet of

CVP water available to the Freitas Unit since 1990. A production groundwater well was also

developed adjacent to the San Luis Canal on the southern boundary of the tract and is

intended to be used to maintain permanent wetland habitat during drought periods.

Existing Water Supplies

The Level 2 water supply for the Freitas Unit is 3,527 acre-feet and the full Level 4 amount is

5,290 acre-feet. Existing water supplies consist of the 5,290 acre-feet of CVP water provided

by Reclamation under the 1954 Act. This quantity of water fulfills both Level 2 water

supplies and the Level 4 increment for the Freitas Unit.

Recent Water Acquisitions

Because the Freitas Unit has been receiving full Level 4 supplies through the 1954 Act, no

acquired water has been used at the Freitas Unit.

2.1.5 Merced Unit

The Merced Unit is located approximately 9 miles southwest of the City of Merced. The

refuge was established to alleviate crop depredation and to provide habitat for migratory

and wintering waterfowl. The refuge is one of the most important wintering areas in

California for snow and Ross’ geese, and lesser sandhill cranes (Reclamation, 1992). The

refuge provides seasonal and permanent wetland habitats; grain and forage crops are

grown on the refuge as wildlife food crops. Water is used to irrigate seasonal marshes and

croplands and to maintain permanent wetlands.

At the time of the Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations, the Merced Unit was 2,562

acres in size. In 1990, 636 acres were added to the refuge bringing the total current acreage

to 3,198 acres. Acquisition at the Merced Unit has continued and at present the refuge

encompasses 4,400 acres. This additional acreage was not considered when determining the

refuge’s water supply needs in the Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations. Therefore,

this acreage was not included in the water supplies described in Section 3406(d)(1) through

(d)(5) of the CVPIA and is not a part of this EA/IS.

Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

Article 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for the New

Exchequer Project requires that 15,000 acre-feet of CVP water be conveyed to the Merced

Unit annually. In 1989, FERC issued orders requiring Merced Irrigation District to comply

with Article 45. However, at the time, there were no facilities to deliver the water to the

Merced Unit (Reclamation, 1992), and this water supply was not available to the refuge.

Before passage of the CVPIA, groundwater made up much of the refuge’s water supply. The

refuge has 21 groundwater wells. Groundwater is typically used during the winter when

Merced Irrigation District’s dewatered its delivery system (Reclamation, 1992).

The Merced Unit also diverted water from Deadman Creek and the East Side Bypass on an

as-available basis. In 1985, the refuge obtained rights to divert 3,000 acre-feet annually from

Deadman Creek, between December 15 and May 31. Under the conditions of the water
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC 2-7

rights, the refuge cannot divert water from this stream except during high flow periods. As

a result, this water right was not considered a firm supply. Water from the East Side Bypass

was also diverted on an as-available basis.

Existing Water Supplies

Since passage of the CVPIA, the Merced Unit has relied, to a large degree, on groundwater

for Level 2 water supplies and the Level 4 increment because there were no facilities capable

of supplying CVP water to the refuge. Under an agreement between Reclamation and the

Service, Reclamation has paid for the cost of pumping groundwater. Water is also diverted

from Deadman Creek under the refuge’s water right, when available. Conveyance facilities

capable of delivering water from Merced Irrigation District have been completed recently

(D. Woolington, 1999). As a result, Merced Irrigation District has been delivering the

15,000 acre-feet of CVP water required under Article 45 (D. Woolington, 1999). For the

Merced Unit, the Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigation identified the Level 2 water

supply as 13,500 acre-feet. Thus, the Refuge is currently receiving the Level 2 water supply

and most of the Level 4 increment. However, water provided by the Merced Irrigation

District is only available during the irrigation season, and the refuge relies on groundwater

during the winter (December through March).

Recent Water Acquisitions

No acquired water has been used on the Merced Unit.

2.1.6 East Bear Creek Unit

The San Joaquin Action Plan identified the East Bear Creek and Kelly tracts for acquisition

by the federal government. The federal government purchased 4,000 acres of the East Bear

Creek tract from the Gallo family in 1993. This purchase currently constitutes the East Bear

Creek Unit. The Gallo family also sold a perpetual, non-development easement to the

Service for 2,132 acres of land north of Bear Creek. Further acquisition efforts on the Kelly

tract are currently deferred, pending the initiation of negotiations with the property owner.

The federal government will also attempt to purchase a 158-acre parcel contiguous to the

north end of the Kelly tract. This parcel was not recognized as a separate ownership in the

Action Plan (Reclamation and CDFG, 1995).

The East Bear Creek Unit lies east of the San Joaquin River, adjacent to the San Luis NWR.

The Service manages the unit as part of the San Luis NWR. The unit includes 3 miles of Bear

Creek and contains natural grasslands, vernal pools, riparian floodplain habitat, irrigated

pasture and small-grain production lands (Reclamation and CDFG, 1995; Reclamation, et al.,

1989). Before its acquisition, the land was managed as a cattle ranch, and consisted primarily

of irrigated pasture. The habitat restoration actions identified in the Action Plan have not

been completed yet. The restoration proposed for the unit focuses on restoring the

floodplain of the San Joaquin River and Salt Slough by restoring the area’s natural

hydrology. When completed, the unit will support a mix of riparian habitat, native uplands,

and seasonal wetlands. A small amount of irrigated pasture and crops will be retained to

provide forage for cranes and geese, as well as nesting cover for waterfowl and resident

wildlife.
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

2-8 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC

Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

Before passage of the CVPIA, the water sources for the East Bear Creek Unit were a

combination of agricultural return flows, irrigation operational spill, and winter runoff

flows from Bear Creek, and the San Joaquin River. The tracts of the entire East Bear Creek

Unit previously identified for acquisition have an annual appropriative water right of 27,627

acre-feet on an if-and-when-available basis. The water right entitlement on Bear Creek is 38

cfs, with no maximum acre-feet amount. However, water can only be diverted from Bear

Creek on an if-and-when-available basis and only from March 1 to October 31. Water

availability during this time period was historically good (Reclamation, et al., 1989). In

addition to the surface water sources, there are four groundwater wells on the property.

Existing Water Supplies

Wetland habitat restoration and enhancement plans are currently being developed for the

East Bear Creek Unit. As such, the unit has not accepted delivery of full Level 2 water

supplies or the Level 4 increment. However, the unit has taken up to 4,800 acre-feet of water

each year since 1996 to maintain oxbows and small wetlands along the San Joaquin River

(J. Miller, 2000b).

The 1989 Action Plan identified the water supply required for full management of the

original 7,600-acre tract as 25,260 acre-feet. However, not all of the lands originally

identified have been acquired. Due to the reduction of lands acquired in fee title, the Service

has proportionately decreased its water requirement. The revised water requirement for full

habitat management of the current East Bear Creek Unit acreage is 13,295 acre-feet. The twothirds supply (Level 2) for this amount of water is 8,863 acre-feet.

Recent Water Acquisitions

Because restoration actions have not yet been implemented on the East Bear Creek Unit, no

acquired water has been used.

2.2 State Wildlife Areas

Five state WAs covered by the CVPIA lie in the San Joaquin Valley. CDFG manages the

WAs in accordance with the following departmental guidelines (CDFG, 1998):

• Supply suitable habitat and living space for the preservation of native species, including

nongame and endangered plants and animals

• Protect surrounding agricultural lands from depredating waterfowl by providing

feeding and resting areas for waterfowl

• Furnish access to public lands for hunting and fishing opportunities

• Provide for multiple use of the area when this use will not unduly interfere with the

primary use of the land

Habitat management on the state WAs has been impaired by unreliable and poor-quality

water supplies in a similar manner as on the federal refuges. The lack of firm, adequatequality water has limited the diversity of wetland habitat, species diversity, and
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC 2-9

management flexibility. Permanent water, which is required by many Central Valley listed

species and species of special concern, could not be supported in years of low water

availability. Seasonal wetland quality for waterfowl was also limited by water availability,

because sufficient water was not available to maximize production of moist soil food plants

for wintering waterfowl. Water availability similarly limited irrigation of upland pasture

and crops for forage and nesting cover.

2.2.1 Los Banos Wildlife Area

The 5,586-acre Los Banos WA is located in the San Joaquin River floodplain, approximately

4 miles northeast of Los Banos. Los Banos WA is dominated by seasonal wetlands.

Permanent and semi-permanent wetlands are also present as are areas of riparian habitat.

The WA also supports natural and non-native grasslands. Irrigated pasture and croplands

are maintained to provide food, resting, and nesting habitat for waterfowl and other

wildlife.

Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

Water is available to Los Banos WA from a number of water rights, licenses, and contracts,

but use of much of this water has been limited because of unacceptable water quality. The

Grassland WD delivers 2,200 acre-feet of water, and the San Luis Canal Company delivers

an additional 4,000 acre-feet through an exchange contract for water rights lost from the San

Joaquin River. Although a firm water supply, Los Banos WA could not obtain CVP via the

San Luis Canal Company during the winter because the San Luis Canal Company dewaters

its canals during this time period for maintenance (CDFG, 1988). Selenium contamination in

drainage water that was carried by the San Luis Canal (a Grassland WD facility) and a

CDFG directive prohibiting use of selenium-tainted water further complicated and

restricted water deliveries via the San Luis Canal prior to construction of the Grassland

Bypass. Uncontaminated water was only available through this canal during short delivery

periods (CDFG, 1988).

In addition to firm CVP water, the Los Banos WA could obtain up to 4,000 acre-feet of

agricultural return flows when available from the Boundary Drain. Water from the

Boundary Drain is of poorer quality than CVP supplies because of high total dissolved

solids. The WA also has 2,000 acre-feet of riparian rights on Mud Slough (south), which

joins the Boundary Drain near the center of the Refuge. However, use of this water has been

limited because of unacceptable selenium concentrations (Reclamation, 1992).

The Refuge has a water contract with the San Luis Canal Company for 15 cfs of water

spilled to Salt Slough, which is estimated to provide approximately 4,000 acre-feet per year.

Water rights amounting to 15,130 acre-feet per year on Salt Slough downstream of the

confluence with Mud Slough (south) are also subject to acceptable selenium concentrations

and diversions by others with senior rights (Reclamation, 1992).

Historically, the refuge used five groundwater wells. Well cave-ins and poor water quality

caused the groundwater system to be largely abandoned (Reclamation, 1989). Three wells

are still operable, but are intended for emergency use during a drought rather than as a

regular water source.
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

2-10 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC

Existing Water Supplies

Existing water supplies consist of the pre-CVPIA water supplies described above and water

supplies provided for in the CVPIA. Since passage of the CVPIA, Level 2 water supplies

have been met through a combination of pre-CVPIA water supplies and CVP water. The

refuge’s Level 4 increment has been met by Reclamation through the Water Acquisition

Program (discussed below). The Level 2 water supply is 16,670 acre-feet and the full Level 4

amount is 25,000 acre-feet.

Recent Water Acquisitions

Reclamation temporarily acquired 20,000 acre-feet of water from the San Joaquin River

Exchange Contractors Water Authority during the period from April 1999 to February 2000.

This water was delivered to San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas to partially meet the

1999/2000 Level 4 water requirements. Some of this acquired water was used to meet Los

Banos WA’s 1999/2000 Level 4 increment of 5,836 acre-feet (Reclamation, 1999).

Reclamation also temporarily acquired 10,228 acre-feet of water from Semitropic Water

Storage District during 1999/2000. This water was also used to meet the Level 4 incremental

needs of Kern NWR. Up to 3,478 acre-feet of this water was used to meet Level 2 water

needs at Kern NWR. By using this water to contribute to meeting Level 2 water

requirements, an in-kind amount of CVP water was “backed up” in San Luis Reservoir. This

stored water was used to meet Level 4 incremental requirements at San Joaquin Valley

wetland areas.

2.2.2 Volta Wildlife Area

Volta WA is leased from Reclamation and has been managed by CDFG since 1952. The

refuge consists of approximately 3,000 acres located 6 miles northwest of Los Banos, and is

in the Grassland RCD. The WA supports permanent and seasonal wetlands for waterfowl

and resident wildlife. Irrigated pasture and crops are grown to provide food for migratory

waterfowl, as well as nesting cover.

Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

Volta WA has an agreement with Reclamation for 13,000 acre-feet of firm CVP water

(Reclamation, 1992). CVP water is delivered to Volta WA from the San Luis Reservoir and

O’Neill Forebay via the Delta-Mendota Canal or the Volta Wasteway (Reclamation, 1989).

The refuge also often obtained water through special contracts to supplement the firm CVP

supply. Groundwater has not been used on the refuge (Reclamation, 1989).

Existing Water Supplies

Existing water supplies consist of 13,000 acre-feet of firm CVP water provided through the

agreement with Reclamation. This supply is adequate to meet Level 2 water supplies for the

refuge. In addition, in the 1999/2000 water service year, Volta WA was eligible to receive

70 percent of the Level 4 increment which amounts to 4,200 acre-feet. Volta WA’s agreement

for 13,000 acre-feet fulfilled both the refuge’s Level 2 water supply (10,000 acre-feet) and much

of the Level 4 increment. The Full Level 4 water supply for Volta WA is 16,000 acre-feet.
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC 2-11

Recent Water Acquisitions

No acquired water has been used at Volta WA.

2.2.3 North Grasslands WA–China Island Unit

The China Island Unit, along with the Salt Slough Unit, was a part of the initial purchase of

new lands to implement the Action Plan. The State of California acquired both of these units

in 1990 and managed them collectively as the North Grasslands WA. The 3,315-acre China

Island Unit borders the San Joaquin River southwest of the confluence with the Merced

River. The unit consists mainly of irrigated pasture and natural grasslands (Reclamation and

CDFG, 1995), but it also contains Valley oak woodland/riparian habitat that provides

important habitat for a variety of wildlife. The pastures provide habitat for geese, including

the federally listed Aleutian Canada goose, and sandhill cranes (Reclamation, et al., 1995).

Before its acquisition, the unit was managed as a cattle ranch. Restoration and enhancement

actions have focused on increasing seasonal wetlands, permanent and semi-permanent

wetlands, and riparian habitat on the unit (Reclamation and CDFG, 1995).

Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

The China Island Unit does not have any water rights even though the San Joaquin River

and Mud Slough North flow through or adjacent to the unit. Before acquisition of the

property, water to irrigate pasture was derived from five groundwater wells (Reclamation,

et al., 1989).

Existing Water Supplies

Existing water supplies consist of groundwater and water supplies provided for through

CVPIA. With passage of the CVPIA, Level 2 water supplies from CVP yield have been

delivered to the unit. The unit has not accepted delivery of the Level 4 increment because

conveyance facilities have not been developed to deliver the water to the unit and to use it

efficiently on the unit. The Level 2 water supply is 6,967 acre-feet and the full Level 4

amount is 10,450 acre-feet.

Groundwater has continued to be an important water supply for the China Island Unit,

particularly in drought years. Groundwater has been used to meet a small portion of the

water needed for optimum management of the unit. However, the current well system

cannot fulfill the water needs for full restoration of the China Island unit, nor is it desirable

to increase groundwater pumping because of potential groundwater overdrafting and poor

water quality (CDFG, 1998).

Recent Water Acquisitions

CDFG is in the process of developing internal conveyance facilities to be able to fully use

Level 4 water supplies. As a consequence, no acquired water has been used to date on the

unit.

2.2.4 North Grasslands WA–Salt Slough Unit

The 2,241-acre Salt Slough Unit is located on the west side of Salt Slough, adjacent to San

Luis NWR and Los Banos WA. As described for the China Island Unit, the Salt Slough Unit

was one of the initial lands purchased in implementing the San Joaquin Basin Action
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

2-12 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC

Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan. CDFG manages the unit as part of the North Grasslands

WA, along with the China Island Unit.

Before its acquisition, the unit consisted mainly of irrigated pasture and was managed as a

cattle ranch (Reclamation and CDFG, 1995). The pasture provides important late-winter and

early-spring habitat for geese, including the federally listed Aleutian Canada goose. The

unit also contains riparian habitat and some seasonal wetlands. CDFG has developed plans

to restore and enhance seasonal, permanent, and semi-permanent wetlands on the unit

(Reclamation and CDFG, 1995; CDFG, 1998).

Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

The Salt Slough unit has an appropriative water right of 8,891 acre-feet from Salt Slough.

Most of the water in Salt Slough originates from operational spills and return flow from the

Grassland WD, San Luis Canal Company, and Central California Irrigation District. In the

San Joaquin Valley, agricultural return flows typically have contained selenium

concentrations above the two parts per billion objective deemed safe for wetland and

wildlife management. Given the high levels of selenium water from Salt Slough could rarely

be used for wetland management.

Existing Water Supplies

Existing water supplies consist of the appropriative water right on Salt Slough, one

groundwater well, and CVP water provided by the CVPIA. The unit’s water requirements

are currently being met primarily by CVP water delivered by Grassland WD. Habitat

restoration on the unit has been completed and the unit has been receiving Level 2 water

supplies and the year-specific Level 4 increment. The Level 2 water supply is 6,680 acre-feet

and the full Level 4 amount is 10,020 acre-feet.

Groundwater and surface water from Salt Slough are used periodically to supplement the

unit’s water needs. Use of water from Salt Slough has been limited because of unacceptable

water quality. Although water quality in Salt Slough has improved with the reopening of

the San Luis Drain in 1996, water quality must still be monitored to determine usability

(CDFG, 1998).

Recent Water Acquisitions

Reclamation temporarily acquired 20,000 acre-feet of water from the San Joaquin River

Exchange Contractors Water Authority during the period April 1999 to February 2000. This

water was delivered to San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas to partially meet the

1999/2000 Level 4 water requirements. Some of this acquired water was used to meet Salt

Slough Unit’s 1999/2000 Level 4 increment of 2,335 acre-feet (Reclamation, 1999).

Reclamation also temporarily acquired 10,228 acre-feet of water from Semitropic Water

Storage District during 1999/2000. This water was used to meet the Level 4 incremental

needs of Kern NWR. Up to 3,478 acre-feet of this water was also used to meet Level 2 water

needs at Kern NWR. By using some of the acquired water to meet Level 2 water

requirements, an in kind amount of CVP water was “backed up” in San Luis Reservoir. This

stored water was used to meet Level 4 incremental requirements at San Joaquin Valley

wetland areas.
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC 2-13

2.2.5 Mendota Wildlife Area

Mendota WA is located in western Fresno County, approximately 4 miles southeast of the

town of Mendota. The 12,425-acre WA was purchased by the California State Wildlife

Conservation Board between 1954 and 1966 and is managed by CDFG. Throughout its

recent history the WA has been managed primarily to provide seasonal wetland habitat

(CDFG, 1994). Water is used to irrigate natural food crops, such as swamp timothy, alkali

bulrush, smartweed, and millet, and to flood seasonal and semipermanent wetlands. Small

grains, corn, and pasture are also irrigated in the upland areas (Reclamation and CDFG,

1999).

Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

Fresno Slough is a natural drainage that bisects Mendota WA. The slough receives water

from Mendota Pool, located a few miles northwest of the WA. Gates and pumps divert

water from the slough to Mendota WA (Reclamation and CDFG 1999). Water from Mendota

Pool has been the refuge’s main water supply.

Mendota WA has existing contracts with Reclamation for a total of 29,650 acre-feet of water.

The contract with Reclamation includes 8,143 acre-feet of Section 2 water, 12,000 acre-feet of

Section 6 water, 4,000 acre-feet of mitigation water and 1,320 acre-feet of firm water rights.

Section 2 water is provided free of charge from the Mendota Pool. No more than 5,800 acrefeet of the Section 2 water can be delivered after June 30 of each year because of the limited

capacity of conveyance facilities. Section 6 water must be purchased by the State of

California and is available from September 1 through November 30. The 4,000 acre-feet of

mitigation water is available from March 15 through May 31 (Reclamation and CDFG, 1999).

In addition, the refuge holds 3,120 acre-feet of supplemental water rights, but that water is

not always available (Reclamation, 1989).

Although the refuge has a contract with Reclamation for 29,650 acre-feet, the refuge only

received an average of 18,500 acre-feet per year (Reclamation, 1989). The difference between

the amount of water currently contracted and the amount actually delivered is related to the

following (Reclamation and CDFG, 1999):

• Dewatering of Mendota Pool for safety of dams inspections and dam and pool

maintenance during the winter

• Periodic dewatering of canals and ponds on Mendota WA to control cattails

• Maintenance and construction of ditches and levees on the WA that require periodic

dewatering of canals

• Occurrence of drought when most water supplies are reduced

Dewatering Mendota Pool effectively terminates water deliveries to Mendota WA. This

interruption in the water supply reduced waterfowl habitat in two ways. First, to

compensate for the loss of water supply, fields on Mendota WA had to be flooded deeper

than is desirable to ensure that adequate water remained throughout the waterfowl

hunting/winter season. Second, the interruption of water supply allowed ponds to dry up,

eliminating waterfowl habitat (Reclamation and CDFG, 1999). Thus, although the refuge has

a substantial amount of guaranteed water, the water has not always been available or may
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

2-14 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC

not have been available at the time of year when it was needed for optimum habitat

management.

Existing Water Supplies

The Level 2 water supply for Mendota WA is 18,500 acre-feet and the full Level 4 amount is

29,650 acre-feet. Existing water supplies consist of Mendota WA’s existing contracts with

Reclamation for 29,650 acre-feet of CVP water. While this water supply is adequate to meet

Level 2 water supplies and the Level 4 increment, the availability of this water has been

subject to the same constraints as described above. Modifications to Mendota Dam to allow

year-round delivery of water to Mendota WA are currently being developed and evaluated

(Reclamation and CDFG, 1999). When completed, these modifications will alleviate

problems in water availability at Mendota WA from operation and maintenance activities of

Mendota Dam.

Recent Water Acquisitions

Because Mendota WA’s existing contracts with Reclamation fulfill Level 2 water supplies,

and the Level 4 increment, no acquired water has been used on the refuge.

2.3 Grassland Resource Conservation District

The Grassland RCD contains approximately 75,000 acres and comprises private hunting

clubs and other privately owned wetland areas, as well as all or portions of several state and

federal refuges (such as the Kesterson Unit, Volta WA, Los Banos WA, Freitas Unit, Salt

Slough Unit, Blue Goose Unit, and Gadwall Unit). The area is the largest contiguous block of

wetlands remaining in the Central Valley and is a major wintering ground for migratory

waterfowl and shorebirds of the Pacific Flyway. Up to 30 percent of the Central Valley

wintering population of ducks use this area. The Service ranks the habitat provided by the

Grassland RCD as the most important complex of wetlands in the San Joaquin Valley.

Wetlands of the Grassland RCD are a component of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird

Reserve Network and is now internationally recognized for its importance to shorebirds

(Reclamation, 1992).

Lands within the Grassland RCD are primarily managed for waterfowl habitat. The

Grassland WD has a Water Management Plan that guides water use on nearly all lands

within the Grassland RCD. In addition, the management objectives of the Grassland RCD

include an active program to encourage natural food plant production (such as swamp

timothy, smartweed, and wildlife millet) and habitat protection. Land uses include

seasonally flooded wetlands, moist soil impoundments, permanent wetland, irrigated

pasture, and croplands.

The Grassland RCD contains most of the 51,530 acre Grassland WD. The Grassland WD is a

legal entity that was established to receive and distribute CVP water. The Grassland WD

delivers CVP water to the wetland areas within its boundaries. The Grassland WD contains

approximately 165 separate ownerships, most of which are hunting or duck clubs. Perpetual

easements have been purchased by the Service to help preserve wetland-dependent

migratory bird habitat on approximately 31,000 acres serviced by the Grassland WD. These
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC 2-15

easements authorize the Service to restrict land uses that would diminish wetland habitat

values.

2.3.1 Pre-CVPIA Water Supplies

Lands serviced by GWD were originally part of the Miller and Lux estate. Beginning in

1926, the Miller and Lux Corporation began selling what amounted to more than

98,000 acres to ranchers and wildlife enthusiasts. Water supplies at that time were obtained

directly from the San Joaquin River, but after Friant Dam was constructed upstream, most

river water supplies were replaced with CVP water conveyed by the Delta-Mendota Canal.

In 1953, as a final settlement of water right claims by area interests, 50,000 acre-feet of CVP

water from the Delta-Mendota Canal was made available on a permanent basis for wildlife

use. The Grassland WD was formed at this time to provide a legal entity to contract for the

CVP water and to assume responsibility for the distribution of water and maintenance of

facilities within the district. The contract limits delivery of this water to between September

15 and November 30 (Reclamation, 1989 and 1992).

Before passage of the CVPIA, the fresh water supply to the Grassland WD from Reclamation

was limited and unreliable. The September 1972 “Mendota-Gustine Study” prepared by the

USDA Soil Conservation Service, proposed using drainwater for WAs. Until 1985, the

Grassland WD used a mixture of CVP fresh water and agricultural return flows (Stoddard &

Associates, 1998). Lands within the Grassland RCD became largely dependent on using

return flows. As a result, return flows constituted 50 to 70 percent of the 125,000 to

150,000 acre-feet of historical annual water supply (Reclamation, 1992). However, this

drainwater was found to have elevated concentrations of selenium that could have toxic

effects on waterfowl. In 1985, the Grassland WD ceased using agricultural return flows that

contained drainage water (Stodddard & Associates, 1998). Most of the drainwater is

considered contaminated and is no longer used on wetland habitat. As a result, the

Grassland RCD could no longer meet its objective of flooding all wetlands in the fall.

Attainment of all other management objectives, such as maintaining permanent wetlands,

was not possible (Reclamation, 1992).

In addition to CVP water, the Grassland WD has a water right agreement with Reclamation

that recognizes the right of the Grassland WD to flows in Los Banos Creek and San Luis

Creek. The agreement provides 3,500 acre-feet of water except in critically dry years, in

which the Grassland WD may only divert up to 1,750 acre-feet. The agreement is considered

a water rights settlement contract. This water is currently delivered to the Kesterson Unit.

Garzas and Los Banos creeks are intermittent streams that flow through the Grassland RCD.

Flow in these streams is substantial only after heavy storms. Natural flow occurs mainly in

winter, after fall flooding. In addition, the area available to receive the flow is only about

20 percent of the Grassland RCD. These factors make this water supply of limited value in

meeting water requirements in the Grassland RCD (Stoddard & Associates, 1998).

Groundwater pumping facilities exist on approximately 15 of the 165 hunting clubs in

GWD. High pumping costs and the generally poor quality of shallow groundwater preclude

use of these wells as more than a supplemental supply (Reclamation, 1992).

With the limited and unreliable pre-CVPIA water supplies, semi-permanent and permanent

wetland habitat was scarce in areas serviced by the Grassland WD. In addition, wetland
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

2-16 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC

managers had to employ management techniques to conserve water, but these techniques

were deleterious to waterfowl. Wetland managers previously “stockpiled” water to depths

of several feet early in the season to ensure that water was available throughout the winter

for waterfowl. This management strategy resulted in wetland areas being flooded deeper

than optimal for waterfowl feeding (which is 1 foot or less). In addition, disease outbreaks,

especially avian botulism and cholera, were more prevalent with this management strategy

(Stoddard & Associates, 1998).

2.3.2 Existing Water Supplies

The two sources of surface water supply in the Grassland RCD are CVP water delivered

pursuant to the 1954 Act and provided for under the CVPIA, and local runoff from seasonal

creeks passing through the Grassland RCD. The majority of agricultural drainage water

from upstream agricultural activities is diverted around the Grassland RCD and cannot be

used for wetland management because of its poor quality (Stoddard & Associates, 1998)

Since passage of the CVPIA, Level 2 water supplies and an increasing percentage of the

Level 4 increment have been available to wetland areas in the Grassland RCD. The Level 2

water supply for Grassland RCD is 125,000 acre-feet and the full Level 4 amount is

180,000 acre-feet. The existing CVP contract for 50,000 acre-feet, water rights on Garzas

Creek, and a CVP contract for substitute water for Los Banos Creek and San Luis Creek

natural flows that were no longer available to the Grassland WD as a result of the

construction of dams and storage of water in Los Banos Creek Detention Reservoir and the

San Luis Reservoir, have been used to meet a portion of Level 2 water supplies. Delivery of

CVP water provided for by the CVPIA did not actually start until the 1993/1994 water year.

Other sources of water prior to this water year included water provided on a temporary

basis as mitigation for Kesterson Reservoir, as well as operational spills (Stoddard &

Associates, 1998).

The increased amount and reliability of water supplies provided under the CVPIA has

supported substantial improvements in wetland habitats in the Grassland RCD and has

allowed wetland managers to manage wetlands not only for wintering waterfowl, but to

manage wetlands to meet the needs of a diversity of wetland-dependent wildlife. The most

apparent accomplishments of using CVPIA water to manage Grassland RCD wetlands have

been improvement in wetland habitat quality, increase in summer water acreage, and

irrigation for moist-soil plants. The year-round availability of high-quality water has also

allowed for an earlier flooding schedule of wetlands that provides habitat for early arriving

migratory birds, as well as for resident wildlife (Stoddard & Associates, 1998).

2.3.3 Recent Water Acquisitions

Reclamation temporarily acquired 20,000 acre-feet of water from the San Joaquin River

Exchange Contractors Water Authority during the period from April 1999 to February 2000.

This water was delivered to San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas to partially meet the

1999/2000 Level 4 water requirements. Some of this acquired water was used to meet the

Grassland RCD’s 1999/2000 Level 4 increment of 38,500 acre-feet (Reclamation, 1999).

Reclamation also temporarily acquired 10,228 acre-feet of water from Semitropic Water

Storage District during 1999/2000. This water was used to meet the Level 4 incremental
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180015 SJ-002.DOC 2-17

needs of Kern NWR. Up to 3,478 acre-feet of this water was used to meet Level 2 water

needs at Kern NWR. By using this water to contribute to meeting Level 2 water

requirements, an in-kind amount of CVP water was “backed up” in San Luis Reservoir. This

stored water was used to meet Level 4 incremental requirements at San Joaquin Valley

wetland areas.
Section 3: Summary of Previous

Environmental Documentation
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-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 given the benefits received by the project.

The two documents completed for the San Joaquin River Basin refuges include the

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

of Refuge Water Supply EA/IS.

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

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

documents, not to the alternatives described in the remaining sections 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), which included Title XXXIV, the CVPIA.

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 NEPA by Reclamation and the

Service.

The analysis in the PEIS was intended to disclose the probable regionwide effects of

implementing the CVPIA and to 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 to limit the need to reevaluate the regionwide

and cumulative impacts of the CVPIA. In some cases, worst-case assumptions were used to
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-2 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC

maximize the utility of the analysis for tiering within the scope of the impacts analyzed in

the PEIS.

As the project-specific actions are considered, the lead agencies must determine whether 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 document can use the PEIS by reference to

avoid duplication and to 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 in 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 more than 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 to 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 several issue areas (discussed below) that

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

of the PEIS alternatives.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC 3-3

Water and Power Facilities and Operations

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

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

Alternative included provisions in the Long-Term CVP Operations Criteria and Plan (CVPOCAP), Reclamation’s Mid-Pacific Region guidelines, the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) biological opinion for winter-run chinook salmon, the Service’s biological opinion

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

340,000 acre-feet per year, and the 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 as a result of 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 before 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, which 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 and

endangered species, 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, nor would it 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 on 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.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-4 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC

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

be equal to the maximum amount diverted of CVP water during the period from 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)

• Construct Shasta temperature control device - (same as No Action Alternative)
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC 3-5

• 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)

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 Irrigation District

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 RCD 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 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC

• 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 reoperation 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.

− 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 CVP

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

funding limits.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC 3-7

− 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 CVP water to meet portions of the Bay-Delta

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.

• 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.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-8 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC

− 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 per 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.

3.2.4 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 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 2001/010180016 SJ-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

Water rights.

30,000 3,333 33,333

Gray Lodge WA 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 RCD 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 2001/010180016 SJ-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 NWR 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 Unit Level 2: CVP contract 6,967 1,229 8,196

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

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

Grasslands RCD 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

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 5.7 million 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 about 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 because 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 because of the
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC 3-11

TABLE 3-4

Summary of CVPIA PEIS Analysis

Issue Area Impacts and Benefits

acquisition of water to improve Delta outflows. 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, but 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 Tuolumne, Merced, and San Joaquin rivers in Alternatives 2,

3, and 4 and the Preferred Alternative. Instream flows would increase in 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 acre-feet 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 will decline by 1 to 3 percent in all regions under Alternatives 1

and 2 and the Preferred Alternative, 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. Groundwater levels would decline by 1 to 5 percent in all

regions under Alternatives 3 and 4, given reduced recharge from fallowed lands.

Subsidence. Under the No Action Alternative, subsidence would continue to increase

in the Sacramento Valley near Davis-Zamora and in the 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 approximately 5 percent under all alternatives as a

result of changes in releases from CVP reservoirs and reduced reservoir elevations in

summer months 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.

CVP Project Use. Under the No Action Alternative, average CVP Project Use would

be 1,425 gigawatts-hour per year. CVP Project Use would be reduced by

approximately 10 percent under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, and the Preferred Alternative,

given the 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 because of

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
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-12 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC

TABLE 3-4

Summary of CVPIA PEIS Analysis

Issue Area Impacts and Benefits

would occur under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, and the Preferred Alternative, as a result 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 as a result of

stream flow improvements. Additional improvement would occur under Alternatives 2,

3, and 4, and the Preferred Alternative as a result of the 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 because of 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 because of the use of acquired water for

increased Delta outflow.

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 from

fallowing of 0.3 to 3 percent of irrigated acres in the Central Valley under the

alternatives, including the 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 as a result of 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 as a result of Level 4 water

supplies.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC 3-13

TABLE 3-4

Summary of CVPIA PEIS Analysis

Issue Area Impacts and Benefits

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

the higher reservoir levels in Folsom Lake and Lake Oroville under all alternatives

including the Preferred Alternative.

Opportunities at Rivers. Given increased flows in the upper Sacramento River and

Stanislaus River in peak season 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, swimming opportunities would increase under all alternatives.

Lower flows in peak season on the American River led to decreased 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 because 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.

Economic Impacts and Benefits. Recreation-related expenditures would increase by

approximately 3 percent at reservoirs and rivers under all alternatives. Recreationrelated expenditures at refuges would increase approximately 25 percent under

Alternative 1 as a result of Level 2 water supplies, and 70 percent under Alternatives 2,

3, and 4 and the Preferred Alternative as a result of Level 4 water supplies.

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 as a result 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, coned

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 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. Additional agricultural lands would be fallowed under Alternatives 2, 3,

and 4, and the Preferred Alternative, because 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
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-14 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC

TABLE 3-4

Summary of CVPIA PEIS Analysis

Issue Area Impacts and Benefits

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, 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. 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 as a result

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 whether

the impacts and benefits would occur as a result of a specific CVPIA provision or goal. The

impacts and benefits of a PEIS alternative are the result of the overall implementation of

CVPIA, compared to conditions without implementation of CVPIA in the No Action

Alternative.

The impacts and benefits presented below for Alternative 1 include changes as a result of

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 resulting from

implementation of Level 4 water supplies and acquisition of water from non-CVP water

service contractors to improve fisheries. Impacts and benefits for Alternatives 3 and 4

primarily include changes from acquisition and use of water from non-CVP water service

contractors to improve fisheries at higher levels than under Alternative 2.

3.2.5 Impacts and Benefits of Level 2 and Level 4 Refuge Water Supplies

Given the integrated nature of the PEIS alternatives, it is not possible to determine whether

the impacts and benefits would occur from a specific CVPIA provision or goal. The impacts

and benefits of a PEIS alternative are the results of the overall implementation of CVPIA,

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 to Surface 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 acre-feet per year to 568,000 acre-feet per year for Level 2

under all alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. This would result in a decrease in

CVP water deliveries, but the specific amount is difficult to determine given 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
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC 3-15

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 from 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 per 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 from

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 during dry periods. The

refuge water supplies were reduced by up to 25 percent during 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 through 1990, the 40-30-

30 Index would identify dry-year hydrologic conditions in one more year than the Shasta

Index.

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 during drier periods.

Impacts CVP water service contractors under the Preferred Alternative would be higher

than Revised Alternative 1 because of 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 by up to 13 percent during dry periods. The refuge water

supplies were reduced by up to 25 percent during 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 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. 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 as a result of return flows from the sellers during the
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-16 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC

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 from 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 to Surface Water Quality

The primary concern about surface water quality related to refuge water supplies is based

on 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 through August) and non-irrigation (September through 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 non-irrigation 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.

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, compared to 2 percent of the years under the No Action

Alternative. This increased frequency of violations is primarily a result of reduced San

Joaquin River flows of up to 3 to 10 percent in March, depending on 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 to Groundwater

Level 2 water supplies under all alternatives, including the 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
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC 3-17

associated with Level 2 water supplies is difficult to determine, given 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 on 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 to CVP Power Resources

Level 2 water supplies under all alternatives, including the 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 from Level 2 water supplies is

difficult to determine, given 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 and Benefits to Fisheries Resources

Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies under all alternatives, including the Preferred

Alternative, would result in increased instream flow patterns in the Sacramento and Merced

rivers in the 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 before 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 wetlanddependent 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
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-18 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC

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:

• Earlier fall follow-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
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC 3-19

• 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.

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
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-20 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC

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. The Service

conducted 5 years of detailed research, in cooperation with state and federal landowners,

which 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

approximately one-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 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
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC 3-21

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

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 due to 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 the result of

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.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-22 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC

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 the 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 the No

Action Alternative to $193,000/year with Level 4 water supplies. No change would occur

under Level 2 water supplies.

Impacts to 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 to 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, given 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

SWP contractors. Gross revenues for the agricultural sector would increase due to sales of

water.

Impacts to 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.

3.2.6 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 along with their

associated mitigation measures:
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC 3-23

• 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 from increased summer water temperatures in the American River

could be mitigated by temperature-control devices on Folsom Dam.

• More potential for mosquito abundance from increased wetlands, including refuge

wetlands, could be mitigated by increased abatement activities.

• Reductions in swimming opportunities in the American River 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 constructing or extending 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 from 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 from Restoration Fund charges

• Adverse impacts to fish from increased water temperatures in some streams

• Adverse impacts to fish from 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.

3.2.7 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 decisionmaker may determine that additional analysis

is needed to reach a decision on how to implement any of 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 in 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).
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-24 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC

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 the San Joaquin

River Basin

3.3.1 Overview of the NEPA/CEQA Documentation for Conveyance of Refuge

Water Supplies for the San Joaquin River Basin

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 acted as the state lead agency for CEQA. The purpose of this

document was to evaluate the environmental impacts of implementing alternative means of

conveying water supplies to the San Luis NWR Complex; the Los Banos, Volta, and

Mendota WAs; and Grasslands RCD.

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 Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply for San Joaquin Basin Action Plan and North

Grasslands Area EA/IS was completed in December 1997 and focused on the environmental

compliance phase of the project and addressed anticipated effects of constructing and/or

improving existing conveyance facilities in the project area. Reclamation, in cooperation

with the Service, CDFG, and local water districts, has been working in recent years to

develop conveyance facilities to deliver those quantities of water required for full habitat

development.

The Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply for Mendota WA EA/IS was completed in

February 1998 and focused on the environmental compliance phase of the project and

addressed anticipated effects of constructing and/or improving existing conveyance

facilities for Mendota WA. Reclamation, in cooperation with the Service and CDFG, is in the

process of providing and/or improving existing conveyance facilities to deliver those

quantities of water required for full habitat development.

The purposes of the conveyance projects are to:
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC 3-25

• 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 Projects was a result of capacity

constraints and/or maintenance requirements in existing delivery systems. Water supplies

were historically conveyed on an as-available basis, which was not consistent with refuge

needs. Conveyance facilities were not designed to convey peak daily refuge requirements in

addition to existing customer demands or were 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.

3.3.2 Current Conveyance Facilities

Water for the Merced Unit is delivered from Deadman Creek and the Eastside Bypass, and

from the Merced River through the Merced Irrigation District facilities. Improvements to

conveyance facilities for delivery of water to the Merced Unit were completed in 1995/96.

Modifications to these conveyance facilities to deliver water to the East Bear Creek Unit are

currently being evaluated.

The Kesterson, Salt Slough, and Freitas Units receive CVP water through the Grassland WD

canals. The San Luis Unit and the Los Banos WA receive CVP water through San Luis Canal

Company and Central California Irrigation District canals. The West Bear Creek Unit

receives CVP water via San Luis Canal Company canals. Water is delivered to Volta WA

from San Luis Reservoir or O’Neill Forebay via the Delta-Mendota Canal or the Volta

Wasteway. The Grassland RCD, China Island Unit, and Salt Slough Unit receive CVP water

through Grassland WD and from the Delta-Mendota Canal. These facilities do not have

adequate capacity to provide Level 4 water supplies. No additional conveyance facilities are

needed to deliver water to the Freitas Unit.

Mendota WA receives water from the Mendota Pool via Fresno Slough. The water supply is

interrupted periodically due to dewatering of Mendota Pool for safety of dams inspection at

Mendota Dam, Mendota Pool and canal maintenance, and maintenance of ditches and

levees within the refuge. Therefore, full water supplies cannot be delivered to the refuge.

3.3.3 Conveyance for Refuge Water Supply Alternatives for Kesterson and San

Luis Units, Los Banos and Volta WAs, Grassland RCD, China Island Unit,

Freitas Unit, West Bear Creek Unit, and Salt Slough Unit

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.

Two alternatives were considered for this refuge complex. The Dependent System

Alternative would use agricultural water district facilities. The China Island Unit would be

serviced from the Central California Irrigation District Main Canal through the new

Newman Wasteway Canal and J Lateral. Portions of the Grassland RCD would be served

from the Main Canal through a new pipeline along Cottonwood Road. Volta WA and

portions of Grassland RCD would be served from the Delta-Mendota Canal via the San Luis
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-26 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC

Wasteway. Mosquito Ditch and Spillway Ditch would need to be improved by raising canal

embankments. A portion of the Santa Fe canal would be improved through silt removal and

channel modification. New turnouts from the Delta Mendota Canal and the Orleans Canal,

enlargement of O’Banion Bypass and the Main Canal, and capacity improvements to the San

Luis Canal would be required for a portion of Grassland RCD, Kesterson Unit, Los Banos

WA, Freitas Unit, and Salt Slough Unit. The San Luis Canal Company would continue to

serve Los Banos WA and San Luis Unit. The West Bear Creek Unit would be served by the

Island C Extension. This alternative would require negotiations with Central California

Irrigation District, San Luis Canal Company, and Grassland WD.

The second alternative, the Independent System Alternative, would provide year-round

supplies directly from the Delta-Mendota Canal through an independent system to meet

peak demands. A new turnout from the Delta Mendota Canal would divert CVP water to

the Newman Wasteway Canal and the J Lateral. A second new turnout would divert water

to a new Cambria Canal and third new turnout would divert water to the Charleston Lateral

to serve the southern portion of the refuges. The Helm Canal and San Luis Canal would be

enlarged and extended. Smaller laterals (Southside Ditch, Wolfsen Canal, and Northside

Canal) would be constructed to serve the Los Banos WA and San Luis Unit. This alternative

would require negotiations with Grassland WD.

The Dependent System Alternative was preferred because of less disruption to the soil,

biological, and cultural resources than the Independent System Alternative. However, the

Dependent Alternative provides less flexibility due to the interaction with irrigation districts

that operate portions of the canals as compared to the Independent System Alternative.

Summary of Analyses of Alternatives

Impacts identified by the EA/IS were primarily related to soil, water, biological, and

cultural resources impacts. Mitigation measures were also identified to reduce the impacts

to a level of less than significant. The results of the impact analysis are summarized below.

Soils

Construction could temporarily impact agricultural production, cause wind erosion from

disturbed soils, increase the potential for weed growth in disturbed soils, and increase the

potential for exposure to toxic materials that may be present in the soil mantle. These

impacts would be mitigated by watering disturbed areas to reduce soil blowing; and by

minimizing the extent of disturbed soils by minimizing new facilities construction to reduce

the potential for exposure of weedy species seeds and soils that may contain toxic materials

that could be exposed to runoff.

Water Resources

Evaluation of the water resource impacts was focused on impacts due to refuge operations,

as described in Section 4 of this report. No other impacts were identified.

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.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC 3-27

• 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 3 years following

construction.

Cultural Resources

Specific field surveys would be completed before construction along specific routes. If

resources are discovered, a certified archeologist would develop a plan to protect

appropriate resources, in accordance with the requirements of the State Historic

Preservation Officer, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act.

No long-term impacts were identified in the EA/IS. The benefits of implementing the

conveyance facilities were similar to those described in the CVPIA PEIS for providing Level

4 water supplies to the refuges.

3.3.4 Conveyance for Refuge Water Supply Alternatives for Mendota WA

The No Action Alternative would involve continued use of existing conveyance systems

that would limit refuge water supplies to less than Level 2. The dam must be dewatered

frequently for dam inspection and repairs.

Two alternatives were considered for the Mendota WA. The first alternative, Facilities

Reoperation, would modify operation of Mendota Dam and Pool to reduce the maintenance

period from Thanksgiving to January 15 to a period between Thanksgiving and December

15. No new facilities would be required. High seepage from the dam would continue to

occur which results in losses for the Central California Irrigation District. This alternative

could lead to more frequent dam inspections and reduced operations over the long-term

period.

The second alternative, Dam Replacement, would involve replacing the dam with a facility

that would eliminate seepage problems and increase the capacity of the Mendota Pool from

3,000 acre-feet to 3,013 acre-feet. The new dam would include fish passage facilities.

The Dam Replacement Alternative was preferred because it provided the most flexibility

and benefits to habitat on the refuge. In addition, it improved operation of Mendota Dam

and Pool.

Summary of Analyses of Alternatives

Impacts identified by the EA/IS were primarily related to soil, water resources, biological

resources, and cultural resources impacts. Mitigation measures were also identified to
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

3-28 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC

reduce the impacts to a level of less than significant. The results of the impact analysis are

summarized below.

Soils

Construction could temporarily cause wind erosion from disturbed soils. These impacts

would be mitigated by watering disturbed areas to reduce soil blowing. In addition, spill

prevention plans and contingency plans would be developed by the construction contractor.

Water Resources

Evaluation of the water resources impacts focused on impacts resulting from refuge

operations, as described in Section 4 of this report. No other impacts were identified.

Biological Resources

Impacts would continue to the refuge habitat under the Facilities Operation Alternative.

These impacts would be eliminated under the Dam Replacement Alternative:

• Approximately 2.77 acres of riparian woodland and 1.20 acres of upland habitat would

be acquired near the new dam site to replace habitat loss under the Dam Replacement

Alternative.

• The new dam, under the Dam Replacement Alternative, would be retrofitted with a fish

passageway that would be designed to minimize predation.

• 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.

Cultural Resources

Specific field surveys would be completed prior to construction along specific routes. If

resources are discovered, a certified archeologist would develop a plan to protect

appropriate resources, in accordance with the requirements of the State Historic

Preservation Officer, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act.

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.
SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180016 SJ-003.DOC 3-29

3.3.5 Implementation of Conveyance Facilities for Refuge Water Supplies

The EA/IS documents for Conveyance of Refuge Water Supplies and the associated Finding

of No Significant Impact were completed by Reclamation. Delivery of Level 2 and Level 4

water supplies could be initiated under CVPIA on a temporary basis when the conveyance

facilities are completed. Long-term deliveries could be initiated following adoption of the

long-term water supply agreements which are the subject of this document.

3.4 Management of Wildlife Areas

A Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed in April 1998 for the North Grasslands

WA (China Island Unit, Salt Slough Unit, and Gadwall Unit, which is not discussed in detail

in this document) by CDFG. The project was to enhance, restore, and manage 6,335 acres of

wildlife habitat. This plan included restoration and development of the water conveyance

facilities, restoration of habitat, and administration of the lands for regulated public use. The

only identified adverse impacts were related to potential impacts to Delta button celery, an

endangered species. To mitigate these impacts, water conveyance pipeline routes were

selected to minimize disturbance, pipe material was specified for reinforced concrete to

minimize the extent of disturbed soils, topsoil removed during construction was stockpiled

and replaced, construction was limited to periods following maturity of this annual plant,

water was not distributed to areas with potential Delta button celery habitat during the

summer months, water was distributed to areas with potential Delta button celery habitat

during the winter months only if these areas had been subjected to historical flooding, and a

monitoring program was established to protect Delta button celery during and following

construction. An experimental technique to recolonize Delta button celery will be

attempted.

A Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed in March 1994 for the Mendota WA by

CDFG. The project was to manage 12,425 acres of wildlife habitat. This plan included

restoration of wetland and riparian habitat, production of food and cover crops, and

administration of the lands for regulated public use. The major action considered under this

CEQA document was continued and improved management of refuge lands. The only

identified adverse impacts related to water resources focused on impacts from refuge

operations, as described in Section 4 of this report.

A Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed in October 1988 for the Los Banos WA by

CDFG. The project was to enhance, restore, and manage 2,378 acres of acquired land

wildlife habitat. This plan included enhancement and restoration of habitat and

administration of the lands for regulated public use. The major action considered under this

CEQA document was the conversion of alkali meadows, irrigated pasture, and permanent

pasture to wetlands, marsh, water, and grain crops. The only identified adverse impacts

were related to potential impacts to soils and loss of habitat due to expansion of the parking

lot at the visitor center. To mitigate these impacts, construction disruption would be

minimized to reduce erosion potential. The increased habitat value of the refuge would

provide compensation for the loss of habitat at the parking lot.
Section 4: Description of Alternatives
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-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, which addresses how the Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies would be

used on the refuges to achieve the purposes of the CVPIA. This section also provides a

description of alternatives considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis.

4.2 Water Service Agreement

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, a 25-year water supply contract with

CDFG, and a 25-year water supply contract with Grassland WD to provide Level 2 water

supplies from CVP yield to the refuges of the San Luis NWR Complex, the State WAs, and

private wetlands in the Grassland RCD, 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 25-year water supply agreements/contracts with the Service, CDFG, and

Grassland WD to provide Level 2 water supplies from CVP yield to the refuges, and that the

long-term water supply 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 longterm water supply 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 on State and Federal Refuges

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 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC

TABLE 4-1

Quantities of Water to Be Provided to the Refuges in the San Joaquin River Basin under the No Action Alternative

Refuge

Level 2

(acre-feet)

Level 2 + Level 4 Increment

(acre-feet)

National Wildlife Refuges

San Luis Unit 13,350 19,000

West Bear Creek Unit 7,207 10,810

Kesterson Unit 3,500 10,000

Freitas Unit 3,527 5,290

Merced Unit 13,500 16,000

East Bear Creek Unit 8,863 13,295

State Wildlife Areas

Los Banos WA 16,670 25,000

Volta WA 10,000 16,000

North Grasslands WA

China Island Unit 6,967 10,450

Salt Slough Unit 6,680 10,020

Mendota WA 18,500 29,650

Grassland Resource Conservation District

Grassland RCD 125,000 180,000

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 ICP’s goals, as

overseen by the Task Force, were to:

• Provide background information on optimum management scenarios for refuge water

supplies

• Identify methods of effective use of wetland water supplies

• Assure that a process is in place for public input that can be applied consistently to assist

in refuge management decisions

• 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. Task Force members generally agreed 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
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC 4-3

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 the

CDFG and the California Waterfowl Association, last revised in 1995)

• 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, the Service, CDFG, and Grassland WD would be

implemented. Therefore, the No Action Alternative also assumes preparation and

implementation of a Water Use Plan for each refuge.

Water Management Planning on Lands Serviced by the Grassland Water District

The Grassland WD has prepared a Water Management Plan (Stoddard & Associates, 1998),

which is a comprehensive water management plan that will increase water-use efficiency on

Grassland RCD lands, while providing optimum wetland habitat as a priority. The Water

Management Plan addresses the following issues:

• The various sources of water available to the Grassland WD and the extent of beneficial

uses of the water

• The specific water needs to provide optimum wetland habitat

• An inventory of ongoing water management activities on lands served by the Grassland

WD, aimed at improving wetland habitat
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-4 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC

• Development of Water Management Units (WMUs) within the Grassland WD for the

purposes of inflow and outflow measurements and quantifying beneficial use in the

WMUs

• Best management practices that can be implemented to improve overall water use

efficiency on Grassland RCD lands served by the Grassland WD

• Schedules, budgets, and expected project results of implementing various best

management practices

If accepted by Reclamation, Grassland WD’s Water Management Plan will fulfill the

requirement to prepare a Water Management Plan specified in the water service contract

between Reclamation and the Grassland WD.

4.2.2 Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, Reclamation would enter into long-term water service

agreements/contracts with the Service, CDFG, and Grassland WD to provide 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 water service agreements would be in effect for 25 years. The major

provisions of the water service agreements are summarized in Table 4-2.

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 Contracts with the California Department of Fish and Game and the Grassland Water

District.a

Article Discussion

Quantities of Water: Refuge water supplies will be provided both from the CVP and from other sources, as

described below. The USFWS, CDFG, and Grassland WD will continue to use nonCVP 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.

San Luis Unit Reclamation will provide the full Level 2 supply of 13,350 acre-feet per year, and will

seek to acquire the Level 4 increment of 5,660 acre-feet per year through voluntary

measures for a total potential water delivery of 19,000 acre-feet per year.

West Bear Creek Unit Reclamation will provide the full Level 2 supply of 7,207 acre-feet per year, and will

seek to acquire the Level 4 increment of 3,603 acre-feet per year through voluntary

measures for a total potential water delivery of 10,810 acre-feet per year.

Kesterson Unit Reclamation will provide the full Level 2 supply of 3,500 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 10,000 acre-feet per year.

Freitas Unit Reclamation will provide the full Level 2 supply of 3,527 acre-feet per year, and will

seek to acquire the Level 4 increment of 1,763 acre-feet per year through voluntary

measures for a total potential water delivery 5,290 acre-feet per year.

Merced Unit Reclamation will supplement deliveries by the Merced Irrigation District to the extent

necessary, by reimbursing the Service for groundwater pumping costs and/or

acquiring additional water supplies up to the full Level 2 and Level 4 amounts.

East Bear Creek Unit Reclamation will provide the Level 2 supply of 8,863 acre-feet per year

(corresponding to the percentage of the East Bear Creek Unit in federal ownership),

and will seek to acquire the Level 4 increment of 4,432 acre-feet per year through

voluntary measures for a total potential water delivery of 13,295 acre-feet per year.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-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 Contracts with the California Department of Fish and Game and the Grassland Water

District.a

Article Discussion

Los Banos WA Reclamation considers 6,200 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 10,470 acre-feet per year, and will seek to acquire the

Level 4 increment of 8,330 acre-feet per year through voluntary measures for a total

potential water delivery of 25,000 acre-feet per year (19,800 acre-feet per year by

Reclamation).

Volta WA Pursuant to its management agreement with CDFG, Reclamation will provide up to

13,000 acre-feet per year to the Volta WA (3,000 acre-feet per year more than Volta’s

Level 2 amount). Reclamation will also seek to acquire the remaining portion of the

Level 4 increment (3,000 acre-feet per year) through voluntary measures for a total

potential water delivery of 16,000 acre-feet per year.

China Island Unit Reclamation will provide the full Level 2 supply of 6,967 acre-feet per year, and will

seek to acquire the Level 4 increment of 3,483 acre-feet per year through voluntary

measures for a total potential water delivery 10,450 acre-feet per year.

Salt Slough Unit Reclamation will provide the full Level 2 supply of 6,680 acre-feet per year, and will

seek to acquire the Level 4 increment of 3,340 acre-feet per year through voluntary

measures for a total potential water delivery 10,020 acre-feet per year.

Mendota WA Reclamation considers CDFG’s existing water contracts for 27,594 acre-feet per year

to be firm, reliable water supplies of suitable quality that provide Level 2 and a portion

of Level 4 demands. Reclamation will seek to provide 2,056 acre-feet per year

through voluntary measures for a total potential water delivery of 29,650 acre-feet per

year.

Grassland RCD Reclamation will provide the full Level 2 supply of 125,000 acre-feet per year, and will

seek to provide 55,000 acre feet per year through voluntary measures for a total

potential water delivery of 180,000 acre-feet per year.

Term of Agreements 25 years

Water Delivery

Schedule

On or before 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 priority or priorities that applied to such water prior

to its acquisition for Level 4 supplies.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-6 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-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 Contracts with the California Department of Fish and Game and the Grassland Water

District.a

Article Discussion

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 in project operations and contractors.

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 Water

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 in project operations and

contractors

The following applies only to the proposed contracts with the California Department of Fish and Game and the

Grassland Water District (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

a

 The provisions applicable to the San Luis NWR Complex are part of a joint MOU with the Service including the Kern

and Pixley NWRs in the Tulare Lake Basin.

Water Management Planning

The Water Service Agreements include the requirement that Water Use Plans be prepared

for the refuges. 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.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC 4-7

4.3 On-Refuge Management

Habitat management on refuges within the San Joaquin River Basin focuses on providing

wetland habitats for migratory waterfowl. Crops and pasture are also grown on some

wildlife areas to provide foraging and loafing habitat for sandhill cranes and geese during

winter. In addition, several of the state and federal refuges support native upland habitat,

which is managed and protected to provide habitat for federally and state-listed species.

The major habitat types occurring on state, federal, and private wetlands in the San Joaquin

Basin are:

• Seasonal wetlands/moist soil impoundments

• Semi-permanent wetlands

• Permanent wetlands

• Cropland, including irrigated pasture, grain, or corn

• Riparian habitat

• Uplands, primarily natural grasslands

Water is actively managed to maintain the first four habitat types. Water management

practices are discussed below for each of the habitat types. These practices would be the

same for the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. 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.

4.3.1 Habitat Management

Seasonal Wetlands

Seasonal wetlands are inundated fields or ponds that are managed primarily to grow seed

and to produce invertebrates for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wetlanddependent wildlife. These wetlands are usually flooded from October through March, and

are dry for the rest of the year, except for summer irrigation. Some seasonal wetlands are

inundated by early August, depending on the habitat required for early-arriving waterfowl,

and some seasonal wetlands may be kept inundated through April to provide habitat for

migrants that do not depart to northern breeding habitats until that time (Reclamation,

et al., 1995).

Primary food production plants in seasonal wetlands are watergrass, smartweed, swamp

timothy, and alkali bulrush. Seasonal wetlands are typically irrigated during the summer to

produce large quantities of these food plants. Water requirements differ among the plant

species. Swamp timothy requires the fewest irrigations and, consequently, the least amount

of water to produce. Watergrass can require several irrigations during the summer and has

the highest water requirements of the moist soil plants (Reclamation, et al., 1995).

Watergrass is considered one of the most productive and important waterfowl foods in

California (Reclamation, et al., 1998).

Production of food plants and management of seasonal wetlands typically have the

following water management pattern (Reclamation, et al., 1995). Drawdown (draining of

winter floodwater and drying of the soils) would occur in the spring. For swamp timothy,

drawdown is usually accomplished from last 2 weeks of March through the first 2 weeks of
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-8 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC

April, while in units managed for watergrass the drawdown is later, occurring from early

April through early May. The soils dry and warm to allow germination of seeds and initial

vegetation growth. Depending on weather patterns and soil composition, a first irrigation is

applied in the last 2 weeks of April through the first 2 weeks in May for swamp timothy, or

from late May to early June for watergrass. A second irrigation to ensure heavy seed

production and vegetative structure is applied during the last 2 weeks of May through the

first 2 weeks of June for swamp timothy, or for watergrass during late June to July.

Depending on soil composition and weather conditions, swamp timothy may not require a

second irrigation (Reclamation, et al., 1998). Swamp timothy is then left dry to let the plants

mature and the seeds cure before fall. Watergrass may receive a third irrigation before fall

(Reclamation, et al., 1998). Fall flooding is initiated in September or October, although some

units may be flooded in August to provide habitat for early-arriving waterfowl.

Water requirements for seasonal wetlands will vary from year to year and among locations,

depending on weather conditions, soil composition, topography of wetland units, and target

food plants. Average water requirements for seasonal wetlands range from approximately

4.1 acre-feet per acre on units managed for swamp timothy to 8.5 acre-feet on units managed

for watergrass (Reclamation, et al., 1998; Reclamation, et al., 1995). In dry years, more water

may be necessary, while in wet years less water would be adequate.

Semi-Permanent Wetlands

Semi-permanent wetlands are kept flooded for 8 months or more of the year, and are

managed to provide wetland habitat during the summer when the expanses of seasonal

wetlands are not flooded. Water is maintained at greater depths in semi-permanent

wetlands than in seasonal wetlands. Semi-permanent wetlands provide production habitat

for many species of resident water birds, and foraging habitat for other wetland-dependent

wildlife. Water requirements for semi-permanent wetlands are greater than those required

for seasonal wetlands of a comparable size because they are flooded for a longer period of

time and are maintained through the hottest, driest times of the year. (Reclamation, et al.,

1995)

Water requirements for semi-permanent wetlands vary with the length and timing of

inundation, as well as weather conditions and soil composition, which affect water loss

through seepage and evaporation. Some semi-permanent wetland units are allowed to go

dry as early as August as seasonal wetlands are flooded, while other semi-permanent

wetlands will require water from February through November (Reclamation, et al., 1995).

Water requirements for semi-permanent wetlands range from approximately 7.4 acre-feet

per acre to 9.5 acre-feet per acre (Reclamation and CDFG, 1995; Service, 1996; Reclamation,

et al., 1998). These amounts vary from wetland to wetland and from year to year.

Permanent Wetlands

Permanent wetlands 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 3 to 4 years (Service, 1996). Water

depths in permanent wetlands are deeper than they are in seasonal wetlands, but are still

relatively shallow. When properly situated, permanent wetlands can act as reservoirs for
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC 4-9

water supply to other habitats. They can also be maintained through runoff from other

habitats. Water requirements for permanent wetlands are greater than they are for semipermanent wetlands, because water is maintained in the units year round. Water

requirements for permanent wetlands range from approximately 10 acre-feet per acre to

13.6 acre-feet per acre (Reclamation and CDFG, 1995; Service, 1996; Reclamation, et al.,

1998). These amounts vary from wetland to wetland and from year to year.

Irrigated Pasture and Croplands

Croplands are fields that are managed to produce food and cover crops that do not occur

naturally and that require more intensive farming to maintain than the food and cover

produced in wetland habitats. Three distinct subtypes of croplands are managed on the

WAs: irrigated pasture, corn production, and small grain production.

Irrigated pasture is primarily managed to create nesting cover, but may also be managed

later in the year to produce short, green, grazing and loafing habitat for sandhill cranes and

geese during the winter. Vegetation within irrigated pasture may consist of Dallas grass,

perennial fescue, ryegrass, clovers, vetch, and trefoil. This vegetation will typically require

periodic irrigation through the summer to remain vigorous. Estimated water requirements

for irrigated pasture range from 3 acre-feet per acre to 4.24 acre-feet per acre (Reclamation,

et al., 1998; Service, 1996).

Corn production is labor-intensive and requires considerable water. However, corn

produces large quantities of high-energy food used by all seed-eating wildlife. Corn is

grown primarily to feed sandhill cranes and geese during the winter. The average annual

water requirement for corn is 4.5 acre-feet of water per acre (Reclamation, et al., 1995).

Small grain production croplands are used to produce food and cover. The primary crops

grown are barley, wheat, safflower, and vetch. All of these crops are planted in the fall or

winter, and produce good crops of high-energy food using little water. These crops also

provide nesting and escape cover in the spring and summer. The advantage of the small

grains is that they provide fall green feed and diversity, and can be produced with a

minimum of water during a typical mild winter. The average annual water requirement for

small grain production is 1.75 acre-feet per acre (Reclamation, et al., 1995).

Dry Year Management

The previous discussion describes optimum management of wetland habitats. Optimum

management 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 would also be expected to be

reduced. The degree to which Level 4 water supplies would be reduced depends on the dryyear provisions associated with acquired water and cannot currently be determined.

Nonetheless, the water available for refuge management activities in 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. As a result, in critically dry years, this habitat
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-10 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC

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.

Table 4-3 displays Grassland RCD’s priority ranking of water uses during periods of limited

water availability.

TABLE 4-3

Dry Year Management Priorities for Wetland Habitat Management in the Grassland RCD

Priority Water Use Practice Comments

1 Fall habitat and associated maintenance Important for providing wintering habitat for

migratory waterfowl

2 Early fall habitat Important for early migratory waterfowl and

resident wildlife

3 Summer water management Important for locally breeding waterfowl and

resident wetland-dependent wildlife

4 Spring irrigation Important for moist-soil plant management and

late-migrating birds

5 Summer irrigation Important for enhanced moist-soil management

and wintering waterfowl forage

6 Spring maintenance Important for maintaining habitat for wintering

and resident waterfowl, shorebirds, and moistsoil management

7 Salt balance management Important for improving soil conditions, and the

quality of wetland habitat

Source: Reclamation, et al., 1998.

4.3.2 San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex

The San Luis NWR Complex is managed for a diversity of habitats to achieve the goals for

the NWR system. In addition, the former Action Plan units and the Kesterson and San Luis

Units are managed to provide long-term mitigation for Kesterson Reservoir. The San Luis

NWR Complex is managed primarily to provide seasonal wetlands for migratory

waterfowl. Permanent and semi-permanent wetlands are maintained on the units to provide

habitat for year-round and summer resident wildlife. Irrigated pasture and corn are also

managed for on the Merced Unit and planned for on the East Bear Creek Unit to provide

upland foraging opportunities for geese and sandhill cranes. In addition to providing

foraging opportunities, irrigated pasture provides nesting cover for breeding waterfowl and

other birds.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC 4-11

No Action Alternative

Habitat Management

Under the No Action Alternative, on-refuge management at the San Luis NWR Complex

would be in accordance with the assumptions of the CVPIA PEIS Preferred Alternative. 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) and the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan

(Reclamation, et al., 1989). The acres of each habitat type that would be managed using firm

Level 2 water supplies and the Level 4 increment are shown in Table 4-4.

TABLE 4-4

Acres of Habitat Expected on the San Luis NWR Complex under the No Action and Proposed Actiona that Would Be

Managed Using Water Provided under the CVPIA

No Action Proposed Action

Habitat Level 2 Level 4 Level 4

San Luis Unit

Semi-permanent/permanent

wetland

80 150 293

Seasonal wetland 2,950 3,400 2,166

Riparian habitat - - 1,160

Total managed wetland 3,030 3,550 3,619

West Bear Creek Unit

Semi-permanent/permanent

wetland

156 156 111

Seasonal wetland 1,321 1,321 1,168

Riparian habitat - - 72

Total managed wetland 1,477 1,477 1,351

Kesterson Unit/Freitas Unitb

Semi-permanent/permanent

wetland

375 535 516

Seasonal wetland 686 1,456 1,490

Riparian habitat - - 18

Total managed wetland 1,061 1,991 2,024

Merced Unit

Semi-permanent/permanent

wetland

20 60 82

Seasonal wetland 680 1,140 1,122

Riparian habitat 43
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-12 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC

TABLE 4-4

Acres of Habitat Expected on the San Luis NWR Complex under the No Action and Proposed Actiona that Would Be

Managed Using Water Provided under the CVPIA

No Action Proposed Action

Habitat Level 2 Level 4 Level 4

Irrigated upland (pasture and

cereal grains)

- - 615

Total managed wetland and

irrigated upland

700 1,200 1,862

East Bear Creek Unit

Semi-permanent/permanent

wetland

342 342 80

Seasonal wetland 2,341 2,341 675

Riparian habitat - - 100

Irrigated upland (pasture and

cereal grains)

1,072 1,072 310

Total managed wetland and

irrigated upland

3,755 3,755 1,165

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

The Freitas Unit has been incorporated into the former Kesterson NWR.

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 controlling mosquito populations on the refuges. However, the refuges of

the San Luis NWR Complex are relatively removed from towns, and the Mosquito and

Vector Control Districts have not conducted control activities on the refuges in recent years.

Given the lack of control efforts needed on the refuges, the Service does not have an

agreement with the local Mosquito Districts for control activities. If control activities were

necessary in the future, the refuge would develop agreements with the local Mosquito and

Vector Control Districts, as necessary to allow control programs to proceed in a manner

consistent with the refuge’s purposes.

Listed Species Management

The refuges of the San Luis NWR Complex are managed to achieve multiple objectives

related to wildlife and wildlife-dependent recreation. One of the management objectives for

the refuges is to provide habitat and to manage for endangered, threatened, and sensitive

species. As a federal agency, the Service has an obligation under the ESA to ensure that its

activities in managing the refuges do not adversely affect federally listed species or

designated critical habitat. Therefore, management actions, biological surveys, and research

programs on the San Luis NWR Complex are conducted and coordinated in consideration

of the needs of listed species. Such consideration of listed species in conducting

management activities on the refuges would continue under the No Action.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC 4-13

Proposed Action

Habitat Management

Since preparation of the 1989 Reports, refuge managers have refined habitat management

objectives to provide the greatest benefit to wildlife on the refuges. In addition, site-specific

restoration plans have been developed for the Action Plan lands. As a result, habitat

conditions expected with full Level 4 water supplies have been refined from those predicted

when the CVPIA PEIS was prepared. The Proposed Action includes these revised habitat

projections (Table 4-4).

The acreages in Table 4-4 reflect the types of habitat that each management unit primarily

provides. However, management of a unit may be modified in a given year in response to

water availability and management needs. In addition, management objectives for the

refuges may be refined over time, resulting in changes in the types of habitats emphasized.

For these reasons, the habitat composition on each unit would fluctuate around the values

presented in Table 4-4.

Mosquito Abatement

Mosquito abatement practices would be the same as those described for the No Action

Alternative.

Listed Species Management

Under the Proposed Action, the Service would implement conservation and take-avoidance

measures to protect federally listed and state-listed species, as well as other special-status

species, from impacts that could occur on the San Luis NWR Complex as a result of onrefuge management activities. Although the Service currently considers the needs of listed

species in conducting its management activities, under the Proposed Action, action

necessary to protect listed species would be formally specified in and required by a

Biological Opinion. Species-specific measures would be implemented for the species listed

in Table 4-5. The conservation and take avoidance measures vary among the species. In

general, the measures consist of:

• Avoiding disturbance to nesting or denning individuals

• Surveying for species before conducting earth-moving activities

• Confining surface disturbance to areas without indicators of habitation by special-status

species and at least 200 feet from potential habitat

• Conducting construction activities during daylight hours

• Restricting vehicle speeds to 25 mile per hour or less

In addition to these measures, the Service’s Endangered Species Division is to be contacted

in the event that take of one of the special-status species cannot be avoided in order to

develop circumstance-specific mitigation measures. Conservation and take-avoidance

measures that would be implemented for each species are provided in Table C-1 of

Appendix C. These measures are consistent with requirements of the Biological Opinion for

implementation of the CVPIA.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-14 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC

TABLE 4-5

Special-Status Species for which the Service Would Implement Conservation and Take-Avoidance Measures under the

Proposed Action

Bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Giant garter snake

(Thamnophis gigas)

Aleutian Canada goose

(Branta canadensis leucopareia)

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard

(Gambelia sila))

Conservancy fairy shrimp

(Branchinecta conservatio)

Fresno kangaroo rat

(Dipodomys nitratoides exilis)

Longhorn fairy shrimp

(Branchinecta longiantenna)

Giant kangaroo rat

(Dipodomys ingens)

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

(Branchinecta lynchi)

San Joaquin kit fox

(Vulpes macrotis mutica)

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp

(Lepidurus packardi)

Colusa grass

(Neostapfia colusana)

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle

(Desmocerus californicus dimorphus)

4.3.3 California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Areas

CDFG manages four WAs in the San Joaquin Valley that are covered by this EA/IS: Los

Banos WA, Volta WA, North Grasslands WA, and Mendota WA. The WAs are managed

primarily to provide seasonal wetlands for migratory waterfowl. Permanent and semipermanent wetlands are also maintained on the units to provide habitat for year-round and

summer-resident wildlife. Small grains and irrigated pasture are also managed on the WAs

to provide upland foraging opportunities for geese and sandhill cranes, and nesting cover

for breeding waterfowl and other birds.

No Action Alternative

Habitat Management

Under the No Action Alternative, on-refuge management at the State WAs would be in

accordance with the assumptions of the CVPIA PEIS Preferred Alternative. 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)

and the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan (Reclamation, et al., 1989). The

acres of each habitat type that would be managed using firm Level 2 water supplies and the

Level 4 increment are shown in Table 4-6.

Mosquito Abatement

The local Mosquito and Vector Control Districts are responsible for control of mosquitoes on

the State WAs. For each of the WA’s, CDFG has a contract with the local district whereby

the WA pays the Mosquito District for any control efforts that the district undertakes. The

Mosquito and Vector Control Districts determine when control is necessary and what

measures to employ, except that CDFG regulates the use of toxic chemicals on the WA.

Mosquito control efforts on the WAs range from 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, the WA managers and the CDFG strongly discourage the use of toxic chemicals

for mosquito abatement on the WA when alternative biological controls can be used.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC 4-15

TABLE 4-6

Acres of Habitat Expected on the CDFG’s WAs in the San Joaquin River Basin under the No Action and Proposed

Actiona that Would Be Managed with Water Provided under the CVPIA

No Action Proposed Action

Habitat Level 2 Level 4 Level 4

Los Banos WA

Semi-permanent/permanent wetland 484 900 650

Seasonal wetland 1,500 1,000 2,340b

Moist soil impoundment 500 850

Irrigated upland (pasture and cereal grains) 724 458 855

Total managed wetland and irrigated upland 3,208 3,208 3,845

Volta WA

Semi-permanent/permanent wetland 350 500 500

Seasonal wetland 50 850 2,350b

Moist soil impoundment 2,250 1,500

Irrigated pasture (pasture and cereal grains) 350 150 150

Total managed wetland and irrigated upland 3,000 3,000 3,000

North Grasslands WA – China Island Unit

Semi-permanent/permanent wetland 118 118 185

Seasonal wetland 1,002 1,002 995b

Moist soil impoundment 430 430

Irrigated upland (pasture and cereal grains) - - 630

Total managed wetland and irrigated upland 1,550 1,550 1,810

North Grasslands WA – Salt Slough Unit

Semi-permanent/permanent wetland 151 151 125

Seasonal wetland 955 955 918b

Moist soil impoundment - -

Irrigated upland (pasture and cereal grains) 602 602 720

Total managed wetland and irrigated upland 1,708 1,708 1,763

Mendota WA

Semi-permanent/permanent wetland - - -

Seasonal wetland 2,072 4,026 7,400b

Moist soil impoundment - 3,374

Irrigated upland (pasture and cereal grains) 1,940 1,940 1,940

Total managed wetland and irrigated upland 4,012 9,340 9,430

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

Portions of the seasonal wetlands are managed as moist soil impoundments. The amount varies from year to year.

Extreme care is taken to minimize mosquito production on the WA by closely coordinating

irrigation and fall flood-up activities with the local mosquito districts. The CDFG takes

various management actions to minimize mosquito production on the area, such as

eliminating shallow, standing water, to the extent possible, in order to reduce the financial

impact mosquito abatement has on the operating budgets for the WAs.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-16 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC

Listed Species Management

The WAs provide habitat for a number of federally and state-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 WAs without first

holding internal consultation with the CDFG’s Environmental Services Division. Each of the

Management Plans for the State WAs have undergone consultation, as required by the

California ESA, regarding the effects of implementing the management plan on listed

species. Measures specified in the California ESA Biological Opinions to be implemented to

avoid jeopardy to listed species are summarized for each refuge in Table C-2 of Appendix C.

In addition to these measures, listed species on each of the WAs benefit greatly through

habitat management and enhancement on the WAs.

Proposed Action

Habitat Management

Since 1993, following passage of the CVPIA, the State WAs have been receiving Level 2

water supplies (except in drought years) and an increasing amount of the Level 4 increment.

This firm reliable water has provided the refuge managers with an opportunity to refine

habitat management objectives to provide the greatest benefit to wildlife on the refuge. As a

result, the habitat conditions that are expected with full Level 4 water supplies have been

refined from those predicted when the CVPIA PEIS was prepared. The Proposed Action

includes these revised habitat expectations (Table 4-6).

The acreages in Table 4-6 were derived based on the habitat that each wetland unit

primarily provides. However, management of a unit may be modified in a given year in

response to water availability and management needs. In addition, management objectives

for the refuges may be refined over time resulting in changes in the habitats emphasized.

For these reasons, the habitat composition on each unit would fluctuate around the values

presented in Table 4-6.

Mosquito Abatement

Mosquito abatement activities would be the same as those for the No Action Alternative.

Listed Species Management

Under the Proposed Action, CDFG would continue to manage listed and special-status

species in accordance with the California ESA Biological Opinions for each of the State WAs.

CDFG would also implement additional conservation and take-avoidance measures for

federally listed species and other special-status species. Species-specific measures would be

implemented for the species listed in Table 4-7 on the refuges where they occur. The revised

measures are necessary for consistency with the Biological Opinion being prepared for

implementation of the CVPIA.

The conservation and take-avoidance measures vary among the species. In general, the

measures consist of:

• Avoiding disturbance to nesting or denning individuals

• Surveying for species before conducting earth-moving activities
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC 4-17

TABLE 4-7

Special-Status Species for which CDFG Would Implement Conservation and Take-Avoidance Measures under the

Proposed Action

Bald eagle - All

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

San Joaquin kit fox – Mendota only

(Vulpes macrotis mutica)

Aleutian Canada goose - All

(Branta canadensis leucopareia

Palmate-bracted birds-beak – Mendota only

(Cordylanthus palmatus)

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle - All

(Desmoserus californicus dimorphus)

Hoover’s errastrum – Mendota only

(Erastrum hooverii)

California red-legged frog – Los Banos only

(Rana aurora draytonnii)

San Joaquin wooley-threads – Mendota only

(Lembertia congdonii)

Giant garter snake -All

(Thamnophis gigas)

Vernal pool fairy shrimp – Los Banos & Mendota only

(Branchinecta lynchi)

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard – Mendota only

(Gambelia sila)

Longhorn fairy shrimp – Los Banos & Mendota only

(Branchinecta longiantenna)

California Red-Legged Frog – All

(Rana aurora draytonii)

Conservancy fairy shrimp – Los Banos & Mendota only

(Branchinecta conservatio)

Fresno kangaroo rat - All

(Dipodomys nitratoides exilis)

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp – Los Banos & Mendota only

(Lepidurus packardi)

Giant kangaroo rat - All

(Dipodomys ingens)

• Confining surface disturbance to areas without indicators of habitation by special-status

species, and at least 200 feet from potential habitat

• Conducting construction activities during daylight hours

• Restricting vehicle speeds to 25 mile per hour or less

In addition to these measures, the Service’s Endangered Species Division is to be contacted

in the event that take of one of the special-status species cannot be avoided in order to

develop circumstance-specific mitigation measures. Conservation and take-avoidance

measures that would be implemented for each species are provided in Table C-3 of

Appendix C.

4.3.4 Grassland Resource Conservation District

Lands within Grassland RCD are managed to provide habitat for waterfowl and other

wetland-dependent species. Water delivered by the Grassland WD would be used in

managing for wetland habitat for waterfowl. The management objectives of the Grassland

WD include an active program to encourage natural food-plant production, (e.g., swamp

timothy, smartweed, wildlife millet) and habitat protection. Wetland habitats consist

primarily of seasonal flooded wetlands, moist soil impoundments, and permanent/semipermanent wetlands.

No Action Alternative

Habitat Management

Under the No Action Alternative, management of privately owned wetland areas serviced by

the Grassland WD is assumed to be in accordance with the assumptions of the CVPIA PEIS

Preferred Alternative. The CVPIA assumed that providing Level 2 water supplies and the
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-18 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC

Level 4 increment would result in the acres of habitat identified in the Report on Refuge Water

Supply Investigations (Reclamation, 1989). The acres of each habitat type that would be

managed using firm Level 2 water supplies and the Level 4 increment are shown in Table 4-8.

TABLE 4-8

Acres of Habitat Expected on Private Lands within the Grassland RCD under the No Action and Proposed Actiona that Would

Be Managed with Water Provided under the CVPIA

No Action Proposed Action

Habitat Level 2 Level 4 Level 4

Semi-permanent/permanent wetland 2,000 4,000 6,917

Seasonal wetland/moist soil

impoundment and associated uplands

54,000 52,000 47,887b

Irrigated upland (pasture) - - 1,000

Total managed wetland and irrigated

upland

56,000 56,000 55,804

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

 Includes 3,325 acres of agricultural lands that would be eligible for CVPIA water if converted to wetland habitat.

Mosquito Abatement

Mosquito monitoring and control programs covering lands within the Grassland RCD are

conducted by the local Mosquito and Vector Control Districts. The local districts are

responsible for monitoring mosquito populations and implementing appropriate control

strategies.

Listed-Species Management

The Grassland WD currently implements a number of take-avoidance measures to protect

the federally listed giant garter snakes that use water delivery channels maintained by

Grassland WD. The following standard avoidance and minimization measures for giant

garter snake habitat measures are practiced:

• Construction activities within 200 feet from the banks of giant garter snake habitat are

avoided.

• Heavy equipment is confined to existing roadways to minimize habitat disturbance.

• Construction activity within habitat is conducted between May 1 and October 1. This is

the active period for giant garter snakes, and direct mortality is lessened because snakes

are expected to actively move and avoid danger.

• Clearing is confined to the minimal area necessary to facilitate construction activities.

• Maintenance of water conveyance facilities (e.g., clearing of vegetation) is limited to one

side of the ditch during a given year to reserve giant garter snake habitat.

• Construction personnel receive Service-approved worker environmental awareness

training. This training instructs workers to recognize giant garter snakes and their habitat(s).
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC 4-19

• The project area is surveyed for giant garter snakes 24 hours before construction

activities. The survey of the project is repeated if a lapse in construction activity of

2 weeks or more occurs. If a snake is encountered during construction, activities are

ceased until appropriate corrective actions are completed, or it is determined that the

snake will not be harmed.

• Dewatered habitat is kept dry for at least 15 consecutive days after April 15 and before

excavating or filling dewatered habitat.

• After completion of construction activities, any temporary fill and construction debris is

removed and disturbed areas are restored to pre-project conditions, where feasible.

Proposed Action

Habitat Management

Since 1993, following passage of the CVPIA, the Grassland WD has been receiving Level 2

water supplies (except in drought years) and an increasing amount of the Level 4 increment,

and distributing this water to private wetland areas within its service area. This firm reliable

water has provided the wetland managers with an opportunity to refine and implement the

most effective water management practices for providing high-quality habitat for waterfowl.

The Grassland WD has identified various water needs related to wetland management

strategies that encourage the production of waterfowl food and habitat. These strategies

include spring maintenance, moist-soil plant irrigations, summer water management, early

habitat management, fall habitat management, shallow water maintenance, salt balance, and

irrigated pasture. While these water management strategies would not change the total

wetland acreage, the quality of the habitat and the duration that the habitat is available

would increase. For example, earlier flooding of seasonal wetlands would not result in an

increase in the acreage of seasonal wetlands with a given area, but would increase the

availability of this habitat by providing seasonal wetlands during a period of time (early

fall) when wetlands were previously scarce. Table 4-9 shows the acres that would be

benefited under the Proposed Action with full Level 4 water supplies.

TABLE 4-9

Acres Benefited in the Grassland RCD under Each Water Management Activity

Management Activity Acres Benefited with Full Level 4 Water Supplies

Spring maintenance 21,500

Moist-soil plant irrigations 18,000

Summer water management 4,500

Early fall habitat 3,000

Fall habitat 33,000

Shallow water maintenance 29,500

Salt balance management 3,000

Irrigated pasture 1,000

Source: Stoddard & Associates, 1998.
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4-20 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC

The water management strategies that would be supported with full Level 4 water supplies

would roughly translate into the acres of wetland habitat types listed in Table 4-8. However,

the Grassland WD does not dictate how wetland habitats are managed on individual

properties. Water supplied by the Grassland WD would be used to support wetland

habitats or irrigated uplands that provide habitat for geese and sandhill cranes. However,

the exact composition of wetland habitat types on lands within the Grassland RCD that

would be supported with water provided by the CVPIA cannot be predicted.

As indicated in Table 4-8, 3,325 acres of agricultural land occurs within the Grassland WD

service area. These areas are not currently eligible for CVPIA water because CVPIA water

can only be used for wetland habitat management. However, if these agricultural lands

were converted to wetland habitat, they would be eligible for water from Grassland WD.

The water needs identified for private lands in the Grassland RCD and provided by the

CVPIA considered future water deliveries to these areas.

Mosquito Abatement

Mosquito abatement practices would be the same as those described for the No Action

Alternative.

Listed Species Management

Under the Proposed Action, Grassland WD would implement conservation and takeavoidance measures for state and federally listed species and other special-status species.

Species-specific measures would be implemented for the species listed in Table 4-10. These

measures are consistent with the Biological Opinion being prepared for implementation of

the CVPIA.

TABLE 4-10

Special-Status Species for which the Grassland WD Would Implement Conservation and Take-Avoidance Measures under

the Proposed Action

Aleutian Canada goose

(Branta canadensis leucopareia)

Giant kangaroo rat

(Dipodomys ingens)

Bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

San Joaquin kit fox

(Vulpes macrotis mutica)

Fresno kangaroo rat

(Dipodomys nitratoides exilis)

Giant garter snake

(Thamnophis gigas

The conservation and take-avoidance measures vary among the species. In general, the

measures consist of:

• Avoiding disturbance to nesting or denning individuals

• Surveying for species before conducting earth-moving activities

• Confining surface disturbance to areas without indicators of habitation by special-status

species and at least 200 feet from potential habitat

• Conducting construction activities during daylight hours

• Restricting vehicle speeds to 25 mile per hour or less
SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180017 SJ-004.DOC 4-21

In addition to these measures, the Service’s Endangered Species Division or California

Department of Fish and Game, as appropriate, is to be contacted in the event that take of

one of the special-status species cannot be avoided in order to develop circumstance-specific

mitigation measures. Conservation and take-avoidance measures that would be

implemented for each species are provided in Table C-4 of Appendix C.

4.4 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail

The selection of the Proposed Action and the development of a No Action Alternative came

following consideration of a broader range of possible alternatives. This section describes

other alternatives that were considered, but were not carried forward for detailed analysis.

4.4.1 Annual Agreements

Under an alternative based on annual water service agreements, Reclamation would

negotiate annual agreements with the Service, CDFG, and the Grassland WD 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 long-term 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

two alternatives. In both cases, the Level 4 increment would be provided through voluntary

measures (e.g., water conservation, conjunctive use, purchase, lease, donation, or other

similar activities). If the Level 4 increments 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 2001/010180018 SJ-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 San Joaquin River

basin, and describes potential environmental consequences with regard to the following

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 (e.g., CVP-wide issues such as

surface water and groundwater), or were not likely to be affected under the Proposed

Action (e.g., mineral resources and 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 were not implemented, and the focus of the environmental

analysis is to identify 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 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

This document is being prepared as a joint EA/IS. As described in Section 1.5, additional

CEQA analysis is necessary in order to supplement the Negative Declarations prepared for

the Los Banos, North Grasslands, and Mendota WA Management Plans, and to assess the

impacts of the Proposed Action on the Grassland RCD. In order for the analysis in this

section to meet CEQA requirements, the effects of the Proposed Action 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 appropriate CEQA documentation for the state WAs and the Grassland RCD.

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 San Joaquin River Basin forms the southern 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. Before 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 wetlands 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).

National Wildlife Refuges

The refuges of the San Luis NWR Complex contain permanent ponds, seasonal wetlands,

irrigated moist soil impoundments, riparian habitats, 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. Riparian habitats have been

substantially reduced in the Central Valley and the refuges provide critical habitat for

riparian associated species. Upland areas consist of native grasslands, as well as small areas

of cropland and pasture. These uplands support large concentrations of geese, upland birds,

and other wildlife species, including special-status species.
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-3

State Wildlife Areas

The state WAs in the San Joaquin River Basin support permanent and seasonal wetlands,

crops, pasture, and some native uplands. Wetland areas support waterfowl plant food

sources and invertebrate populations; managed upland areas provide habitat for geese,

upland birds, and other wildlife species.

Grassland Resource Conservation District

Private wetland areas in the Grassland RCD consist of 165 separate ownerships. These lands

are managed primarily as waterfowl habitat, but provide a wide variety of wildlife benefits.

Specific land uses include seasonally flooded wetlands, moist soil impoundments,

permanent wetlands, and irrigated pasture and croplands. Perpetual easements have been

purchased by the Service on about 31,000 acres serviced by the Grassland WD to help

preserve wetland-dependent migratory bird habitat. These easements authorize the Service

to restrict land uses that would diminish wetland habitat values.

Vegetation and Wildlife

Management of the refuges of the San Joaquin River Basin refuges focuses on providing

wetland habitats. Small grain crops and pasture are also managed on the WAs and, to a

lesser extent, on some of the federal refuges and private wetlands. The vegetation and

associated wildlife communities of the refuges of the San Joaquin River Basin 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 scrub, and vernal pool

complexes. 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 goodquality wildlife habitat. Therefore, these habitats have the potential to be affected by the

proposed 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 and private wetland areas of the San Joaquin River

Basin. Seasonal wetlands are inundated fields or ponds that are managed primarily to grow

seed and to produce invertebrates for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wetlanddependent wildlife. These wetlands are usually flooded from October through March, and

are dry for the rest of the year except for summer irrigation. Some seasonal wetlands are

inundated by early August, depending on the habitat required for early-arriving waterfowl,

and some seasonal wetlands may be kept inundated through April to provide habitat for
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-4 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

migrants that do not depart to northern breeding habitats until that time (Reclamation and

CDFG, 1995).

The diversity of seasonal wetlands 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 (millet), sprangletop, and smartweed. During these irrigation periods, these

units are often used by locally nesting colonial water birds (egrets, herons). Although 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.

Semi-permanent/permanent wetlands provide wetland habitat for year-round and summer

resident species. Semi-permanent wetlands are flooded for 8 or more months of the year,

while permanent wetlands remain flooded throughout the year. Characterized by both

emergent and submergent aquatic plants, semi-permanent/permanent wetlands provide

brood and molting areas for waterfowl, secure roosting and nesting sites for wading birds

and other over-water nesters, and provide feeding areas for species like cormorants and

pelicans. Semi-permanent/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

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).
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-5

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), as well as irrigated pasture

for nesting cover for waterfowl and upland game birds. Cropland and pastures include

corn, vetch, milo, mixed grasses, and safflower.

Fish Resources

With many miles of irrigation ditches and canals available as aquatic habitat, the refuges

support resident fish species. Rivers, streams, and sloughs that flow through or adjacent to

the refuge lands also support resident fish populations. Common species of the water

conveyance ditches and canals include spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus), largemouth

bass (M. salmoides), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), sunfish (Lepomis sp.), brown

bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), and common carp (Cyprinus carpio). 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

complements the primary goal of maintaining wintering waterfowl habitat.

All of the refuges of the San Joaquin River Basin eventually drain into the San Joaquin River.

This river supports the anadromous salmonids: fall-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha) and Central Valley steelhead (O. mykiss). The federally listed Sacramento

splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) occurs in the lower reaches of the San Joaquin River,

but has never been documented to occur as far upstream as the refuges (Reclamation and

CDFG, 1997. Since 1992, a fish barrier was installed in the San Joaquin River, just upstream

of the confluence of the Merced River. The barrier precludes migration of fish farther

upstream in the San Joaquin River. As all of the refuges are upstream of the Merced River

confluence, no anadromous salmonids occur on the refuges.

Special-Status Species

Table 5-1 lists special-status species known to occur or potentially occur on the San Luis

NWR Complex, the State WAs, and the Grassland RCD and their habitat associations. These

species were identified on a list provided to Reclamation by the Service in a letter dated

March 20, 2000. 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:

• EA/IS for Conveyance Facilities for San Joaquin Basin Action Plan and North

Grasslands Area (Reclamation and CDFG, 1997)

• Los Banos Wildlife Area Management Plan (CDFG, 1988)

• North Grasslands Wildlife Area Management Plan (CDFG, 1998)

• Mendota Wildlife Area Management Plan (CDFG, 1994)

• Final Draft Volta Wildlife Area Management Plan (CDFG, 2000)
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-6 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

TABLE 5-1

Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring on or Downstream of Refuges of the San Joaquin River

Basin

Common Name

Scientific Name Statusa General Habitat Association

Invertebrates

Longhorn fairy shrimp

Branchinecta longiantenna

Federal – E

State – none

Vernal pools

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)

California linderiella

Linderiella occidentalis

Federal – SC

State – none

Vernal pools

Molestan blister beetle

Lytta molesta

Federal – SC

State – none

Vernal pools; grassland 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

Central Valley fall-run/late fall-run

chinook salmon

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Federal – C

State – CSC

Rivers and streams

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

Kern brook lamprey

Lampetra hubbsi

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Rivers and streams

Amphibians

California tiger salamander

Ambystoma californiense

Federal – C

State – CSC

Vernal pools

California red-legged frog

Rana aurora draytonii

Federal – T

State – CSC

Wetland and aquatic habitat

Foothill yellow-legged frog

Rana boylii

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Rivers and streams

Western spadefoot toad

Scaphiopus hammondii

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Vernal pools
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-7

TABLE 5-1

Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring on or Downstream of Refuges of the San Joaquin River

Basin

Common Name

Scientific Name Statusa General Habitat Association

Reptiles

Western pond turtle

Clemmys marmorata

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Wetland and riparian habitats

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard

Gambelia sila

Federal – E

State – E

Grassland and scrub habitats

California horned lizard

Phrynosoma coronatum frontale

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grassland and riparian habitats

Silvery legless lizard

Anniella pulchra pulchra

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grassland habitat

Giant garter snake

Thamnophis gigas

Federal – T

State – CSC

Wetland habitat

San Joaquin coachwhip

Masticophis flagellum ruddocki

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grassland and scrub habitats

Birds

American white pelican

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

Federal – none

State – CSC

Wetland and aquatic habitats

Double-crested cormorant

Phalacrocorax auritas

Federal – none

State – CSC

Aquatic habitats

White-faced ibis

Plegadis chihi

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Wetland habitat, irrigated pasture and

croplands

Fulvous whistling-duck

Dendrocygna bicolor

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 cooperii

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 habitats; 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 habitats

Osprey

Pandion haliaetus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Riparian habitat

Merlin

Falco columbarius

Federal – none

State – CSC

Wetland habitat
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-8 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

TABLE 5-1

Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring on or Downstream of Refuges of the San Joaquin River

Basin

Common Name

Scientific Name Statusa General Habitat Association

Prairie falcon

Falco mexicanus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Grassland and scrub habitats

American peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus anatum

Federal – none

State – E

Wetland and grassland habitats

Greater sandhill crane

Grus canadensis tabida

Federal – none

State – T

Irrigated pasture and croplands

Least bittern

Ixobrychus exilis

Federal – none

State – SC

Wetland habitat

Mountain plover

Charadrius montanus

Federal – PT

State – CSC

Grassland and scrub habitats

Western snowy plover

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Grassland and wetland habitats

Long-billed curlew

Numenius americanus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Grassland habitat

Black tern

Chlidonias niger

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Wetland habitat

California gull

Larus californicus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Wetland habitat

Short-eared owl

Asio flammeus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Grassland and wetland habitats

Long-eared owl

Asio otus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Riparian habitat

Western burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia hypugea

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grassland habitat

Little willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii brewsteri

Federal – none

State – E

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

California horned lark

Eremophila alpestris actia

Federal – none

State – CSC

Grassland habitat

Tricolored blackbird

Agelaius tricolor

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Wetland habitat

Yellow-breasted chat

Icteria virens

Federal – none

State – CSC

Wetland and riparian habitats

Yellow warbler

Dendroica petechia brewsteri

Federal – none

State – CSC

Wetland and riparian habitats

Mammals

Pallid bat

Antrozous pallidus

Federal – none

State – CSC

Grassland and scrub habitats
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-9

TABLE 5-1

Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring on or Downstream of Refuges of the San Joaquin River

Basin

Common Name

Scientific Name Statusa General Habitat Association

Spotted bat

Euderma maculatum

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Riparian wetland and grassland habitats

Yuma myotis

Myotis yumanensis

Federal – SC

State – none

Riparian habitat

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

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

Greater western mastiff bat

Eumops perotis californicus

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grassland and scrub habitats

San Joaquin antelope squirrel

Ammosphermophilus nelsoni

Federal – SC

State – T

Grassland and scrub habitats

Fresno kangaroo rat

Dipodomys nitratoides exilis

Federal – E

State – E

Grassland and scrub habitats

Fresno kangaroo rat critical habitat Federal – NA

State – NA

Short-nosed kangaroo rat

Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus

Federal – SC

State – CSC

Grassland habitat

Merced kangaroo rat

Dipodomys heermanni dixoni

Federal – SC

State

Grassland habitat

San Joaquin pocket mouse

Perognathus inornatus

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland and scrub habitats

San Joaquin Valley woodrat

Neotoma fuscipes riparia

Federal – PE

State – CSC

Riparian habitat

Riparian brush rabbit

Sylvilagus bachmani riparius

Federal – PE

State – E

Riparian habitat

San Joaquin kit fox

Vulpes macrotis mutica

Federal – E

State – T

Grassland and scrub habitats

Plants

Heartscale

Atriplex cordulata

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland and scrub habitats

Brittlescale

Artiplex depressa

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland and scrub habitats

Alkali milk-vetch

Astragalus tener var. tener

Federal – SC

State – none

Vernal pools
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-10 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

TABLE 5-1

Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring on or Downstream of Refuges of the San Joaquin River

Basin

Common Name

Scientific Name Statusa General Habitat Association

San Joaquin saltbush

Atriplex joaquiniana

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland and scrub habitats

Lesser saltscale

Atriplex minuscula

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland and scrub habitats

Lost Hills crownscale

Atriplex vallicola

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland and scrub habitats

Hispid bird’s beak

Cordylanthus mollis ssp. hispidus

Federal – SC

State – none

Grassland habitat

Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak

Cordylanthus palmatus

Federal – E

State – E

Grassland and scrub habitats

Hoover’s eriastrum

Eriastrum hooverii

Federal – T

State – none

Grassland and scrub habitats

Delta button celery

Eryngium racemosum

Federal – none

State – E

Riparian habitat

San Joaquin woolythreads

Lembertia congdonii

Federal – E

State – none

Grassland and scrub habitats

Colusa grass

Neostapfia colusana

Federal – T

State – E

Vernal pools

Hairy orcutt grass

Orcuttia pilosa

Federal – E

State – E

Vernal pools

Sanford’s arrowhead

Sagittaria sanfordii

Federal – SC

State – none

Wetland habitat

Green’s tuctoria

Tuctoria greenei

Federal – E

State – Rare

Vernal pools

a

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.

PT = Proposed to list as Threatened by the state or federal government.

C = Candidate for listing by the federal government

SC = Federal Species of Concern.

CSC = California Species of Special Concern.

Rare = Designated as rare by the State of California.

5.2.2 Environmental Consequences

The project would implement the CVPIA requirements to provide Level 2 water supplies

and up to the full Level 4 increment to the federal and state refuges, and private wetland

areas in the Grassland RCD within the San Joaquin River Basin. 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 site-specific effects that may

occur to biological resources within these areas.
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-11

San Luis 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 San Luis NWR Complex.

The refuges of the San Luis NWR Complex would support the acreages of habitats shown in

Table 4-4 under the No Action Alternative.

Currently, most of the refuges receive Level 2 water supplies, and some or all of the Level 4

increment. The San Luis, Kesterson, and Freitas units of the San Luis NWR Complex were

receiving full Level 2 water supplies and the full Level 4 increment before the passage of the

CVPIA through the 1954 Act and 1990 Agreement. The Merced Unit receives full Level 2

water supplies and almost all of the Level 4 increment through Merced Irrigation District, as

required by the FERC license for the New Exchequer Project. Habitat restoration on the

West Bear Creek Unit was recently completed and this Unit has been accepting its full

Level 2 allotment, as well as the year-specific Level 4 increment. Habitat restoration plans

for East Bear Creek Unit are still being finalized; the Unit will begin taking its full Level 2

water supplies and the Level 4 increment upon completion of the restoration activities.

With the exception of the East Bear Creek Unit, the habitat conditions on the refuges under

the No Action Alternative would be similar to existing conditions. When the wetland and

riparian habitat restoration on the East Bear Creek Unit is completed, the water provided

under the No Action Alternative would support an increased acreage of wetland and

riparian habitats relative to existing conditions. The portions of the East Bear Creek Unit

that will be restored consist of former wetland and riparian areas that were previously

converted to agricultural uses, primarily grazing lands. No native upland habitats would be

affected by the restoration (D. Woolington, 2000).

The Level 2 water supplies and Level 4 increment provided under the No Action

Alternative would not be used to create new wetland habitat. Rather, improvements in

wetland habitat quality would result from the ability and flexibility to more effectively

manage existing wetland units with reliable, year-round water supplies of acceptable

quality. Habitat management under the No Action Alternative includes:

• Earlier and expanded 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 irrigations,

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 outbreaks, and maintain optimal water depths for waterfowl

foraging
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-12 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

• 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, optimal habitat conditions could be

maintained under drought conditions and during flood/storm conditions to provide

suitable and stable habitat conditions for resident and migratory wildlife. Reliable full

Level 4 water supplies would ensure that wetland habitat units could be flooded

throughout the fall and winter and water levels could be maintained at optimal depths for

waterfowl foraging. In addition, water would be available for spring/summer irrigation and

maintenance of semi-permanent/permanent wetlands through the summer months.

Overall, high-quality wetland habitat would be available at the appropriate times of the

year to benefit resident and migratory waterfowl.

Improved habitat quality and availability of seasonal wetlands would continue to benefit

migratory waterfowl under the No Action Alternative. Improvements in wetland habitat

quality and availability would also 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 benefit from the habitat diversity and stability provided under optimal habitat

management of wetland units (Table 5-1). 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.

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.

Before passage of the CVPIA, many of the refuges and private wetland areas in the San

Joaquin River Basin relied on return flows from upstream agricultural areas to meet water

requirements for wetland habitat management. In the mid-1980s, agricultural drainage

water in the San Joaquin Basin was found to be contaminated with selenium that could have

deleterious effects on waterfowl and other wildlife. As a result of this finding and

recommendations by the state and federal resources agencies, agricultural drainage water

that contained selenium concentrations greater than 2 parts per billion (ppb) was no longer

used for wetland habitat management. With this restriction, the amount of water available

for wetland habitat management was substantially reduced, which impaired wetland

habitat management. The refuges currently have access to water of suitable quality for

wetland habitat management. The water provided to the refuges under the No Action

Alternative would continue to be of adequate quality and quantity for optimal wetland

habitat management to avoid any potential adverse effects to waterfowl from

selenium-contaminated water.
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-13

Return flows from the federal refuges would increase slightly under the No Action

Alternative relative to existing conditions. This increase could seasonally increase the

availability of water in conveyance channels on the refuge and could beneficially affect

riparian vegetation and associated wildlife.

While the volume of return flows would increase under the No Action relative to existing

conditions, 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 would improve

water quality. Potential effects to anadromous salmonids in the San Joaquin River were fully

evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, as summarized in Section 3.

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would have the same benefits to wetland habitats and associated

wildlife species (including special-status species) as those described for the No Action

Alternative. Habitat conditions under the Proposed Action would be similar to those for the

No Action Alternative (Table 4-4). 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 the Proposed Action would provide greater

certainty and predictability. 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 would allow yearto-year adjustments in the delivery pattern. This difference would further enhance the

refuge managers’ abilities to optimally manage wetland habitats, as managers could better

adjust the water delivery schedule in response to habitat management needs and wildlife

use. The acres of habitat that would be provided on each of the refuges under the Proposed

Action are shown in Table 4-4.

The Proposed Action would have similar benefits to habitats for federally listed species as

would the No Action Alternative. However, the Proposed Action would ensure greater

protection to special-status species than would the No Action Alternative. The Proposed

Action includes conservation measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts to specialstatus species from a wide range of habitat management activities and operational regimes.

In combination, the improvements in habitat quality and availability, and the additional

conservation measures of the Proposed Action would provide greater benefit to specialstatus species than would the No Action Alternative. As under the No Action Alternative,

no adverse effects to anadromous salmonids are likely to occur under the Proposed Action.

State Wildlife Areas

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would continue to ensure that state WAs

receive Level 2 water supplies and up to the full Level 4 increment. This water would be

used to support the habitat acreages shown in Table 4-6. With the exception of China Island,

Level 2 water supplies and the year-specific Level 4 increment have been available to the

state WAs. For China Island, the internal conveyance facilities currently are not adequate to

effectively and efficiently use more than Level 2 water supplies, and none of the Level 4
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-14 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

increment has been provided to this Unit. The increase in reliable water supplies to full

Level 4 water supplies under the No Action would allow optimal management of on-refuge

habitats. However, because the refuges have been receiving most of the water required by

the CVPIA, the habitat conditions would not change substantially under the No Action

Alternative relative to existing conditions.

As with the refuges of the San Luis NWR Complex, expansion of wetland habitats to nonwetland areas would not occur on the state WAs. 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

San Luis NWR Complex, including avoidance of potential adverse effects to waterfowl from

use of selenium-contaminated water. As for the San Luis 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 continue to support 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 the state WAs reach the San Joaquin River through various sloughs,

drains, and channels. The volume of return flows would be expected to increase relative to

existing conditions, with the additional Level 4 increment of water provided to the refuge.

As described in Sections 3 and 5.3.3, this increase in return flows is not expected to

significantly adversely impact water quality or anadromous salmonids in downstream

watercourses. The effects of increased return flows from the refuges on anadromous

salmonids were evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS and are being considered in the Biological

Opinion for the CVPIA. 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 and

the No Action Alternative (Table 4-6). As under the No Action Alternative, seasonal

wetlands would be the predominant wetland type on the refuge units.

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 contract for the Proposed Action would provide greater

flexibility and year-to-year adjustments in the delivery pattern. This difference would
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-15

further enhance the refuge managers’ ability to optimally manage habitats, thereby

benefiting a diversity of wildlife species (including special-status species).

Under the Proposed Action, additional conservation measures would be implemented on

the state WAs to avoid and minimize potential impacts to special-status species from a wide

range of 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 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.

Grassland Resource Conservation District

No Action Alternative

Grassland WD delivers water to private wetland areas. Before passage of the CVPIA,

wetland habitat could not be optimally managed on the areas given limited supplies of

suitable quality water. With the limited and unreliable pre-CVPIA water supplies, semipermanent and permanent wetland habitat was scarce in areas serviced by the Grassland

WD. In addition, wetland managers had to employ management techniques to conserve

water, but that were deleterious to waterfowl. Wetland managers previously stockpiled

water to depths of several feet early in the season to ensure that water was available for

waterfowl throughout the winter. This management strategy resulted in wetland areas

being flooded deeper than optimal for waterfowl feeding (1 foot or less). In addition, flow

through management may reduce the incidence of avian cholera.

Since passage of the CVPIA, the Grassland WD has been receiving Level 2 water supplies

and an increasing proportion of the Level 4 increment. Currently, the Grassland WD is

receiving almost all of the water supplies required under the CVPIA. Under the No Action

Alternative, the amount of water provided to Grassland WD would increase slightly to the

full Level 4 amount. The increased amount and reliability of water supplies relative to

existing conditions would enhance wetland habitat management, as described for the San

Luis NWR Complex. The amount of wetland habitat would not increase under the No

Action Alternative. Rather, the duration of availability of wetland habitats would increase,

as would the quality wetland habitat. 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 San Luis NWR Complex, including

avoidance of potential adverse effects to waterfowl from use of selenium-contaminated

water. Special-status species associated with wetland habitats would similarly benefit from

improved quality and availability of wetland habitats. As described for the refuges of the

San Luis NWR Complex and the state WAs, no adverse effects to anadromous salmonids

would occur under the No Action Alternative.

Proposed Action

Habitat conditions under the Proposed Action would be similar to existing conditions and

the No Action Alternative (Table 4-8). 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
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-16 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

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 Supply

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 wetland managers’ ability to optimally

manage wetland habitats, thereby benefiting wetland-associated species (including specialstatus species).

Under the Proposed Action, Grassland WD would implement additional conservation

measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts to special-status species from a wide

range of management activities. 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

would provide greater benefit to special-status species than would the No Action

Alternative. As described for the refuges of the San Luis NWR Complex and the state WAs,

no adverse effects to anadromous salmonids would occur under the Proposed Action.

5.3 Water Quality

5.3.1 Affected Environment

Overview of San Joaquin River Water Quality

Water quality in the San Joaquin River has degraded significantly since the late 1940s when

reservoirs were constructed in the upper watershed and the irrigated acreage increased

along tributaries to the river. Surface water quality in the San Joaquin River Basin is affected

by several factors, including natural runoff, agricultural return flows, biostimulation,

construction, grazing, operations of flow regulating facilities, urbanization, and recreation.

The upper reaches of the San Joaquin River Basin originate in large drainage areas high on

the west side of the Sierra Nevada. The water in these rivers is generally soft with low

mineral concentrations. As these streams flow from the Sierra Nevada foothills across the

eastern valley floor, their mineral concentration steadily increases. This increase in

concentration is fairly uniform for each of the east side streams. In the western part of the

San Joaquin Valley, soils are derived mainly from the marine sediments that make up the

Coast Range and are high in salts and trace elements such as selenium, molybdenum,

arsenic, and boron. As the San Joaquin Valley has undergone extensive land development,

erosion and drainage patterns have been altered, thereby accelerating the rate at which these

trace elements have been dissolved from the soil to accumulate in shallow groundwater,

streams, and the San Joaquin River. The term “shallow groundwater” refers to as the

highest zone of saturation down to a depth of approximately 20 feet below ground surface.

The primary area of subsurface drainage problems extend along the western side of the San

Joaquin Valley from the Delta to south of Bakersfield. Shallow semi-impermeable clay layers

lie beneath the land surface, preventing adequate drainage of irrigation water. This

impediment to downward flow has resulted in high groundwater levels in the shallow

groundwater zone and requires subsurface drainage of low lying fields to prevent
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-17

waterlogging and salt buildup in the root zone. The subsurface drainage water is

characterized by high salt concentrations and elevated levels of trace elements.

Wildlife refuges and private wetlands also affect water quality in the San Joaquin River. The

refuges begin flooding operations in the fall to maintain habitat for migratory waterfowl,

primarily with water delivered from the Delta via the Delta-Mendota Canal. Prior to

receiving increased water supplies under CVPIA, salinity of the water in the ponds would

increase during the fall due to evaporation and following winter seasons with low

precipitation, often contributing poor quality water to the San Joaquin River when the

ponds are drained in the spring. Increased water supplies under CVPIA have allowed many

refuges to irrigate or maintain flooded conditions on wetland units during spring and

summer months as well as during the fall months. This has allowed the drainage flows to

occur over a longer period time with lower concentrations of constituents.

Water quality in the San Joaquin River varies considerably along the stream’s length. Above

Millerton Lake and downstream towards Mendota Pool, water quality is generally excellent.

The reach from Gravelly Ford to Mendota Pool (about 17 miles) is frequently dry except

during extreme wet weather conditions because most of the water released from Millerton

Lake is diverted upstream to satisfy water rights agreements, or percolates to groundwater.

Recent pilot studies have released additional water from Millerton Lake to maintain flows in

the San Joaquin River between Gravelly Ford and Mendota Pool. Ongoing studies are

evaluating the potential to maintain year-round flows to improve fisheries and riparian

habitat.

When the reach between Gravelly Ford and Mendota Pool is dry, water in the Mendota Pool

is primarily imported from the Delta. The imported water generally has higher

concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS), salinity, and boron than San Joaquin River

water. Most of the water released from the Mendota Pool to the San Joaquin River is

diverted at or above Sack Dam for agricultural uses. Therefore, the San Joaquin River is

often dry between Sack Dam and Salt Slough except during wet weather conditions.

Releases from Millerton Lake for the San Joaquin River pilot study also will maintain flows

in this reach.

From Salt Slough to Fremont Ford, most of the flow in the San Joaquin River is from surface

irrigation return flows and subsurface drainage flows from Salt and Mud sloughs. This

reach is also affected by seepage from groundwater that is characterized by high salinity

and trace element concentrations.

Downstream from Fremont Ford, the majority of flows in the San Joaquin River are

provided from the major tributaries: Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus rivers. The water

quality of the tributaries is similar to that of the upper San Joaquin River. However due to

irrigation return flows, drainage flows, and effluent from industrial and municipal

wastewater treatment plants that enter the lower San Joaquin River, mineral and salinity

concentrations are high in the San Joaquin River downstream of Fremont Ford. Water

quality in the San Joaquin River is monitored at Vernalis because of potential adverse

impacts of high salinity to agricultural and municipal uses and south Delta fish resources.

Total dissolved solids is monitored as Electric Conductivity (EC) and reported in

microsiemens per centimeter (μs/cm). Values for EC in the San Joaquin River near Vernalis
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-18 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

have historically ranged from 50 mg/l during high flows to over 1,400 mg/l during the 1977

– 1978 drought period. The annual average EC in the San Joaquin River near Vernalis has

increased from slightly more than 200 μs/cm before Millerton Lake was constructed to

almost 600 μs/cm in 1997. In 1991, the SWRCB adopted EC standards for the San Joaquin

River at Vernalis of 700 μs/cm for irrigation months (April through August) and 1000

μs/cm for non-irrigation months (September through March). These standards are

frequently referred to as the "Vernalis Standards."

In the late 1960s, the SWRCB evaluated the potential concerns about increased salinity in the

San Joaquin River. The evaluation indicated that there were many causes for increased

salinity, but one of the reasons was construction of Friant Dam and Millerton Lake by

Reclamation and the associated importation of water from the Delta to serve existing water

rights holders. Therefore, when Reclamation applied for an operating permit for New

Melones Reservoir on the Stanislaus River in 1972, the SWRCB included a provision in

Decision 1422 and SWRCB Order 83-3, issued in 1983 (hereinafter collectively referred to as

D-1422), that Reclamation maintain average monthly concentrations of salinity in the San

Joaquin River at Vernalis as a condition of the operating permit for New Melones Reservoir.

Therefore, Reclamation releases water from New Melones Reservoir, to the extent possible,

to reduce salinity concentrations to levels below the Vernalis Standards. It is difficult to

meet the standards during drier years when salinity is high due to a lack of flow in the San

Joaquin River tributaries, high salinity concentrations in the irrigation water and the

subsequent drainage flows, and limited amounts of water available for release from New

Melones Reservoir. The RWQCB compared 30-day running average of EC concentrations in

the San Joaquin River at Vernalis with the standard from 1986 through 1998. In this 13 year

period, the standard was exceeded at Vernalis for 11% of the days in non-irrigation months

(September through March) and 49% of the days in irrigation months (April through

August). The monthly EC concentrations in the river at Crows Landing (upstream of the

confluences with the Tuolumne and Stanislaus rivers, but downstream of the Merced River

and Salt and Mud sloughs) were compared to the Vernalis Standards. In the same 13 year

period, the standard was exceeded 67% of the months in non-irrigation months and 78% of

the months in irrigation months at Crows Landing. A similar pattern of exceedances

occurred at Lander Avenue upstream of Salt and Mud sloughs. However, immediately

downstream of Salt and Mud sloughs, at Hills Ferry, the standard was exceed almost 95% of

the time.

The RWQCB also reviewed the sources of salinity in the river at Vernalis. According to the

RWQCB, the primary sources and their contributions of salinity in the river at Vernalis for a

10-year period from 1985 through 1994 showed:

• 2% from municipal and industrial sources

• 8% from wetlands, including refuges

• 16% from the upper tributaries

• 17% from subsurface return flows from irrigated acreage

• 29% from surface return flows from irrigated acreage

• 28% from groundwater seepage from irrigated acreage
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-19

This evaluation led to consideration of a new salinity standard for the lower San Joaquin

River from Mendota Pool to Vernalis. The potential standards included limitations such as

700 μs/cm to protect irrigated agriculture, 900 μs/cm to protect drinking water, and 5000

μs/cm to protect aquatic life in the delta.

Boron also is monitored in the San Joaquin River. The existing water quality standards from

Mendota Pool to the confluence with Merced River is 2 mg/l from March 15 to September

15. Downstream of Merced River, the boron water quality standard in the San Joaquin River

is 0.8 mg/l from March 15 to September 15 and 1.0 mg/l from September 16 to March 14.

The standard increases to 1.3 mg/l in a critically dry year. The major source of boron into

the San Joaquin River is from subsurface return flows that are discharged into the river near

Mud Slough and Salt Slough. Boron standards in the river have consistently been exceeded

between the confluences of Mud Slough and the Merced River. The RWQCB compared 30-

day running average of boron concentrations in the San Joaquin River at Vernalis with the

standard from 1986 through 1998. In this 13 year period, the standard was only exceeded in

three months. The monthly boron concentrations in the river at Crows Landing (upstream of

the confluences with the Tuolumne and Stanislaus rivers, but downstream of the Merced

River and Salt and Mud sloughs) in the same 13 year period, the standard was exceeded

primarily in the drier years. At Lander Avenue upstream of Salt and Mud sloughs, the

boron standard was only exceeded in one year. However, immediately downstream of Salt

and Mud sloughs, at Hills Ferry, the standard was exceed almost 95% of the time. The

source of boron is primarily from groundwater that leaches boron from the soil. The boron

enters the San Joaquin River primarily from subsurface irrigation return flows. The RWQCB

is also considering changing standards for boron in the San Joaquin River. The range of

standards being considered included limitations such as 0.7 mg/l to protect irrigated

agriculture, and 0.6 mg/l to protect drinking water and aquatic life.

D-1422 also requires that Reclamation release water from New Melones Reservoir to

maintain dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in the lower Stanislaus River. The 1975

revision to the RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan established a minimum DO

concentration of 7 mg/l, as measured on the Stanislaus River near Ripon.

Refuge Water Supply Quality

Historically, water quality in the wetland areas in the San Joaquin River Basin was

dependent upon water supplies, including a combination of CVP fresh water and

agricultural return flows. Much of the agricultural return flow was conveyed through Mud

Slough and Salt Slough. In 1985, selenium in the subsurface drainage water was recognized

as a potential threat to waterfowl and other animals, having resulted in waterfowl

deformities at Kesterson Reservoir. At that time, to avoid delivering agricultural drainage

water to the refuges, two canals (Camp 13 and Agatha Canal) within Grassland RCD were

alternately used to transport drainage water and freshwater. When one channel was

conveying drainage water, the other channel conveyed freshwater to wetland areas along

that channel. Subsequently, the system would be switched, to deliver freshwater to wetland

areas along the other channel. This “flip-flop” system alleviated problems of agricultural

return flows being used on the refuges. In addition a bypass canal to Salt Slough was

constructed to divert agricultural return flows from the northern portion of the Grassland

RCD and the state and federal refuges. However, these bypass systems were inefficient and
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-20 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

resulted in many instances when wetlands could not receive otherwise available water

supplies. For example, when the capacity of the bypass to Salt Slough was exceeded,

drainage water entered the Santa Fe and San Luis Canal system, and State, Federal, and

private wetlands could not take delivery of water from this system due to water quality

concerns.

As part of a pilot program, Reclamation initiated the Grasslands Bypass Project in 1996.

Under this project, subsurface agricultural drainage water is collected in the San Luis Drain

upstream from areas serviced by the Grasslands Water District and the state and federal

wildlife areas. The San Luis Drain is a concrete-lined channel that conveys the drainage

water to the confluence of the drain with Mud Slough North. Mud Slough North conveys

the water to the San Joaquin River. Discharges from Mud Slough to the San Joaquin River

are subject to Waste Discharge Requirements from the RWQCB. By collecting and

transporting drainage water in the San Luis Drain, the channels that flow into and through

the wildlife areas only convey co-mingled CVP water, withdrawn groundwater, and

agricultural surface return flows. The separation of this higher quality co-mingled water and

subsurface drainage water has allowed for better water management, improved water

quality in return flows from the refuges, and reduced potential for selenium contamination

in the wildlife areas.

Historically, agricultural return flows were discharged to the San Joaquin River primarily

through Mud Slough and Salt Slough. Implementation of the Grassland Bypass Project has

directed most agricultural subsurface return water around the Grasslands Water District via

the San Luis Drain into Mud Slough North where it discharges into the San Joaquin River.

Diversion of agricultural subsurface drainage water through the San Luis drain into Mud

Slough has resulted in an increase in the frequency of exceeding objectives in Mud Slough.

However, this reduction in water quality has been offset by a corresponding decrease in the

frequency of exceeding objectives in Salt Slough and there has been no significant difference

in the attainment of objectives in the San Joaquin River.

National Wildlife Refuges

Water supplies to the refuges of the San Luis NWR Complex (the San Luis, West Bear Creek,

Kesterson, Freitas, Merced, and East Bear Creek units) consist of groundwater, flood flows,

surface return flows, surface water rights and licenses, and CVP water supplied under the

1954 Act and the CVPIA. Water quality of these water supplies varies. San Joaquin River

water above Salt Slough is generally considered usable for wetland management; however,

none of the refuges have riparian rights to use San Joaquin River water. Prior to

implementation of the Grasslands Bypass Project, the quality of Mud Slough South and Salt

Slough was unusable for wetland management due to high levels of selenium.

The San Luis Unit has appropriative water rights on Salt Slough, but generally has not used

Salt Slough water for wetland management after 1986 due to concerns about selenium

concentrations. The East Bear Creek Unit has appropriative water rights associated with

Bear Creek and the San Joaquin River on an if-and-when-available basis. Prior to the CVPIA,

groundwater provided the majority of water supplied to the Merced NWR. Groundwater is

also available for use on the Bear Creek units and the Freitas unit. However, elevated

salinity has precluded the use of groundwater as the sole source of water for managed

wetlands on the West Bear Creek Unit.
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-21

Prior to the CVPIA, water supplies to refuge areas were limited due to timing of delivery of

CVP water and the presence of co-mingled subsurface and surface agricultural drainage

water of poor quality in area canals. The water supply system could not prevent comingling of fresh water and selenium contaminated drainage. Presence of agricultural

drainage in sloughs and channels complicated, and at times prevented, the delivery of

otherwise available water supplies. Implementation of the Grasslands Bypass Project in 1996

alleviated many of the problems regarding salinity concentrations in Salt Slough and other

area channels. With delivery of the water supplies required under the CVPIA and

implementation of the Grassland Bypass Project, wetland management and water quality on

the refuges has improved.

State Wildlife Areas

Five state wildlife areas included the CVPIA lie within the San Joaquin River Basin. Historic

water supplies to the wildlife areas consist of groundwater, flood flows, surface return

flows, surface water rights and licenses, and CVP water supplied under the 1954 Act and

the CVPIA. Water quality of these water supplies varies. Habitat management on the

wildlife areas has been impaired by unreliable and poor quality water supplies in a similar

manner as on the federal refuges and Grassland RCD. The lack of firm water supplies of

adequate quality has limited management flexibility and the diversity of wetland habitat

and species.

Since the passage of the CVPIA, very little Level 2 water supplies from CVP yield have been

delivered to the China Island Unit of the North Grassland WA due to a lack of conveyance

facilities. Facilities are currently under construction as part of San Joaquin Basin Action

Plan, and once completed will allow for the deliveries of all Level 2 and 4 supplies.

Groundwater has continued to be an important water supply for the China Island Unit,

particularly in drought years. Groundwater has been used to meet a small portion of the

water needed for management of the unit pending completion of the conveyance facilities

for CVP supplies. However, poor quality and the potential for groundwater overdraft limit

the use of groundwater for wetland habitat management (CDFG, 1998).

The Salt Slough Unit has an appropriative license from Salt Slough if and when available.

Use of water from Salt Slough has been limited due to unsuitable quality and availability.

Although water quality in Salt Slough has improved with implementation of the Grasslands

Bypass Project, water quality must still be monitored to determine usability (CDFG, 1998).

Since 1993, the Salt Slough Unit has received CVPIA water (approximately 8,000 af per

year), which is conveyed through the Grassland WD canal system.

Water is available to the Los Banos WA from a number a number of water rights, licenses,

and CVP contracts. Historically (prior to CVPIA and State Water Resources Control Board’s

water quality objectives being set), use of much of this water had been limited due to

unacceptable water quality. Selenium contamination in drainage water historically

conveyed through Grassland WD via the San Luis Canal and a CDFG directive prohibiting

the use of selenium-tainted water further complicated and restricted water deliveries to the

Los Banos WA via the San Luis Canal. During this period, uncontaminated CVP water was

only available through this canal during short delivery periods. (CDFG, 1998). The majority

of agricultural drainage water from upstream agricultural activities is now diverted around

via the Grasslands Bypass Project.
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-22 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

CVP water deliveries via the San Luis Canal Company (SLCC) prior to CVPIA was also

limited in that during the winter (December to February) SLCC dewatered its canals for

maintenance. The Los Banos WA can obtain agricultural return flows when available from

the Boundary Drain. Water from the Boundary Drain is of poorer quality than CVP supplies

because of high total dissolved solids. The Los Banos WA also has a 5 cfs riparian right (if

and when available) from Mud Slough South, which joins the Boundary Drain near the

center of the refuge. However, use of this water has been limited due to unacceptable

selenium concentration (Reclamation, 1992).

The Mendota and Volta WAs have relied on CVP water delivered the Mendota Pool and

Delta Mendota Canal via San Luis Wasteway, respectively. Water from the Mendota Pool

has been Mendota WA’s main water supply. The quality of water from the Mendota Pool

and San Luis Wasteway is adequate for agricultural, urban, and wildlife habitat

management uses.

Grassland Resource Conservation District

Prior to passage of the CVPIA, the fresh water supply to private wetlands in the Grassland

RCD was limited and unreliable. Until 1985, Grassland Water District delivered a

combination of CVP fresh water and co-mingled agricultural return flows (Stoddard &

Associates 1998). However, the subsurface drainwater was found to have elevated

concentrations of selenium that could have toxic effects on waterfowl. The majority of

agricultural drainage water from upstream agricultural activities is now diverted around

the Grassland RCD and cannot be used for wetland management due to its poor quality

unless it is co-mingled with higher quality water from other sources (Stoddard & Associates

1998).

With implementation of Grasslands Bypass Project and the passage of the CVPIA, which

enabled delivery of CVP water on a more predictable basis, management and water quality

on private wetland areas has improved. Wetland managers no longer need to stockpile

water in anticipation of limited water supplies. Rather, flow-through management is

feasible and has resulted in improved water quality.

Water Quality Effects of Refuge Water Supplies on the San Joaquin River

The previously described wetland areas drain into the San Joaquin River through

tributaries. Flows from the refuges contribute salts that are present in the source water,

including CVP water, and concentrate in the flows following evaporation and

evapotranspiration from the wetland areas. If the source water into the refuges has selenium

and/or boron or biostimulatory substances, the return flows also will include these

constituents. The CVP water does not contain high selenium or boron concentrations or high

biostimulatory substances concentrations. Therefore, in the recent years following

implementation of CVPIA, contributions from the refuges have been primarily

characterized by high salinity which is present in the source water and concentrates through

refuge practices.

The RWQCB historic records indicated that flows from the wetland areas contributed about

8% of the annual total salt load and less than 5% of the total annual flow in the San Joaquin

River at Vernalis. However, the impact of these flows is dependent upon when the flows are

released from the wetland areas. Historically, the wetland areas stored water in the fall
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-23

months. If adequate water was available, the stored water was released in the winter

months during wet weather periods when replacement water was available to refill the

wetland areas. The winter water was released in the early spring months, primarily in

March and April. High volumes of water were not released during irrigation season.

Release of most of the water from the wetland areas in winter and early spring months in

general did not cause EC at Vernalis to exceed standards. As discussed in Chapter 3,

analysis in the PEIS indicated that increased flows from wetland areas due to application of

Level 4 water supplies as compared to historical Level 2 water supplies did not increase the

potential for exceeding the Vernalis Standards. This analysis was based upon the

assumption that water releases under Level 4 water supplies would continue to occur in

winter and early spring months.

Since the implementation of CVPIA, the refuge managers have modified the historic water

management practices. Water supplies are provided throughout the year which has allowed

for flow-through water management and salt management. These changes in operations

have improved water quality on the wetlands and in the return flows. In addition, it has

reduced the massive loads into the river which had historically occurred in a short-time

period. The "San Joaquin Basin Action Plan and North Grasslands Area Conveyance

Facilities Final Environmental Assessment/Initial Study" (December 1997) developed a

refuge water and salt mass balance model to evaluate the impact of refuge water supplies on

water quality in the San Joaquin River. The model considers the monthly patterns of water

delivery to the refuges, precipitation, storage, evapotranspiration, percolation to shallow

groundwater, and return flows to the San Joaquin River. The analysis assumes that the

refuges were provided water from the Delta Mendota Canal. The analysis considers

delivery of water to three habitat types: seasonal wetlands, permanent wetlands, and

croplands. Application rates were considered to provide flooding of seasonal wetlands from

fall through spring months. The permanent wetlands were flooded in all months in the

model. Crops were assumed to be grain crops used for waterfowl feeding. The mass balance

model calculates the monthly runoff as the difference between applied water, losses to

evapotranspiration and evaporation, and storage capacity in ponds and in the soil. A salt

loading is calculated on a monthly basis. The 1997 study compared the differences in salt

loadings between conditions with Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies to determine if

additional water would need to be released from New Melones Reservoir to maintain the

same level of compliance as under Level 2 water supplies. The 1997 study only considered

an "average" hydrologic year type and did not consider the dilution factor due to flows in

the San Joaquin River. In addition, the 1997 study assumed less acreage and less water

under Level 4 conditions than were considered in the PEIS.

For this Environmental Assessment, an evaluation was completed of the Level 2 and Level 4

water supplies with the flows and application rates assumed in the PEIS using the water

balance model to determine the effects of changes in refuge water supplies. The results,

shown in Table 5-2 in accordance with the 1997 report methodology, indicate that

implementation of Level 4 in the PEIS alternatives would not increase the frequency of noncompliance of the Vernalis Standards as compared to Level 2 conditions in the PEIS

alternatives and therefore would not require additional water releases from New Melones

Reservoir. Salinity concentrations also were calculated for the San Joaquin River at Vernalis

to reflect dilution factors that would occur under the Vernalis Adaptive Management

Program pilot project in which increased April flows are released on the San Joaquin River
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-24 SAC/1

TABLE 5-2Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet Vernalis Standards Without Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin Rfor Level II and Level IV Water Supplies as Described in the Programmatic EIS

EC Std.

(us/cm)

TDS Std.

(mg/L)

Discharge

Level II

Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge

Level II

TDS

(tons)

Discharge

Level IV

Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge

Level IV

TDS

(tons)

Discharge

Volume

Increase

(acre-feet)

Dischar

TDS Incre

(tons

OCT 1000 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NOV 1000 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 

DEC 1000 640 0 0 1859 951 1859 951 

JAN 1000 640 345 148 2141 1022 1796 874 

FEB 1000 640 1269 458 23751 10222 22482 9764 

MAR 1000 640 2450 956 29759 13189 27309 12233 

APR 700 448 27752 13932 28538 15681 786 1749 

MAY 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

JUN 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

JUL 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

AUG 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

SEP 1000 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-25

tributaries to improve fisheries conditions. The results, reported in Table 5-3, indicate that

there was no need to increase releases from New Melones Reservoir to meet salinity

standards due to changes in refuge water supplies from Level 2 to Level 4 on an average

annual basis. This is consistent with the results presented in the Final PEIS.

Historically, the standards have been primarily exceeded in critical dry years. Therefore, for

this Environmental Assessment, an evaluation also was prepared for critical dry years. The

results, shown in Table 5-4, indicates that during critical dry years under implementation of

Level 4 water supplies, additional water would need to be released from New Melones

Reservoir in April without the Vernalis Adaptive Management Program flows. However,

with the Vernalis Adaptive Management Program flows, there would be no need to increase

releases from New Melones Reservoir to meet salinity standards due to changes in refuge

water supplies from Level 2 to Level 4 in critical dry years in PEIS alternatives, as shown in

Table 5-5. This is consistent with the results presented in the Final PEIS.

5.3.2 Environmental Consequences

The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water

supplies to the San Luis NWR Complex; the Los Banos, Volta, North Grasslands, and

Mendota WAs, and the Grassland RCD. The impacts of providing this water have been

evaluated in the PEIS as described in Section 3 of this report. The impacts also have been

evaluated as part of the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan and North Grasslands Area

Conveyance Facilities Final EA/IS.

No Action Alternative

The analyses in the PEIS indicated that increasing deliveries up to Level 4 water supplies

would increase return flows to the San Joaquin River and associated TDS concentrations.

The Programmatic EIS analysis assumed that all of the return flows from these refuges

would enter the San Joaquin River in the spring months prior to April when the EC

standard is 1000 μs/cm. However, implementation of the Preferred Alternative also would

lead to increased water releases from the San Joaquin River tributaries under the Vernalis

Adaptive Management Plan. This would reduce the TDS concentrations in the San Joaquin

River as compared to the pre-CVPIA conditions (PEIS No-Action Alternative) which

included Level 2 water supplies to most refuges.

As part of the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan and North Grasslands Area Conveyance

Facilities Final EA/IS, a detailed analysis was completed to evaluate water quality in the

San Joaquin River, as described above. That analysis indicated that TDS would increase with

implementation of Level 4, as shown in the Programmatic EIS evaluation, but there would

not be an increase in the frequency of water quality violations in the San Joaquin River at

Vernalis. Results of a more recent application of this model, prepared for this

Environmental Assessment under average conditions and critical dry conditions with refuge

water supplies consistent with the PEIS assumptions, also indicated that there would not be

an increase in the frequency of water quality violations in the San Joaquin River at Vernalis.

Proposed Action

Habitat conditions under the Proposed Action would be very similar to the No Action

Alternative, with the primary difference being a slight increase in permanent wetlands on

some of the refuge units and a change in release patterns. The primary difference between
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-26 SAC/1

TABLE 5-3Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet Vernalis Standards With Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin Riveand Level IV Water Supplies as Described in the Programmatic EIS

EC Std.(us/cm)

TDS Std.

(mg/L)

San Joaquin

River Flows at

Vernalis

(acre-feet)

Discharge

Level II

Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge

Level II TDS

(tons)

Discharge

Level IV

Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge

Level IV TDS

(tons)

Level II TDS in

the San

Joaquin River

at Vernallis

(mg/L)

Le

the 

Riv

OCT 1000 640 122975 0 529 0 444 238 

NOV 1000 640 119008 0 404 0 403 342 

DEC 1000 640 184463 0 356 1859 376 526 

JAN 1000 640 276694 345 315 2141 351 592 

FEB 1000 640 360992 1269 265 23751 316 365 

MAR 1000 640 399669 2450 287 29759 326 138 

APR 700 448 386777 27752 369 28538 404 152 

MAY 700 448 368926 0 1416 0 1035 203 

JUN 700 448 208264 0 2793 0 1915 189 

JUL 700 448 153719 0 7266 0 4035 355 

AUG 700 448 122975 0 0 0 0 345 

SEP 1000 640 119008 0 0 0 0 268 
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AN

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 

TABLE 5-4Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet Vernalis Standards Without Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin RLevel IV Water Supplies as Described in the Programmatic EIS

EC Std.

(us/cm)

TDS Std.

(mg/L)

Discharge

Level II

Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge

Level II TDS

(tons)

Discharge

Level IV

Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge

Level IV TDS

(tons)

Discharge Volume

Increase

(acre-feet)

Discharge 

Increas

(tons

OCT 1000 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NOV 1000 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 

DEC 1000 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 

JAN 1000 640 0 0 169 110 169 110 

FEB 1000 640 0 0 1070 667 1070 667 

MAR 1000 640 0 0 845 527 845 527 

APR 700 448 0 0 845 813 845 813 

MAY 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

JUN 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

JUL 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

AUG 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

SEP 1000 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-28 SAC/1

TABLE 5-5Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet Vernalis Standards With Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin RiveLevel IV Water Supplies as Described in the Programmatic EIS

EC Std.(us/cm)

TDS Std.

(mg/L)

San Joaquin

River Flows at

Vernalis

(acre-feet)

Discharge

Level II

Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge

Level II TDS

(tons)

Discharge

Level IV

Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge

Level IV TDS

(tons)

Level II TDS in

the San

Joaquin River

at Vernallis

(mg/L)

Le

the 

Riv

OCT 1000 640 92231 0 559 0 513 370 

NOV 1000 640 89256 0 531 0 511 560 

DEC 1000 640 92231 0 663 0 529 625 

JAN 1000 640 122975 0 476 169 477 863 

FEB 1000 640 138843 0 412 1070 458 544 

MAR 1000 640 122975 0 436 845 458 168 

APR 700 448 119008 0 831 845 707 111 

MAY 700 448 153719 0 1954 0 1779 188 

JUN 700 448 89256 0 7329 0 4758 231 

JUL 700 448 61488 0 0 0 0 395 

AUG 700 448 61488 0 0 0 0 345 

SEP 1000 640 59504 0 0 0 0 268 
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-29

the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action is that the Proposed Action allows for

improved water management methods, such as flow-through methods, that improve water

quality on the refuges and in the return flows. In the No Action Alternative, it was assumed

that all of the return flows from the refuges were released in March. In the Proposed Action,

the water management methods allow for return flows throughout the year.

The mass balance model described above was used to evaluate the application of refuge

water supplies under the Proposed Action as compared to Level 4 water supplies under the

No Action Alternative. Initially, the analysis only considered changes in runoff without

consideration for dilution in the San Joaquin River. Under those assumptions, the runoff

from the refuges would increase the need for additional releases from New Melones

Reservoir in December through April under average conditions and in January, February,

and April under critical dry conditions, as shown in Tables 5-6 and 5-8. However, dilution

can be considered in evaluating the impacts on compliance with the Vernalis Standards, and

due to the flows in the San Joaquin River there would not be a need for additional releases

from New Melones Reservoir to meet the standards (Tables 5-7 and 5-9). Therefore, the level

of impact from the Proposed Action as compared to the No Action Alternative would be

similar.

5.4 Agricultural Land Use

This section describes the interaction between the refuges in the San Joaquin River Basin

and adjacent agricultural lands, and how these conditions may change as a result of the

Proposed Action.

5.4.1 Affected Environment

Adjacent Land Uses

The refuges in the San Joaquin River basin are located predominantly in Merced County in

the central San Joaquin Valley. The refuges are generally located between State Route (SR)

140 to the north, and SR 152 to the south. SR 165 divides the area from north to south. The

largest town in the general vicinity is Los Banos, with the smaller communities of Gustine

and Volta located nearby. The majority of the refuges are located adjacent to one another in

wetland areas along the San Joaquin River, Salt Slough, Mud Slough, and portions of Bear,

Los Banos, and San Luis Creeks. Several of the San Joaquin Valley refuges, including the

Kesterson Unit, the Freitas Unit, the West Bear Creek Unit, and the Salt Slough Unit, are

surrounded entirely by other refuges. However, a majority of the refuges are surrounded by

privately owned agricultural lands, made up of pasture, row crops, and orchards.

Lands surrounding the refuges are generally designated as Agricultural according to the

Merced County General Plan. The refuges themselves are recognized as highly valuable

wetland areas and wildlife habitat within the General Plan. The refuges land uses are

compatible with the Land Use, Open Space, and Agricultural Land Use goals of the Merced

County General Plan.

The Merced NWR and the Mendota WA are unique among the San Joaquin Valley refuges

because they are situated independently from the other refuges. Merced NWR is the most

easterly of the refuges in the San Luis NWR Complex, located approximately 9 miles
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-30 SAC/1

TABLE 5-6Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet Vernalis Standards Without Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin RLevel II and Level IV Under No Action Alternative and Proposed Action

EC Std.

(us/cm)

TDS Std.

(mg/L)

Discharge No

Action Alt

Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge No

Action Alt TDS

(tons)

Discharge

Proposed

Action Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge

Proposed

Action TDS

(tons)

Discharge Volume

Increase

(acre-feet)

Discharge 

Increas

(tons

OCT 1000 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NOV 1000 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 

DEC 1000 640 1859 951 0 0 -1859 -951 

JAN 1000 640 2141 1022 2897 2007 756 985 

FEB 1000 640 23751 10222 16642 10035 -7109 -187 

MAR 1000 640 29759 13189 13590 8198 -16169 -4991 

APR 700 448 28538 15681 31752 19849 3213 4168 

MAY 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

JUN 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

JUL 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

AUG 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

SEP 1000 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AN

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 

TABLE 5-7Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet Vernalis Standards With Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin RiveIV Under No Action Alternative and Proposed Action

EC Std.(us/cm)

TDS Std.

(mg/L)

San Joaquin

River Flows at

Vernalis

(acre-feet)

Discharge

No Action

Alt Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge

No Action

Alt TDS

(tons)

Discharge

Proposed

Action Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge

Proposed

Action TDS

(tons)

No Action Alt

TDS in the San

Joaquin River

at Vernallis

(mg/L)

Pro

TD

Jo

OCT 1000 640 122975 0 444 0 828 238 

NOV 1000 640 119008 0 403 0 691 342 

DEC 1000 640 184463 1859 376 0 584 530 

JAN 1000 640 276694 2141 351 2897 509 594 

FEB 1000 640 360992 23751 316 16642 443 385 

MAR 1000 640 399669 29759 326 13590 444 160 

APR 700 448 386777 28538 404 31752 460 155 

MAY 700 448 368926 0 1035 0 670 203 

JUN 700 448 208264 0 1915 0 1249 189 

JUL 700 448 153719 0 4035 0 1337 355 

AUG 700 448 122975 0 0 0 0 345 

SEP 1000 640 119008 0 0 0 0 268 
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-32 SAC/1

TABLE 5-8Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet Vernalis Standards Without Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin RUnder No Action Alternative and Proposed Action

EC Std.

(us/cm)

TDS Std.

(mg/L)

Discharge No

Action Alt

Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge No

Action Alt TDS

(tons)

Discharge

Proposed

Action Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge

Proposed

Action TDS

(tons)

Discharge Volume

Increase

(acre-feet)

Discharge 

Increas

(tons

OCT 1000 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NOV 1000 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 

DEC 1000 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 

JAN 1000 640 169 110 0 0 -169 -110 

FEB 1000 640 1070 667 0 0 -1070 -667 

MAR 1000 640 845 527 966 618 121 91 

APR 700 448 845 813 24617 17184 23772 16371 

MAY 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

JUN 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

JUL 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

AUG 700 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 

SEP 1000 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AN

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 

TABLE 5-9Additional Need to Release Water from New Melones Reservoir to Meet Vernalis Standards With Consideration for Dilution of Water in San Joaquin RiveNo Action Alternative and Proposed Action

EC Std.(us/cm)

TDS Std.

(mg/L)

San Joaquin

River Flows at

Vernalis

(acre-feet)

Discharge

No Action

Alt Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge

No Action

Alt TDS

(tons)

Discharge

Proposed

Action Volume

(acre-feet)

Discharge

Proposed

Action TDS

(tons)

No Action Alt

TDS in the San

Joaquin River

at Vernallis

(mg/L)

Pro

TD

Jo

OCT 1000 640 92231 0 513 0 568 370 

NOV 1000 640 89256 0 511 0 568 560 

DEC 1000 640 92231 0 529 0 559 625 

JAN 1000 640 122975 169 477 0 491 863 

FEB 1000 640 138843 1070 458 0 471 548 

MAR 1000 640 122975 845 458 966 470 171 

APR 700 448 119008 845 707 24617 513 116 

MAY 700 448 153719 0 1779 0 988 188 

JUN 700 448 89256 0 4758 0 1723 231 

JUL 700 448 61488 0 0 0 3272 395 

AUG 700 448 61488 0 0 0 0 345 

SEP 1000 640 59504 0 0 0 0 268 
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-34 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

southwest of the City of Merced in central Merced County. The Merced NWR is completely

surrounded by agricultural lands. The Mendota WA is located in Fresno County, 3 miles

southeast of the town of Mendota adjacent to Fresno Slough. The Mendota WA is situated

adjacent to SR 180 (Whitesbridge Road), immediately west of CDFG’s Alkali Sink Ecological

Reserve (a 932-acre tract of land managed for threatened and endangered species and

habitat values). The refuge is bounded by the San Luis Drain to the west, and is surrounded

almost entirely by agricultural lands to the west, north, and south. The refuge is designated

as Open Space in the Fresno County General Plan, and the surrounding lands are

designated as Agriculture. The lands surrounding the Mendota WA are managed almost

exclusively for agriculture; crops include cotton, alfalfa, seed, small grains, and sugar beets.

Horse and sheep graze on some adjacent fields. Some nearby lands are managed as private

waterfowl hunting clubs, and several small privately owned inholdings within the Mendota

WA are also managed as private waterfowl hunting clubs. The Fresno County General Plan

encourages the County to support state and federal programs to acquire significant fish and

wildlife habitat areas for permanent protection and/or public recreation use (Fresno

County, 1980).

Management Objectives

The Service manages the San Luis NWR Complex pursuant to several objectives, including:

(1) to provide feeding and resting habitat for wintering waterfowl; (2) to provide habitat to

manage endangered, threatened, and sensitive species of concern; and (3) to alleviate crop

depredation. In addition to these primary objectives, the San Luis NWR Complex is also

managed to attain the specific goals of the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture for the San

Joaquin Valley, including providing seasonal wetland habitat for migratory waterfowl and

maintaining a diversity of wetland and riparian habitats to support a diversity of wildlife

species. CDFG manages the WAs in accordance with several departmental land use

management guidelines, including providing suitable habitat and living space for the

preservation of native species and protecting surrounding agricultural lands from

depredation by waterfowl. The main objectives of the Grassland WD are to efficiently

deliver water supplies to wetlands within the Grassland RCD, conserve wetlands and

wildlife habitat, provide landowners with information on the use of water to manage

wetland habitat, and assist landowners in producing optimum habitat for migratory

waterfowl and shorebird populations.

5.4.2 Environmental Consequences

The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water

supplies to the San Luis NWR Complex; the Los Banos, Volta, North Grasslands, and

Mendota WAs; and the Grassland RCD. The impacts of providing this water have been

evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, as described in Section 3 of this report, but additional sitespecific 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 the 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, or beaver and muskrat damage). The issue of mosquito control was

addressed in Section 4.
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-35

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.

5.4.2.1 San Luis NWR Complex

No Action Alternative

One objective of the San Luis NWR Complex includes alleviating the problem of

depredation of agricultural crops by wintering waterfowl, which continues to be a part of

the refuges’ primary mission. This objective would be supported under the No Action

Alternative. As described in Section 5.2 (Biological Resources), improvements to on-refuge

habitats will continue to occur under the No Action Alternative. One of the benefits of

effectively managing wetland habitats with a reliable water supply is the increased ability to

produce waterfowl forage on the refuges. The ability to more effectively grow food items

has helped maintain waterfowl on the refuge, thereby reducing the potential for

depredation on surrounding farmland. This benefit would continue to occur under the No

Action Alternative, and additional benefits are expected as full Level 4 supplies are

delivered. In addition, relative to existing conditions, additional waterfowl habitat would be

supported on the East Bear Creek Unit when restoration actions are completed, which is

expected to provide additional benefits in terms of holding waterfowl on the refuge areas.

Because of these factors, land use effects would be beneficial 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. 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 refuge water supply increases under the No Action

Alternative, there would be a beneficial effect associated with limiting the spread of avian

diseases.

Water provided to the refuge is intended for optimum management of refuge lands per the

Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations and the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson

Mitigation Plan. The Service currently owns most of the lands in the Complex; however, per

the Action Plan, additional lands may be acquired in the East Bear Creek Unit and the

adjacent Kelly property. Per the CVPIA, refuge water supplies are available to these units

and would likely be provided under the No Action Alternative, should these additional

lands be acquired. Other than these lands that were identified in the Action Plan, no

additional refuge expansion is anticipated under the No Action Alternative.

Proposed Action

Habitat conditions under the Proposed Action would be similar to the No Action

Alternative. The minor changes in habitat under the Proposed Action would not

substantially change potential impacts to adjacent farmlands relative to the No Action
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-36 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

Alternative. Therefore, the level of impact, including potential acquisition of new refuge

lands, would be about the same as described above.

5.4.2.2 State Wildlife Areas

No Action Alternative

One of the primary objectives of the state WAs in the San Joaquin River basin is to provide

relief from depredation by waterfowl of agricultural crops. 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 would continue to occur under the No

Action Alternative. With the reliable water supply under the No Action Alternative, the

ability to more effectively manage habitat, including growing waterfowl food items, has

helped maintain waterfowl on the refuge, thereby reducing the potential for depredation on

surrounding farmland. This beneficial land use effect would continue to occur under the No

Action Alternative, and additional benefits are expected as full Level 4 supplies are

delivered. In addition, relative to existing conditions, additional waterfowl habitat would be

supported on the China Island Unit when infrastructure improvements are completed and

Level 4 water supplies are delivered.

An additional benefit of maximizing waterfowl retention on the refuges is control of avian

diseases, which are potentially transmittable to domestic fowl. For the state WAs, beneficial

impacts with regard to controlling avian diseases would be the same as those described for

the San Luis NWR Complex.

No refuge expansion is planned under the No Action Alternative. The amount of water

provided to the state refuges is intended for optimum management of current refuge lands.

Proposed Action

Habitat conditions under the Proposed Action would be similar to the No Action

Alternative. Minor habitat changes under the Proposed Action would not result in a

different level of impact to adjacent farmlands relative to the No Action Alternative. 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. Many

of the benefits described above are currently being realized as a result of delivery of Level 2

water supplies to the state refuge units, and some refuge units have received up to Level 4

water supplies. The primary difference would be with regard to the China Island Unit,

which is still undergoing conveyance improvements to fully use Level 4 water supplies.

Accordingly, the potential benefits to farmlands adjacent to the China Island Unit (such as

decreased crop depredation or decreased spread of avian diseases) would increase over

time, as habitat improvements associated with Level 4 deliveries occur on the China Island

Unit.

5.4.2.3 Grassland Resource Conservation District

No Action Alternative

As described in Section 5.2 (Biological Resources), improvements to Grassland RCD

waterfowl habitat would continue to occur under the No Action Alternative. With the
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-37

reliable water supply under the No Action Alternative, the ability to more effectively

manage waterfowl habitat, including growing food items, has helped maintain waterfowl

on the Grassland RCD, thereby reducing the potential for depredation on surrounding

farmland. This beneficial land use effect would continue to occur under the No Action

Alternative, and additional benefits are expected as full Level 4 supplies are delivered.

An additional benefit of maximizing waterfowl retention on the Grassland RCD is control of

avian diseases, which are potentially transmittable to domestic fowl. For the Grassland

RCD, beneficial impacts with regard to controlling avian diseases would be the same as

those described above for the San Luis NWR Complex.

Providing reliable refuge water supplies to the Grassland RCD does not involve the

conversion of upland habitats to wetland use; rather, the amount of water provided to the

Grassland RCD is intended for optimum management of current waterfowl habitat per the

Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations. However, conversion of existing agricultural

areas to wetlands remains an option for agricultural property owners within the Grassland

RCD. If such a conversion occurs, then the Grassland WD would be obligated to provide

water to these new wetland areas. However, the decision by private landowners to create

new wetland habitats is not expected to be affected by Grassland WD actions under the No

Action Alternative.

Proposed Action

Habitat conditions under the Proposed Action would be similar to the No Action

Alternative, and any minor changes in habitat 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 those described above. 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. Most of the benefits have been realized

given recent deliveries of most of the Level 4 increment, but some additional benefits

relative to existing conditions would be realized through increasing Level 4 deliveries.

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 hunting, fishing, and non-consumptive

recreation uses on the refuges.

5.5.1 Affected Environment

The San Joaquin Valley refuges provide many consumptive and non-consumptive

recreational opportunities, including hunting, fishing, birdwatching, and nature study. A

majority of recreational opportunities on the refuges is associated with waterfowl, and

includes non-consumptive uses (such as wildlife observation) and consumptive uses (such

as waterfowl hunting). Visitation to the refuges is highest in winter (October through

January), when waterfowl are present. NWRs, by policy, allow public use activities that are

deemed compatible with the primary purpose of individual refuges. Except for the

cooperative hunting programs, no access fees are charged to the general public.
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-38 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

Consumptive use includes all recreational use that allows publicly owned wildlife to

become private property (hunting, fishing, etc.). A non-consumptive use is an activity that

does not consume a natural resource, such as photography or nature study. Many of the

refuges are designed to protect wildlife populations from overuse and to provide for

equitable distribution of resources taken by the public. In addition, regulations limit

consumptive user numbers, season of use, and location of use. These regulations are

designed to provide adequate protection of wildlife and habitats from damage through

overuse.

San Luis NWR Complex

The recreation management objectives for the San Luis NWR Complex provide for both

consumptive and non-consumptive use on the refuges. The primary consumptive use is

waterfowl and pheasant hunting, and the primary non-consumptive use is wildlife

observation.

San Luis Unit

The San Luis Unit offers a multitude of well-established consumptive and non-consumptive

use programs. Public-use estimates have recently been updated for the refuge, and include

an estimated 7,000 consumptive use days, and 36,000 non-consumptive use days. As

indicated by these estimates, non-consumptive activities are the primary focus of recreation

use on the refuge.

Non-consumptive use at the San Luis Unit focuses primarily on interpretive waterfowl and

wildlife observation programs, as well as hiking. The refuge has two auto tour routes and

several foot trails open year-round for sightseeing, nature study, and wildlife viewing.

Waterfowl and other wildlife can be viewed from the 10-mile Waterfowl Tour Route. The

Tule Elk Tour Route encircles a 760-acre fenced enclosure where a small herd is maintained.

This tour route, including interpretive signs and an observation tower equipped with a

scope, are the products of a challenge grant from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and

other contributions by local landowners. Foot traffic is permitted along the auto tour routes,

as well as several adjacent trails, including the Chester Marsh Trail and the Winton Marsh

Trail. The Winton Marsh Trail includes an observation platform with benches overlooking

the Winton Marsh. The 1-mile Chester Marsh Trail leads to the San Joaquin River and offers

opportunities to explore the marsh and woodland habitat of the refuge. Bicycles are also

allowed on the San Luis Unit tour routes.

Consumptive use programs on the refuge focus primarily on waterfowl and pheasant

hunting, and to a lesser extent, on fishing. The waterfowl hunting program is available 3

days per week during the hunting season, and approximately 40 percent of the refuge is

available for hunting at this time. Public hunting of ducks, geese, snipe, moorhens, coots,

and pheasants is allowed by special permit. The waterfowl hunting program is operated

under a cooperative agreement between the Service and CDFG. Fishing is permitted in

season along the Salt Slough portion of the refuge. The main species caught are channel

catfish, bullheads, striped bass, carp and black bass.

West Bear Creek Unit

Because the West Bear Creek Unit is a relatively new unit of the San Luis NWR complex,

recreation use is not currently well established. Recent public use estimates for the refuge
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-39

include an estimated 528 consumptive use days, and 800 non-consumptive use days. The

West Bear Creek Unit is open to waterfowl hunting 3 days a week during the hunting

season. Major interpretive and recreational expansion opportunities exist on the West Bear

Creek Unit, including future tour routes, walking trails, and increased waterfowl hunting

opportunities.

Kesterson Unit

Both consumptive and non-consumptive recreation uses occur at the Kesterson Unit.

Waterfowl hunting is the primary consumptive use, and hunting blinds have been installed

in recent years. Fishing, a popular consumptive use on the surrounding refuges, is not

permitted at the Kesterson Unit. Wildlife observation is the primary non-consumptive

recreation use on the refuge. Other non-consumptive uses on the refuge includes hiking and

biking, organized tours, and outdoor education. Public use estimates have recently been

updated for the refuge, and include estimates of 2,600 consumptive use days and 2,200 nonconsumptive use days on the refuge.

The Kesterson Unit is open from dawn until dusk. The public access point is located 2 miles

east of Gustine on Highway 140. A portion of the Kesterson Unit is open to the general

public by foot or bicycle throughout the year, except during the waterfowl hunting season

or when restrictions are in place to protect nesting bird colonies from disturbance.

Freitas Unit

Similar to the West Bear Creek Unit, the Freitas Unit is a relatively new unit of the San Luis

NWR Complex, so recreation use is not currently well established. Waterfowl hunting is the

primary consumptive use on the refuge, and recent public use is estimated at 1,600

consumptive use-days. The Freitas Unit is open to waterfowl hunting seven days a week

during the hunting season. The primary waterfowl hunting areas on the refuge are

accessible by boat only. Non-consumptive use of the refuge is limited.

Merced Unit

Both consumptive and non-consumptive recreation use occurs on the Merced Unit. Recent

public use estimates include an estimated 1,100 consumptive use days, and 12,000 nonconsumptive use days. As indicated by these estimates, non-consumptive activities are the

primary focus of recreation use on the Merced Unit.

Similar to the San Luis Unit, non-consumptive use opportunities on the refuge include a

self-guided auto tour route and hiking trails for wildlife observation, nature study, and

photography. In response to increased demand for wildlife observation opportunities,

public use facilities (such as observation platforms and interpretive panels) have been

installed.

Consumptive use on Merced NWR focuses primarily on waterfowl hunting. Fishing is not

permitted on the refuge. Seasonal waterfowl hunting is allowed by permit on designated

days in selected areas of the refuge. The hunting area has been expanded following the

delivery and management of new water supplies.

East Bear Creek Unit

Prior to its acquisition in 1993, the East Bear Creek Unit was managed as a cattle ranch, and

consisted primarily of irrigated pasture. Because the habitat restoration actions identified in

the Action Plan have not yet been completed, the East Bear Creek Unit remains primarily
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-40 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

pasture, and does not offer recreational opportunities at this time. The proposed restoration

focuses on restoring the natural floodplain of the San Joaquin River and Salt Slough. Once

this restoration is complete, consumptive and non-consumptive recreation opportunities

will most likely be established on the refuge.

State Wildlife Areas

The state WAs encompassed by the CVPIA are located in the San Joaquin Valley. CDFG

manages the WAs in accordance with departmental recreation use guidelines, to provide

access to public lands for hunting and fishing opportunities and to provide for multiple use

of the area when this use will not unduly interfere with the primary use of the land (CDFG,

1998). This multiple-use policy permits all wildlife-oriented recreation activities to take

place on the refuges, as long as these activities are compatible with the primary objectives of

the area.

The WAs are open to the general public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from the middle of

January (the first day following the close of waterfowl hunting season) through September

15. Waterfowl may be hunted on Saturdays, Sundays, and Wednesdays from mid-October

through mid-January. Pheasant hunting is permitted during the season on Saturdays,

Sundays, and Wednesdays, in combination with waterfowl hunting. Pheasant hunting

occurs on the first Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday of the season. Pheasant season

runs from early November through early December. Waterfowl hunting can conflict with

most other types of recreation use. However, conflict can be avoided by not allowing other

recreational activities to occur in the same area as waterfowl hunting on the refuges.

Los Banos WA

Los Banos WA supports both consumptive and non-consumptive recreation uses. Public use

for the refuge is estimated at 4,200 consumptive use days, and 35,000 non-consumptive use

days (Reclamation, 1989). As indicated by these estimates, the majority of recreation use on

the Los Banos WA is non-consumptive in nature.

Non-consumptive recreation opportunities on Los Banos WA include camping, sightseeing,

hiking, dog training, and waterfowl observation during the spring and summer months.

The refuge has a demonstration marsh for educational purposes, and a self-guided auto

tour. The Los Banos WA staff are also available to give custom tours of the refuge to

interested groups. These tours are free of charge and are available throughout the year.

Consumptive use on Los Banos WA is oriented toward seasonal waterfowl and pheasant

hunting. Dove, rabbit and raccoon hunting are also permitted during the waterfowl and

pheasant hunting seasons. Game fish species caught by anglers on the refuge include

striper, catfish, bullhead, largemouth bass, crappie, and bluegill. Most angling for game fish

on the refuge is concentrated around Buttonwillow Lakes, Ruth Lakes, Mud Slough, and the

Boundary Drain. Anglers fish these waters from the shore, as well as from boats.

Volta WA

One of the original objectives for the creation of Volta WA was to provide public waterfowl

hunting opportunities. According to the Volta WA Draft Management Plan, this original

objective still carries significant importance today. Volta WA has been, and will continue to

be, managed with a major emphasis on providing public hunting opportunity for waterfowl

and any other game species that can reasonably be hunted without significantly impacting
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-41

that or any other species (e.g., pheasant, dove, rabbit, raccoon). Another important

management goal for Volta WA is to continue to provide sportfishing opportunities. A third

management objective for the refuge is to continue to provide guided tours for nonconsumptive users, as needed.

Public use for Volta WA is estimated at 7,400 consumptive use days, and 5,600 nonconsumptive use days. Non-consumptive use includes limited nature study and waterfowl

observation. Volta WA staff are available for guided tours of the refuge upon request.

North Grasslands WA – China Island Unit & Salt Slough Units

The China Island Unit and the Salt Slough Unit were purchased by the State in 1990, and do

not have highly developed recreation programs at this time. Specific information regarding

the number of recreation visitors to each refuge and the type of recreation use is not

currently available.

Both the China Island and Salt Slough Units are open to visitors, on a walk-in basis only.

Consumptive recreational activities are similar to other refuges in the area, and include

waterfowl hunting, as well as hunting for raccoons, rabbits, doves, and pheasants. Fishing is

also popular. Non-consumptive uses include nature study, birdwatching, and sightseeing.

Mendota Wildlife Area

Mendota WA provides for a wide variety of consumptive and non-consumptive recreational

opportunities. Fishing and waterfowl hunting comprise the primary emphasis of the

consumptive activities. Camping and nature study comprise the primary emphasis of the

non-consumptive activities.

Mendota WA is open to the public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from the middle of

January (the first day following the close of waterfowl hunting season) through September

15. Between 1980 and 1995 there were an estimated 33,389 recreational visits to Mendota

WA per year. Of these visits, 52 percent were for fishing, 32 percent for waterfowl hunting, 5

percent for camping, 3 percent for dog-training/field trials, and less than 1 percent each for

a combination of consumptive and non-consumptive uses including nature study, birding,

picknicking, rabbit hunting, raccoon hunting, and frogging.

An average of 17,534 anglers visit Mendota WA annually. Anglers fish for a variety of

species, including black bass, crappie, catfish, bluegill, and striped bass. While fishing

occurs throughout the year, much less occurs from mid-October to mid-January, when a

majority of the refuge is closed 3 days a week for waterfowl hunting. Additionally, when

the Mendota Pool is dewatered every other year, the number of anglers dwindles for a

month or two until the pool level and fish populations recover. Waterfowl hunting, the

second most popular consumptive use on the refuge, accounts for 10,809 hunters annually.

Among the waterfowl hunted are ducks, geese, coots, moorhens, and snipe. Pheasant

hunting, a much less popular activity on the refuge, is permitted in combination with

waterfowl hunting. An average of 486 pheasant hunters use Mendota WA annually. Dove

hunting averages another 483 visits annually. In recent years, however, the number of dove

hunters has increased dramatically as hunting opportunities on Mendota WA have become

better known in the region. Rabbit hunting accounts for 291 visits annually and occurs year

round. Raccoon hunting averages 116 visits annually, and the hunting season extends from

late winter into the fall.
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-42 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

As mentioned above, camping is the most popular non-consumptive use, and accounts for

1,544 campers annually. The heaviest use occurs in the summer months. Sightseeing

accounts for 3 percent of the recreational use on the refuge. An average of 1,093 sightseers

visit Mendota WA annually. Most sightseeing occurs in the spring and early summer

months (during the bird nesting season). Dog training and field trials account for an average

362 participants annually. Much of this use is in organized groups and typically precedes

and follows the waterfowl hunting season. Nature study accounts for 322 visits annually

and participants range from organized groups of local elementary school students to college

students. Birding averages 180 visits annually, and picnicking averages 89 visits annually.

Grassland Resource Conservation District

The Grasslands area also provides recreational benefits to sportsmen and visitors attracted

by waterfowl hunting and waterfowl viewing opportunities. Public use is estimated at

80,000 consumptive users, and 56,000 non-consumptive users per year.

5.5.2 Environmental Consequences

Entering into the proposed long-term refuge water supply agreements may affect recreation

uses in several ways. The focus of this section is 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).

San Luis NWR Complex

No Action Alternative

As described in Section 5.2, habitat conditions would continue to improve on the refuges of

the San Luis NWR Complex, in part as a result of an increased ability to manage for yearround habitat conditions and to irrigate for waterfowl forage crops. As a result of these

improvements, waterfowl populations would continue to increase. Recreation use is

expected to increase along with waterfowl populations. Although the specific number of

user-days has not been estimated, the greatest increase in the number of user-days is

expected to occur on the Action Plan lands considering that the West Bear Creek and Freitas

Units have not supported public recreation use until recently, and the East Bear Creek Unit

will not support recreation use until habitat restoration is complete.

In addition to the recreation benefits that are directly related to waterfowl populations (such

as waterfowl hunting or bird watching), other benefits are expected as well. For example,

increased water in internal conveyance ditches and increased year-round water would

benefit warm-water fish populations, and thereby benefit a variety of fish-eating birds and

associated wildlife observation and photography.
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-43

Proposed Action

Recreation benefits under the Proposed Action are expected to be similar to the No Action

Alternative. Although some habitat changes are expected, these changes are not likely to

result in substantially different recreation benefits than those described above under the No

Action Alternative. Accordingly, there would be no impact to recreation use under the

Proposed Action relative to the No Action Alternative.

State Wildlife Areas

No Action Alternative

As described in Section 5.2, habitat conditions are expected to improve on State WAs in the

San Joaquin River Basin. Similar to the above discussion for the San Luis NWR Complex,

improved habitat conditions are expected to result in improved conditions for recreation

users, and would be greatest on the Action Plan lands (i.e., the Salt Slough and China Island

Units) that have not supported public recreation until recently. As described above,

recreation improvements include an increase in waterfowl hunting and bird watching

potential. In addition, increased water in internal conveyance ditches and increased yearround water would benefit warm-water fish populations, thereby benefiting angling.

Proposed Action

Because habitat conditions would be similar between the No Action Alternative and the

Proposed Action, recreation benefits would be similar, too. 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, habitat improvements have only been recently completed on the

China Island and Salt Slough Units. Because these two refuge units are just now opening to

the public, they have the greatest potential for recreation benefits relative to existing

conditions. Beneficial effects relative to existing conditions would also occur on the Los

Banos, Volta, and Mendota WAs, but the incremental benefit would not be as great as it

would be on the two Action Plan units.

Grassland RCD

No Action Alternative

Private recreation use on the Grassland RCD would continue to benefit from the additional

water supplied under the No Action Alternative. Similar to the previous discussion for

developed public refuges, providing up to full Level 4 water supplies to the Grassland RCD

would continue to allow refuge managers to manage for year-round habitat conditions and

to irrigate for waterfowl forage crops. As described in Section 5.2, this ability to more

effectively manage wetland areas in the Grassland RCD would increase waterfowl

populations on the Grassland RCD and would bolster the existing private recreation

opportunities in this refuge area.

Proposed Action

Recreation benefits under the Proposed Action are expected to be similar to the No Action

Alternative. Although minor habitat changes are expected, 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. Because existing recreation
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-44 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

conditions are not likely to have developed to a level commensurate with the No Action

Alternative, beneficial recreation effects would occur under the Proposed Action relative to

existing conditions.

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. The section focuses on economic benefits associated with refuge use. 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 waterfowl-based recreation activities, both

public and private. Nationwide, it is estimated that approximately $3.3 billion is spent

annually on non-consumptive 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); however, few studies have been specifically performed

regarding the economic benefits of wildlife refuges in the San Joaquin River basin.

Because economic benefits associated with waterfowl-based recreation activities are

dispersed (there is a “non-point” economic benefit), 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 the trip. 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.

The affected environment for regional economic impacts is primarily the local communities

in the vicinity of the refuges (Los Banos, Santa Nella). 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 considered in this analysis. At a broad scale, the economic impacts of

implementing the CVPIA have been evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, as summarized in

Section 3, but additional site-specific analysis is warranted. This section focuses on potential
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-45

economic impacts resulting from changes in water deliveries to the specific refuges,

primarily on trip-related expenses captured by local communities.

As described by Southwick Associates (1995), annual hunting at least partially depends on

the population of waterfowl available for hunters to target. Similarly, birdwatching trips

likely 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. As a result, 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 refuges. As described in Section 5.2 (Biological Resources),

continuing to provide a reliable water supply, together with other post-CVPIA actions (such

as improvements to conveyance facilities), would continue to result in improvements to onrefuge habitats and to waterfowl (and other bird) populations. In addition, continuing

restoration of wetlands on the Action Plan lands would have a substantial wildlife benefit.

As wildlife populations continue to increase, hunter and birdwatcher use is expected to

respond in a similar manner, and may likely increase to a greater extent as a result of

expanding public recreation uses to the Action Plan lands. As is expected for wildlife

populations, drastic changes in recreation are not expected to occur; rather, modest

increases over time are more likely. Positive economic benefits would be experienced by

local communities (through increased travel-related expenditures) and to other economic

sectors (permit fees). 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 San Joaquin River basin 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

would be similar to the No Action Alternative. As described in Section 5.5 (Recreation),

onsite recreation use is not expected to change substantially. Accordingly, no changes to

regional economic benefits are expected under the Proposed Action relative to the No

Action Alternative.

The Proposed Action is expected to result in minor differences to regional economic

conditions relative to existing conditions. As described in Section 2, most San Joaquin River

Basin refuges have been receiving water deliveries, pursuant to the CVPIA. Many refuges

are receiving most of their total Level 4 water supplies. Relative to existing conditions,

habitat changes on refuges that are currently receiving most, or all, of their Level 4 water

supplies would be minor, so regional economic conditions are not likely to change in a

significant manner. The increase to full Level 4 deliveries at China Island and East Bear
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-46 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

Creek would further improve waterfowl habitat relative to existing conditions. Similar to

the No Action Alternative described above, these improvements in waterfowl habitats

would result in beneficial effects to regional economic conditions (such as increased local

business revenue).

5.7 Social Conditions

This section describes how the refuges contribute to local and regional social conditions and

the potential changes in these conditions from implementation of the long-term refuge

water service agreements. The focus of this section is 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

(such as California Waterfowl Association, or 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 resource decision making.

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 (for example, 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

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-47

5.7.2 Environmental Consequences

The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water

supplies to the refuges in the San Joaquin River Basin. On 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 recreationists and local business owners resulting

from changes in water deliveries to the San Joaquin River Basin 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 may 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 San Joaquin River Basin refuges. As described in Section 5.4 (Recreation),

hunter and birder use is expected to increase in response to improved waterfowl conditions,

increased numbers of birds, and the expansion of recreation uses to the Action Plan lands.

This could provide 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 and

access to 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), and also could be 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, especially considering the need to

provide staffing for the Action Plan lands. 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 similar to those under the No Action Alternative for most of the refuges, and are

not expected to result in any changes to social conditions relative to the No Action

Alternative.

As described in Section 2, the San Joaquin River basin refuges have been receiving water

supply deliveries under interim contracts, pursuant to the CVPIA. Many refuges are

receiving most of their total Level 4 water supplies. Relative to existing conditions, habitat

changes on refuges that are currently receiving most or all of their Level 4 water supplies

would be minor. Therefore, the secondary effects associated with habitat changes (recreation
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-48 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

and socioeconomic changes) would likewise be minor. With regard to the refuges that

expect habitat values to change as full Level 4 supplies are fully used (China Island Unit,

East Bear Creek Unit), the increased water deliveries are expected to bring about an

improvement in waterfowl habitat. These improvements in waterfowl habitats would result

in beneficial social effects (such as local employment and on-refuge employment).

5.8 Cultural Resources

This section describes the prehistoric and historic conditions in the general area of the

refuges, and describes known cultural resources on each refuge. The focus of the evaluation

is how the Proposed Action may impact known and unknown cultural resources.

5.8.1 Affected Environment

General Overview of Prehistoric Resources

Studies of the Southern Central Valley region define an elaborate culture complex for the

late prehistoric period. This complex most likely can be ascribed to the Yokuts and their

direct ancestors. The material culture of this late temporal period complex included steatite

vessels and beads, finely made projectile points, pottery, shaped stone mortars, Tivela disc

beads, use of asphaltum, and the presence of metates and manos. Flexed burials were the

predominant interment mode. Earlier mortuary practices included extended, rather than

flexed, burial position, a situation analogous to that of the northern valley (Gifford and

Schenck, 1926; Lillard, et al., 1939; Moratto, 1984).

The Southern Valley Yokuts were members of the Penutian language family, which

occupied all of the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, and the Pacific Coast from Marin

County to near Point Sur. The Yokuts differed from other California Indians in that they had

true tribal divisions with group names. Each tribe spoke an individual dialect of seemingly

one parent language (Kroeber, 1925). Trade was well developed, with a mutually beneficial

interchange of needed or desired goods. Obsidian, rare in the San Joaquin Valley, was

obtained by trade with Paiute and Shoshoni groups on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada,

where numerous sources of this material are located, and to some extent from the Napa

Valley, to the north. Shell beads, obtained by the Yokuts from coastal people, and acorns

(rare in the Great Basin) were among many items exported to the east by Yokuts traders

(Davis, 1961).

The rivers, streams, and sloughs, that formed a maze within the valley provided abundant

food resources such as fish, shellfish, and turtles. Game, wild fowl, and small mammals

were trapped and hunted to augment the diet with protein. In general, the San Joaquin

Valley provided a lush environment of varied food resources, with the estimated large

population centers reflecting this abundance (Cook, 1955; Baumhoff, 1963).

San Luis NWR Complex

San Luis Unit

The San Luis Unit was the subject of a comprehensive cultural resources survey by Pope

(1976) and an overview survey by Haversat and Breschini (1985). Pope’s survey identified

more than 20 sites on the refuge unit with artifacts thought to be of Native American origin
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-49

(such as house pits, lithic scatters, burial areas). In addition to these sites, a historic ferry

structure was recorded along San Joaquin River on the eastern border of the refuge.

West Bear Creek Unit

The San Joaquin Basin Action Plan states that cultural resource values are expected to be

high in the area of the West Bear Creek Unit because of historic use by Native Americans,

especially along Salt Slough and the San Joaquin River and in native grasslands. However,

no comprehensive or site-specific surveys of the West Bear Creek Unit have been

performed.

Kesterson Unit

Several cultural resources surveys have been performed on the Kesterson Unit, including

surveys by ESCA-Tech (1980, for areas in and around Kesterson Reservoir), True, et al.

(1981, for the San Luis Drain), West and Welch (1995, for on-refuge improvements), and

Haversat and Breschini (1985, an overview survey). There are approximately 15 known sites

within the Kesterson Unit that appear to be of Native American origin, including a large

area along SR 140. This site, which crosses SR 140 into the China Island Unit of the North

Grasslands WA, may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register.

Freitas Unit

The San Joaquin Basin Action Plan states that cultural resources in the area of the Freitas

Unit are expected to be high because of the extensive historical use of the Salt Slough and

San Joaquin River areas by Native Americans. No comprehensive surveys have been

performed on the Freitas Unit. A site-specific survey of a monitoring well field (for the

nearby Kesterson Reservoir site) was performed by West (1990). This survey discovered one

site containing artifacts thought to be of Native American origin. An additional survey

along the eastern boundary of the refuge conducted for the Grasslands State Park

(Woodward, 1993) also discovered several sites of Native American origin.

Merced Unit

Several surveys of the Merced Unit have been performed, including a general overview of

cultural resources on the refuge property (Haversat and Breschini, 1985). Site-specific

surveys were conducted by Shapiro (1997a and 1997b) and Dietz (1998), both for Corps of

Engineers levee improvements. Artifacts thought to be of Native American origin were

found near the refuge headquarters.

East Bear Creek Unit

The San Joaquin Basin Action Plan states that native grasslands in the area and San Joaquin

River/Bear Creek riparian areas are likely to have Native American archaeological sites. No

comprehensive surveys have been performed on the East Bear Creek Unit. A survey was

performed on 5 acres in the northern portion of the refuge (Parks, 1999), but no cultural

resources were found.

State Wildlife Areas

Los Banos Wildlife Area

No comprehensive or site-specific cultural resources surveys have been performed on the

Los Banos WA. However, artifacts and human bones have been found by CDFG staff at

various sites on the refuge. Five residential structures on the project site are more than 45

years old, so could potentially be classified as historic resources.
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-50 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

Volta Wildlife Area

No cultural resources surveys have been performed on the Volta WA.

North Grasslands Wildlife Area (China Island and Salt Slough Units)

No comprehensive surveys for cultural resources have been performed on either the China

Island or Salt Slough Units of the North Grasslands WA. The San Joaquin Basin Action Plan,

however, states that Native American archaeological sites are likely to occur within these

areas, primarily in riparian areas and native grasslands. Several site-specific surveys were

performed on the China Island Unit, including True, et al. (1981, for the San Luis Drain),

Welch and West (1996, for the J-lateral pipeline and associated borrow areas), and Adams

(1988). As described above for the Kesterson Unit, the site straddling SR 140 may be eligible

for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

No site-specific surveys have been performed for the Salt Slough Unit. However, a small

adobe building on the eastern edge of the refuge, the San Luis Camp Adobe, was evaluated

for its National Register eligibility. The San Luis Camp Adobe was determined to not be

eligible for listing on the National Register, but a placard has been placed to identify the

building as a State Historical Landmark.

Mendota Wildlife Area

A records search performed by the South San Joaquin Information Center indicates that five

surveys have been conducted for the Mendota WA. Six prehistoric sites have been identified

on the Mendota WA, all containing lithic scatters (obsidian flakes, shell and bone

fragments), projectile points, and other similar artifacts.

Grassland Resource Conservation District

No comprehensive cultural resources surveys of the Grassland RCD have been performed,

but approximately 40 surveys have been performed for various projects in the Grassland

RCD. These surveys were usually performed for small levee and road improvements on

individual duck clubs, and do not cover a large portion of the RCD. Most of the surveys

were undertaken by Service archaeologists in conjunction with federal grant funding (such

as Partners for Wildlife). Five sites, all within the South Unit of the Grassland RCD (mostly

south of SR 152) were identified as showing evidence of Native American activity. In

addition, the Santa Fe Grade Road, which transverses most of the Grassland RCD, has been

identified as a historic resource.

5.8.2 Environmental Consequences

The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water

supplies to the San Luis NWR Complex; the Los Banos, Volta, North Grasslands, and

Mendota WAs; and the Grassland RCD. The impacts of providing this water have been

evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, as described in Section 3 of this report, but additional sitespecific analysis is warranted. This section focuses on the site-specific cultural resources

impacts that may occur as a result of implementing the Proposed Action.
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-51

San Luis NWR Complex

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would continue to ensure that Level 2 water

is provided to the refuges of the San Luis NWR Complex and that up to full Level 4 water is

eventually provided. The effect of this water delivery would be to allow more efficient

management of existing wetlands on the refuges, and would not result in the conversion of

existing uplands to wetland habitat except as provided in the Action Plan. These changes in

management practices do not have the potential to disturb cultural resources.

In order to address potential effects of such 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.1 The agreement covers all

Service lands in California, including the refuges of the San Luis NWR Complex. The

Programmatic Agreement establishes procedures for cultural resources review for routine

undertakings on the refuges, without each individual undertaking requiring SHPO

consultation. The result is full compliance with Section 106 requirements in a streamlined

manner. Under the No Action Alternative, habitat management activities are consistent with

the terms of the Programmatic Agreement. Accordingly, full compliance with Section 106 is

expected without separate SHPO consultation.

Proposed Action

Management activities on the San Luis 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 habitat acreage that do not, in themselves, have the potential to

affect cultural resources. Accordingly, the potential to impact cultural resources is the same

as that discussed under the No Action Alternative. As described above, 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.

State Wildlife Areas

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would provide Level 2 and Level 4 water to

state WAs. The effect of this water delivery would be to allow more efficient management of

existing wetlands on the refuges, and would not result in the conversion of existing uplands

to wetland habitat except as provided in the Action Plan. These changes in management

practices do not have the potential to disturb cultural resources.

CDFG procedures require that, pursuant to CEQA, a CDFG archaeologist or consultant

conduct a preconstruction archaeological survey in the area of any management activity that

requires 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.

 

1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires consideration of the effects of federal actions on resources

listed on, or eligible for listing on the NRHP. The determination of effect is made by the SHPO in the State Office of Historic

Preservation.
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-52 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

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 only minor changes in potential management activities would

occur relative to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not adversely affect

cultural resources. Potential effects on cultural resources relative to existing conditions

would be similar to those described under the No Action Alternative.

Grassland Resource Conservation District

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would continue to provide Level 2 and Level

4 water to the Grassland RCD. Since the passage of the CVPIA, the availability of reliable

water supplies has affected, and will continue to affect habitat management practices on the

individual refuges of the Grassland RCD. The expected changes in habitat management

practices with delivery of up to full Level 4 water supplies are primarily changes to

management of existing wetlands (more summer water, earlier fall flood-up); no new

habitat development activities would occur. This change in water management of existing

wetland areas would have no impact on cultural resources.

Proposed Action

Changes in habitat conditions under the Proposed Action relative to the No Action

Alternative are primarily an increase in the delivery of summer water to existing wetland

areas. As described above under the No Action Alternative, no new habitat development

activities would occur, and the change in water management activities of existing wetland

areas would have no impact on cultural resources. Relative to existing conditions, potential

impacts on cultural resources would be the same as described under the No Action

Alternative (no impact).

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.

5.9.1 Affected Environment

The San Joaquin River basin refuges 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 refuges in the San Joaquin River basin. On a broad scale, the visual resource

impacts of implementing the CVPIA have been evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, as

summarized in Section 3, but additional site-specific analysis is warranted. This section

focuses on potential site-specific visual resource impacts.
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-53

As mentioned above, scenic quality of the refuges is related to the visual contrast between

the refuge lands and surrounding farmlands and waterfowl populations. In order to assess

visual resource impacts, Sections 5.2 (Biological Resources) was reviewed to determine how

changes in refuge habitats may affect scenic quality.

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. Key changes would result

from the continued improvement of seasonal and permanent wetland habitats on the Action

Plan lands. This is expected to result in a beneficial effect to visual resources on the Action

Plan lands by providing an increased visual contrast to surrounding uplands.

Section 5.2 (Biological Resources) describes how the No Action Alternative would improve

habitat on all of the refuges in the San Joaquin River Basin, 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.

Accordingly, a beneficial visual resource effect would occur on all refuges.

Proposed Action

Because habitat conditions would be similar, visual effects are expected under the Proposed

Action as under the No Action Alternative. In comparison to existing conditions, the most

substantial visual resource benefits would occur on the East Bear Creek Unit for which

restoration activities are still planned. Although habitat restoration activities have been

completed on the China Island Unit, the full benefits of these activities (including aesthetic

benefits) are still being realized. Accordingly, relative to existing conditions, there would

either be a beneficial impact or no noticeable change to visual resources, and the potential

impacts of the Proposed Action would be less than significant.

5.10 Power

This section describes power use by the refuges in the San Joaquin River Basin, and how

power use for refuge management may change as a result of the Proposed Action.

5.10.1 Affected Environment

The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) supplies electrical power to each of the

refuges in the San Joaquin River basin. The amount of power used on each refuge generally

depends on whether groundwater is pumped. Power costs have become a major budgetary

item for those refuges that pump large quantities of groundwater. In some cases, the cost of

electrical power has increased to such an extent that groundwater pumping has been

reduced to meet budget constraints (Reclamation, 1989). In addition, lower groundwater

levels in some areas of the San Joaquin Valley have raised pumping costs. Because other

power use requirements (such as low-lift surface-water pumps) do not contribute

significantly to overall power demands, this section focuses primarily on groundwater

pumping.
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-54 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

Several of the San Joaquin River Basin refuges have minimal groundwater pumping

demands, including the San Luis Unit, West Bear Creek Unit, Freitas Unit, Los Banos WA,

and the Salt Slough Unit. Three groundwater wells on the San Luis Unit are used to

supplement CVP water. Three groundwater wells, powered by portable diesel generators,

are used to supplement CVP water on the West Bear Creek Unit. The Freitas Unit also has

one production groundwater well. This individual well is used to maintain permanent

wetland habitat during drought periods. Although five groundwater wells were historically

used on Los Banos WA, a portion of the system was abandoned as a result of well cave-ins

and poor groundwater quality. Three wells are still operable on the refuge, but are intended

for use during drought periods only. Groundwater pumping is also used minimally on the

Salt Slough Unit. Two refuges, the Mendota and Volta WAs, do not use groundwater

pumping at all.

Several other refuges, including the Merced Unit, East Bear Creek Unit, and the China

Island Unit, rely more heavily on groundwater pumping, so have greater power demand.

The Merced Unit operates 21 groundwater wells, and groundwater is typically used during

the winter when the Merced Irrigation District dewaters its delivery system. Under an

agreement between Reclamation and the Service, Reclamation has paid a majority of the

power costs associated with groundwater pumping on the Merced Unit since the

implementation of CVPIA. The East Bear Creek Unit currently operates four groundwater

wells, and groundwater has continued to be an important water supply for the China Island

Unit, particularly in drought years.

Groundwater pumping facilities are operated on approximately 15 of the 165 hunting clubs

in the Grassland RCD. Some of these wells have not been kept fully operational because of

poor yields, poor groundwater quality, or corrosive effects. In addition, high pumping costs

preclude use of these wells as more than a supplemental supply.

5.10.2 Environmental Consequences

The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water

supplies to the San Luis NWR Complex; the Los Banos, Volta, North Grasslands, and

Mendota WAs; and the Grassland RCD. The power impacts of providing this water have

been evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, as summarized in Section 3, but 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. Accordingly, the focus of the analysis is on those refuges that use

groundwater (Merced Unit, East Bear Creek Unit, China Island Unit, Grassland RCD).

5.10.2.1 San Luis NWR Complex

No Action Alternative

As described above, groundwater use is limited primarily to the Merced and East Bear

Creek Units of the San Luis NWR Complex.

For the Merced Unit, groundwater pumping has decreased in recent years because of

delivery of water by the Merced Irrigation District. Under the No Action Alternative,
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC 5-55

however, groundwater pumping would continue to be necessary in the winter months

when water deliveries from the Merced Irrigation District are not available. As described

above, Reclamation has paid the majority of the Service’s groundwater pumping costs for

the Merced Unit since the passage of the CVPIA. This arrangement is expected to continue

under the No Action Alternative.

The East Bear Creek Unit is still undergoing habitat improvements pursuant to the Action

Plan, and has not received full Level 2 and Level 4 deliveries under the No Action

Alternative. In addition, water conveyance options are still being developed for the East

Bear Creek Unit. Until conveyance options are completed, it is anticipated that, under the

No Action Alternative, groundwater pumping would continue to occur in order to support

refuge habitats. It is also anticipated that Reclamation would pay the Service’s power costs

for groundwater pumping on the East Bear Creek Unit, but this would be a temporary

circumstance until conveyance facilities are completed.

Proposed Action

Entering into long-term water service agreements would not change groundwater pumping

activities compared to that described above under the No Action Alternative. Accordingly,

the same power use and cost effects described under the No Action Alternative are expected

under the Proposed Action, as well. It is expected that overall power use effects would be

beneficial once the necessary conveyance improvements are complete.

State Wildlife Areas

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, groundwater pumping is expected to decrease on the

China Island Unit of the North Grasslands WA. At this time, internal conveyance facilities

on the China Island Unit are being improved in order to use full Level 4 deliveries. As these

activities are completed, Reclamation expects to provide up to full Level 4 water supplies,

thus making groundwater pumping unnecessary, except possibly in dry years when Level 2

supplies are reduced. Accordingly, beneficial impacts are expected in terms of power use

and costs.

Proposed Action

Entering into long-term water service agreements would not change groundwater pumping

compared to that described above under the No Action Alternative. Accordingly, the same

power use and cost benefits described under the No Action Alternative are expected under

the Proposed Action as well. The same beneficial effects described under the No Action

Alternative would also occur relative to existing conditions.

Grassland Resource Conservation District

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, increased surface water deliveries have resulted in, and is

expected to continue to result in, a decrease in groundwater pumping. Some groundwater

pumping may still continue to occur in dry years in order to supplement decreased Level 2

deliveries, but overall groundwater use is still expected to continue declining. Accordingly,

beneficial impacts are expected in terms of power use and costs.
SECTION 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5-56 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180018 SJ-005.DOC

Proposed Action

Entering into long-term water service agreements would not change groundwater pumping

activities on the Grasslands RCD compared to that described above under the No Action

Alternative. Accordingly, the same power use and cost benefits described under the No

Action Alternative are expected under the Proposed Action, as well. Most of the power use

benefits on the Grasslands RCD described above have already been realized from delivery

of Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies. Accordingly, there would be little change in power

use on the Grasslands RCD relative to existing conditions.
Section 6: Consultation and Coordination
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180019 SJ-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 in project plans justifiable means

and measures for wildlife purposes.

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 Federal Endangered Species Act

Reclamation conducted formal consultation with the Service to address potential effects of

the Proposed Action on listed species. The purpose of this process was to ensure that the

management practices currently being implemented on the state and federal refuges and the

Grassland RCD meet ESA requirements for protection of federal special-status species. The

Service issued a Biological Opinion on January 16, 2001, concluding that the Proposed

Action, with recommended mitigation measures, is not likely to adversely affect listed

species. Additional actions are under way to comply with CESA requirements for the

protection of state-listed species.

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 San Joaquin River basin. NMFS concluded that the Proposed Action is not likely to

adversely affect anadromous salmonids.
SECTION 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

6-2 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180019 SJ-006.DOC

6.3 California Endangered Species Act

The CDFG previously consulted on and issued biological opinions on the effects of

management of the state WAs. Because these existing biological opinions address

management of the state WAs, no additional consultation is required for compliance with

the California Endangered Species Act for the Proposed Action. For Grassland RCD,

measures to avoid take of state listed species have been incorporated into the Proposed

Action (see Chapter 4). Because take of listed species would be avoided, the Proposed

Action would comply with CESA.

6.4 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.

6.5 Indian Trust Assets

Indian Trust Assets (ITAs) are legal interests in property or rights held in trust by the

United States 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 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, pers. comm., 31 January, 2000). Therefore,

implementation of the Proposed Action will not affect ITAs.

6.6 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 effects, of its programs,

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations of the United

States. Reclamation has determined that entering into long-term water supply agreements

with the refuges would not disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations.
SECTION 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180019 SJ-006.DOC 6-3

Social and economic impacts identified in Section 5 are generally anticipated to be

beneficial, in addition to being shared across income levels.

6.7 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 2001/010180020 SJ ENVIRON COMMENTS.DOC 1

Environmental Commitments

Significant impacts have not been identified for the Proposed Action. However, the Service,

CDFG, and GWD have committed to implement additional conservation measures for

various special-status plant and animal species, as follows.

• The Service would implement conservation measures for the following species, as

described in Appendix C, Table C-1.

− Aleutian Canada goose

− bald eagle

− blunt-nosed leopard lizard

− Fresno kangaroo rat

− giant garter snake

− giant kangaroo rat

− San Joaquin kit fox

− valley elderberry longhorn beetle

− vernal pool fairy shrimp

− longhorn fairy shrimp

− Conservancy fairy shrimp

− vernal pool tadpole shrimp

− Colusa grass

• CDGF would implement conservation measures pursuant to existing CESA Biological

Opinions, and additional measures pursuant to the ESA Biological Opinion completed

January 16, 2001, for the following species as described in Appendix C, Tables C-2 and

C-3.

− Aleutian Canada goose

− bald eagle

− blunt-nosed leopard lizard

− California red-legged frog

− giant garter snake

− Fresno kangaroo rat

− giant kangaroo rat

− San Joaquin kit fox

− valley elderberry longhorn beetle

− vernal pool fairy shrimp

− longhorn fairy shrimp

− Conservancy fairy shrimp

− vernal pool tadpole shrimp

− Ferris’s bird’s-beak

− Hoover’s eriastrum

− palmate-bracted bird’s-beak

− San Joaquin woolly threads
ENVRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180020 SJ ENVIRON COMMENTS.DOC 2

• GWD would implement conservation measures for the following species, as described in

Appendix C, Table C-4:

− Aleutian Canada goose

− bald eagle

− giant garter snake

− Fresno kangaroo rat

− giant kangaroo rat

− San Joaquin kit fox
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180021 SJ REFERENCES.DOC 1

References

Adams, C. J. 1988. Archaeological Survey Report for Proposed Surface Rehabilitation and

Widening – 10-MER-140. Prepared for Jim Jelinek, Chief, District 10 Environmental Branch,

Stockton, California.

Baumhoff, M. A. 1963. Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal California Populations. University

of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(2):155-236. Berkeley.

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.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1983. “A plan for protecting, enhancing,

and increasing California’s wetlands for waterfowl.” Sacramento, California.

CDFG. 1988. Los Banos Wildlife Area Management Plan.

CDFG. 1994. Mendota Wildlife Area Management Plan.

CDFG. 1998. North Grasslands Wildlife Area Management Plan.

CDFG. 2000. Final Draft Volta Wildlife Area Management Plan.

Cook, S.F. 1955. The Aboriginial Populations of the San Joaquin Valley, California. University of

California Press Anthropological Records 16(2). Berkeley.

Dietz, Frank. 1998. Cultural Resources Assessment within the Lower San Joaquin Levee

District on the Eastside Bypass, Merced County, California (SJ21, SJ22 & SJ25).

ESCA-Tech Corporation. 1980. Final Report – Archaeological and Historical Survey,

Kesterson Reservoir. Submitted to: U.S. Department of Interior, Water And Power

Resources Service.

Fresno County. 1980. Fresno County General Plan.

Gifford, E.W. and W.E. Schenck. 1926. Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley,

California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology,

Vol. 23, No. 1. Berkeley.

Haversat, T. and G. S. Breschini. 1985. A Cultural Resources Overview and Management

Plan for the San Luis, Merced, and Kesterson National Wildlife Refuges, Merced County,

California. Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology

Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C.

Lillard, J. B., R. F. Heizer, and F. Fenenga. 1939. An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central

California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc., New York.
REFERENCES

2 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180021 SJ REFERENCES.DOC

Parks, V. 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Archaeological and Historical Resources

Identification Report: Gallo Cattle Co. Restoration – GWMA 99.

Pope, J. L. 1976. The Archeology of the San Luis Island National Wildlife Refuge, Merced

County, California. February 1976. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Shapiro, W. 1987a. An Archaeological Assessment Within Portions of the Lower San Joaquin

Levee District and the Madera County Flood Control and Water Conservation Levees:

Merced and Madera Counties, California. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Sacramento District.

Shapiro, W. 1987b. Addendum Report: An Archaeological Assessment Within Portions of

the Lower San Joaquin Levee District and the Madera County Flood Control and Water

Conservation Levees: Merced and Madera Counties, California. Prepared for the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District.

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. 1998. Water management plan for Grassland Water District. Stoddard &

Associates Civil Engineers, Los Banos, California.

True, D.L., P. Bouey, and M. Basgall. 1981. Archaeological Survey of the Proposed San Luis

Drain Project: Kesterson Reservoir to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.

Submitted to U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 1950. “Waterfowl conservation in the lower San

Joaquin Valley.” Sacramento, California.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 1978a. “Fish and wildlife problems,

opportunities, and solutions.” Working document No. 12, USBR, Sacramento, California.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 1978b. “Water availability study for California

wetlands.” Prepared by CH2M HILL.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 1986. “Central Valley Fish and Wildlife

Management Study: New waterfowl habitat potential within the Central Valley, California.”

Special Report, September 1986.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 1989. “Report on refuge water supply

investigations: Central valley hydrologic basin, California.” Mid Pacific Region.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 1992. “Refuge water supply study, plan

coordination team interim report.” Mid-Pacific Region, Sacramento, California.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 1999. “Final Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact. The temporary acquisition of water from Semitropic

Water Storage District for San Joaquin Valley wetland habitat areas.” Mid-Pacific Region,

Sacramento, California.
REFERENCES

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180021 SJ REFERENCES.DOC 3

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1989. San Joaquin Basin Action

Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1995. “San Joaquin Basin action plan:

Wetlands development and management plan in the North Grasslands area.” Merced

County, California.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG). 1997. “Draft Environmental Assessment / Initial Study, Proposed FONSI /

Negative Declaration.” Conveyance of refuge water supply project, South San Joaquin

Valley Study Area.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California

Department of Fish and Game, 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.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG). 1999. “Final Environmental Assessment / Initial Study, and Proposed FONSI /

Negative Declaration.” Conveyance of refuge water supply project, Mendota Wildlife Area.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1978b. “Concept plan for waterfowl wintering

habitat preservation.” Region 1, Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1990. “Central Valley habitat joint venture

implementation plan.” Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1996. Draft “Water Management Strategy for the

National Wildlife Refuges of the Central Valley of California.”

Welch, P. and G. J. West. 1996. Cultural Resources Inventory for the China Island Wetland

Development and the J Lateral Pipeline.

West, G. J. 1990. Archeological Reconnaissance: Pollutant Plume Detection Wells, Freitas

Ranch Property, Merced County, California.

West, J. and P. Welch. 1995. Cultural Resources Report: Kesterson NWR Proposed Canal

and Trail.

Woodward, J. 1993. Archaeological Reconnaissance of Great Valley Grasslands State Park.
SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180022 SJ PREP LIST.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

John Beam Refuge Manager, Los Banos WA

Grassland Water District

Dean Kwasny Wildlife Biologist

CH2M HILL

Sandy Taylor Project Manager

Matt Franck NEPA/CEQA Compliance

Beth Doolittle NEPA/CEQA Compliance

Laurel Karren NEPA/CEQA Compliance

Gwen Buchholz CVPIA Consistency
Appendix A:

CEQA Initial Study Checklist –

State Wildlife Areas
SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC A-1

Appendix A

CEQA Initial Study Checklist – State Wildlife Areas

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

1416 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 653-1485

4. Project Location: Los Banos, Volta, and portions of the North Grasslands

Wildlife Areas in Merced County, and the Mendota Wildlife

Area in Fresno County.

5. Project Sponsor: Department of Fish and Game

6. General Plan

Designation: Agricultural (Merced County General Plan)

Agriculture (Fresno 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 were provided as described in Reclamation’s

Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations and the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson

Mitigation Plan. The specific actions to be undertaken with regard to the refuges considered

in this Initial Study are described in the following sections.

Los Banos Wildlife Area

Under the proposed long-term contract, Reclamation would ensure that the Los Banos

Wildlife Area (WA) is provided with a firm, reliable water supply of 16,670 acre-feet per

year (afa), subject to deficiencies. In addition, Reclamation would seek to supply the Los

Banos WA with up to an additional increment of 8,826 afa through its Water Acquisition

Program. This water (up to a total of 25,496 afa under the proposed contract) would be used

by CDFG to support the efficient use of existing wetland habitats on the Los Banos WA. No

new wetland areas would be created, and existing wetlands would generally not be

converted to different habitat types (e.g., seasonal wetlands to permanent wetlands).

Currently, most of the refuge water supplies required under the CVPIA are being delivered

to the Los Banos WA, either directly by Reclamation or under previous water supply

agreements.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-2 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC

North Grasslands Wildlife Area: China Island Unit

Under the proposed long-term contract, Reclamation would ensure that the China Island

Unit of the North Grasslands WA is provided with a firm, reliable water supply of 6,967 afa,

subject to deficiencies. In addition, Reclamation would seek to supply the China Island Unit

with up to an additional increment of 3,483 afa through its Water Acquisition Program. This

water (up to a total of 10,450 afa under the proposed contract) would be used by CDFG to

support the efficient use of wetland habitats on the China Island Unit. Currently, restoration

activities are underway to create wetland habitat on the China Island Unit, pursuant to the

San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan. In support of these new habitat areas,

Reclamation has provided water to the China Island Unit under the CVPIA, and in addition

CDFG uses groundwater to support wetland areas. Delivery of the full refuge water

supplies under the CVPIA, however, cannot occur until additional conveyance

infrastructure is developed on the China Island Unit. CDFG is currently in the process of

developing these internal conveyance facilities.

North Grasslands Wildlife Area: Salt Slough Unit

Under the proposed long-term contract, Reclamation would ensure that the Salt Slough Unit

of the North Grasslands WA is provided with a firm, reliable water supply of 6,680 afa,

subject to deficiencies. In addition, Reclamation would seek to supply the Salt Slough Unit

with up to an additional increment of 3,340 afa through its Water Acquisition Program. This

water (up to a total of 10,020 afa under the proposed contract) would be used by CDFG to

support the efficient use of wetland habitats on the Salt Slough Unit. Restoration activities to

create wetland habitat have recently been completed on the Salt Slough Unit, pursuant to the

San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan. Under the CVPIA, Reclamation has

provided most of the water to support these new habitat areas, but additional deliveries are

necessary in order to meet the full refuge water supply requirement.

Mendota Wildlife Area

Under the proposed long-term contract, Reclamation would ensure that the Mendota WA is

provided with a firm, reliable water supply of 27,954 afa, subject to deficiencies. In addition,

Reclamation would seek to supply the Mendota WA with up to an additional increment of

1,694 afa through its Water Acquisition Program. This water (up to a total of 29,618 afa

under the proposed contract) would be used by CDFG to support the efficient use of existing

wetland habitats on the Mendota WA. No new wetland areas would be created, and existing

wetlands would generally not be converted to different habitat types. Currently, the full

refuge water supply amounts required under the CVPIA can be delivered to the Mendota

WA under a previous water supply agreement with Reclamation. However, improvements

to the Mendota Pool upstream of the refuge are necessary in order to allow this water to be

delivered in a manner that more effectively supports refuge habitat management. Potential

improvements to the Mendota Pool are currently under consideration by Reclamation as

part of a separate project.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The Los Banos, Volta, and North Grasslands Wildlife Areas are part of the larger Grasslands

Ecological Area. The Los Banos and North Grasslands Wildlife Areas are bordered by other

refuge lands (primarily federal refuges of the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex

and the private wetlands of the Grassland Resource Conservation District). The Volta
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC A-3

Wildlife Area is bordered by the Grassland Resource Conservation District and private

farmlands. The Mendota WA is bordered entirely by private farmlands.

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:

John Beam, Manager, Los Banos 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.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-4 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC

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

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC A-5

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 five refuge units each have a high degree of visual intactness including

wetland, upland, and riparian areas. Implementing the proposed project would allow existing

wetland areas to be managed more effectively. Providing for year-round use of wetlands will

slightly increase visual quality, and therefore this impact is considered to be beneficial. Minor

construction activities will be necessary on the China Island Unit to improve internal

conveyance of increased water supplies; however, the limited extent of construction would

not affect visual resources.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-6 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC

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 Dept. 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 nonagricultural 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 the refuges for waterfowl and other wildlife habitat purposes is

consistent with the policies of the Merced and Fresno 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 non-agricultural use?



Comment: No other changes would occur that would result in a conversion of farmland to

non-agricultural 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? 

(b) Violate any air quality standard or

contribute substantially to an existing or

projected air quality violation?

CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC A-7

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net

increase of any criteria pollutant for which

the project region is non-attainment 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. No air quality impacts would occur.

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 project. The reader is

referred to this analysis for an understanding of the habitat and associated plant and animal

resources of the five refuge units.

With the exception of the China Island Unit, CVPIA refuge water supplies have been available

to the state WAs. The increase in reliable water supplies to the full amount would allow

optimal management of on-refuge habitats. However, because the refuges have been receiving

most of the water required by the CVPIA, the habitat conditions would not change

substantially from existing conditions. Expansion of wetland habitats to non-wetland areas

would not occur on the state Wildlife Areas. Rather, increased and reliable water supplies

would enable more effective management of existing habitats. Expected improvements in

habitat management include:

• 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.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-8 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

• 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 two to four weeks during the summer.

Full CVPIA water supplies would continue to support 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. Additional conservation measures would be

implemented on the state Wildlife Areas to avoid and minimize potential impacts to specialstatus species from a wide range habitat management activities and operational regimes. In

combination, the improvements in habitat quality and availability, and the additional

conservation measures would provide greater benefit to special-status species than currently

exists.

(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: The wetland habitat types found on the five refuge units are considered sensitive;

however, the proposed project is intended to improve habitat management activities on the

refuges.

(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, and would not affect jurisdictional waters.

(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 (e.g., increased permanent

wetland habitat). The extent of these habitat changes is not expected to adversely affect

wildlife movement and dispersal.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC A-9

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(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 Merced and Fresno County

General Plans. In addition, the project facilitates the implementation of Management Plans for

each of the refuges.

(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 Central California and Southern San

Joaquin Valley Information Centers, each refuge unit has a high 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, management activities under the

proposed project would not affect cultural resources.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-10 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 AlquistPriolo 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.



(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.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC A-11

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?



(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

refuges, 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 in the vicinity of the Los Banos, Volta, North Grasslands,

and Mendota WAs.

(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 five refuge units would have no effect on emergency response

or evacuation.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-12 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC

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 due to wildfire at the refuges is very 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 Refuge Water

Supply project. The reader is referred to this analysis for an understanding of the water

resources on and near the refuge units.

The NEPA analyses conducted for the CVPIA indicated that providing full refuge water

supplies under the CVPIA would increase total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations in the

San Joaquin River. This analysis assumed that all of the return flows from these refuges would

enter the San Joaquin River in the spring months prior to April when the standard for electrical

conductivity (EC) at Vernalis is 1000 microsiemens/cm (Ms/cm). However, CVPIA

implementation also would lead to increased water releases from the San Joaquin River

tributaries under the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan (VAMP). This would reduce the

TDS concentrations in the San Joaquin River as compared to the pre-CVPIA conditions, which

included delivery of some CVPIA refuge water supplies. 

A project-specific analysis was conducted to evaluate potential water quality impacts. The

prior analysis conducted for the CVPIA assumed that all of the return flows from the refuges

were released in March. However, consistent with the flow-through management practices

currently being used on the refuges, the subsequent analysis allowed for return flows

throughout the year. Without considering dilution in the San Joaquin River, the analysis

showed that the delivery of full refuge water supplies would require additional releases from

new Melones Reservoir in December through April of average water years in order to meet

water quality standards at Vernalis. Additional New Melones releases would be required in

January, February, and April of critically dry years. However, dilution can be considered in

evaluating the impacts on compliance with the Vernalis water quality standards. Due to the

flows in the San Joaquin River, there would not be a need for additional releases from New

Melones Reservoir to meet the Vernalis standards under the proposed project. Additional

information describing the results of the analysis can be found in the NEPA documentation

prepared for this project.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC A-13

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(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 refuges is expected to have a

beneficial effect on the local aquifer by allowing for additional recharge.

(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 onor off-site?



(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 onor off-site?



Comment: No physical activities would occur on the project area. The application of additional

water would not alter on-site drainage patterns.

(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 refuges.

Accordingly, the quantity of discharge water would increase. However, flows would not

exceed channel capacity in the San Joaquin River and other drainages.

(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water

quality?



Comment: All potential water quality effects of the proposed project are described in the above

sections.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-14 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(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?



(h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area

structures which would impede or redirect

flood flows?



Comment: No housing units or 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 project area 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 on or near the refuges.

(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 refuges, including the

Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan

(including the management plan of the Central Valley Project Joint Venture), the Merced and

Fresno County General Plans, the Management Plans for the Los Banos, North Grasslands, and

Mendota WAs, and the draft Management Plan for the Volta WA.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC A-15

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(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?



(b) 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

refuges 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, and would not generate noise.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-16 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(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 airports or airstrips are located near the project area.

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

due to enhanced recreation 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) Would the project 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:
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC A-17

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(i) Fire protection? 

(ii) Police protection? 

Comment: Public use of the refuges is primarily for recreational duck hunting and bird

watching. Recreation use may increase due to the more effective management of existing

wetlands and continued development of the China Island and Salt Slough Units, but this is not

expected to translate into an increased need for public services such as police and fire

protection.

(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) Would the project 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 recreation use of the

refuges (especially the China Island and Salt Slough Units), and have 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)?


CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

A-18 SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(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?



(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 due to improvement of

on-refuge habitats (and therefore improved duck populations), this is not expected to translate

into a noticeable difference in terms of traffic (i.e., hunters and bird watchers traveling to the

refuges). Accordingly, traffic-related impacts (e.g., congestion, safety, parking) would not be

impacted 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 refuges. 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 due to

implementation of the proposed project.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/155333/JAN 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC A-19

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(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?



Comment: The amount of water discharge 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 five refuge units with sufficient water to

effectively manage wetland habitats per Reclamation’s Report on Refuge Water Supply

Investigations, the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan, and the Management

Plans of the individual refuges.

(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 refuge units 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 five refuge units 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 2001/010180023 SJ APPENDIX A.DOC

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?


Appendix B:

CEQA Initial Study Checklist –

Grassland Water District
SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC B-1

Appendix B

CEQA Initial Study Checklist – Grassland Water District

1. Project Title: Refuge Water Supply – Long-Term Contract with U.S. Bureau

of Reclamation.

2. Lead Agency: Grassland Water District

3. Contact Person: Mr. Don Marciochi, General Manager

Grassland Water District

22759 S. Mercy Springs Road

Los Banos, CA 93635

(209) 826-5188

4. Project Location: Private lands within the Grassland Resource Conservation

District in western Merced County, and also the Blue Goose

Unit of the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge and the Gadwall

Unit of the North Grasslands Wildlife Area.

5. Project Sponsor: Grassland Water District

6. General Plan

Designation: Agriculture (Merced County General Plan)

7. Zoning: Varies. The three zoning classifications applicable to the

project area include A-1 (General Agricultural), A-2 (Exclusive

Agricultural), and PAID (Planned Agricultural Industrial

Development).

8. Description of Project:

Under the proposed project, the Grassland Water District (GWD) would enter into a longterm 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 were provided as described in Reclamation’s Report on

Refuge Water Supply Investigations. Pursuant to this report, Reclamation would ensure that

GWD is provided with a firm, reliable water supply of 125,000 acre-feet per year (afa),

subject to deficiencies. In addition, Reclamation would seek to supply GWD with up to an

additional increment of 55,000 afa through its Water Acquisition Program. This water (up to

a total of 180,000 afa under the proposed contract) would be used by GWD to support the

efficient use of existing wetland habitats on private lands within the Grassland Resource

Conservation District (GRCD), and also on the Blue Goose Unit of the San Luis National

Wildlife Refuge and the Gadwall Unit of the North Grasslands Wildlife Area.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The GRCD is a part of the larger Grasslands Ecological Area. The northern portion of the

GRCD includes and is bordered by other refuge lands to the east (primarily federal refuges

of the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex and the state Los Banos, Volta, and North

Grasslands Wildlife Areas). Lands west of northern GRCD are primarily in agricultural

production. The southern portion of the GRCD is surrounded primarily by agricultural

lands.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

B-2 SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC

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:

Dean Kwasny, Biologist, Grassland Water District

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.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC B-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

B-4 SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC

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 Grasslands Ecological Area, including the GRCD, has a high degree of visual

intactness including wetland, upland, and riparian areas. Implementing the proposed project

would allow existing wetland areas to be managed more effectively. Providing for year-round

use of wetlands will slightly increase visual quality, and therefore this impact is considered to

be beneficial. No other visual changes are expected to occur.

(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.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC B-5

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 Dept. 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 nonagricultural use?



Comment: The proposed project is for increased delivery of water to existing wetland areas,

no farmland would be converted to non-farm uses. However, the GWD would be obligated to

provide water to farmlands within its boundaries that are converted to duck clubs or other

refuge uses.

(b) Conflict with existing zoning for

agricultural use, or a Williamson Act

contract?



Comment: Continued use of GRCD wetland areas for waterfowl and other wildlife habitat

purposes is consistent with the policies of the Merced County General Plan with regard to the

Grasslands Ecological Area.

(c) Involve other changes in the existing

environment which, due to their location or

nature, could result in conversion of

Farmland, to non-agricultural use?



Comment: No other changes would occur that would affect the conversion of farmlands to

non-agricultural 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? 

(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 non-attainment under

an applicable federal or state ambient air

quality standard (including releasing

emissions which exceed quantitative

thresholds for ozone precursors)?


CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

B-6 SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial

pollutant concentrations? 

Comment: The proposed project would provide additional water supplies to existing

wetlands in the GRCD to improve management of wetland habitats. No aspect of this activity

would potentially degrade air quality in the San Joaquin 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 project. The reader is

referred to this analysis for an understanding of the habitat and associated plant and animal

resources of the GRCD.

Currently, the GWD is receiving almost all of the water supplies required under the CVPIA.

Accordingly, habitat conditions under the proposed project would be similar to existing

conditions, which reflect a continuing improvement in quality over time due to the greater

management flexibility allowed by the increased water supplies. Expected improvements in

habitat management include:

• 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 two to four weeks during the summer.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC B-7

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Improvements in wetland habitat quality and availability would also have beneficial effects

for other wetland-associated wildlife, including a variety of invertebrates, reptiles,

amphibians, mammals, and shorebirds, by providing foraging and resting areas. In addition,

Grassland WD would implement additional conservation measures to avoid and minimize

potential impacts to special-status species from a wide range of management activities. These

additional conservation measures would improve protection of special-status species. In

combination, the improvements in habitat quality and availability, and the additional

conservation measures would provide greater benefit to special-status species than currently

exist.

(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: The Grasslands Ecological Area is an important habitat of worldwide significance,

and the proposed project is intended to improve habitat management activities on the GRCD.

(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, and would not include any activities that would fill or otherwise impact

wetlands.

(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 (e.g., 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 Merced County General Plan in

support of the Grasslands Ecological Area. In addition, the project facilitates the

implementation of GWD’s Water Management Plan.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

B-8 SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC

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 prior archeological surveys conducted on the

GRCD, the site has a high potential to contain significant archeological resources. However,

changes in management of existing wetland areas would not cause disruption of the ground

surface, and therefore the potential to disrupt cultural resources is limited.

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 AlquistPriolo 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.



(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 

(iii) Seismic-related ground failure,

including liquefaction? 
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC B-9

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(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?



(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?


CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

B-10 SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(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 refuges

in the GRCD, 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: The Gustine Airport is located adjacent to the GRCD; however, delivery of water

supplies under the proposed project would not result in any safety hazards for the with

regard to the airport.

(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 GRCD would have no effect on emergency response or

evacuation.

(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 due to wildfire in the GRCD is very 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 Refuge Water

Supply project. The reader is referred to this analysis for an understanding of GRCD water

quality issues.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC B-11

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

The NEPA analyses conducted for the CVPIA indicated that providing full refuge water

supplies under the CVPIA would increase total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations in the

San Joaquin River. This analysis assumed that all of the return flows from these refuges

would enter the San Joaquin River in the spring months prior to April when the standard for

electrical conductivity (EC) at Vernalis is 1000 microsiemens/cm (Ms/cm). However, CVPIA

implementation also would lead to increased water releases from the San Joaquin River

tributaries under the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan (VAMP). This would reduce the

TDS concentrations in the San Joaquin River as compared to the pre-CVPIA conditions, which

included delivery of some CVPIA refuge water supplies. 

A project-specific analysis was conducted to evaluate potential water quality impacts. The

prior analysis conducted for the CVPIA assumed that all of the return flows from the refuges

were released in March. However, consistent with the flow-through management practices

currently being used on the refuges, the subsequent analysis allowed for return flows

throughout the year. Without considering dilution in the San Joaquin River, the analysis

showed that the delivery of full refuge water supplies would require additional releases from

New Melones Reservoir in December through April of average water years in order to meet

water quality standards at Vernalis. Additional New Melones releases would be required in

January, February, and April of critically dry years. However, dilution can be considered in

evaluating the impacts on compliance with the Vernalis water quality standards. Due to the

flows in the San Joaquin River, there would not be a need for additional releases from New

Melones Reservoir to meet the Vernalis standards under the proposed project. Additional

information describing the results of the analysis can be found in the NEPA documentation

prepared for this project.

(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 GRCD area is expected to have a

beneficial effect on the local aquifer by allowing for additional recharge.

(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 onor off-site?


CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

B-12 SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(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 onor off-site?



Comment: The proposed project would not cause a physical modification that would alter

surface drainage patterns.

(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 GRCD.

Accordingly, the quantity of discharge water would increase. However, flows would not

exceed channel capacity in the San Joaquin River and other drainages.

(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?



(h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area

structures which would impede or redirect

flood flows?



Comment: No housing units or 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 GRCD is not subject to the effects of seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC B-13

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:

(a) Physically divide an established

community? 

Comment: There are no established communities within the GRCD.

(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 GRCD, including the

Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan

(including the management plan of the Central Valley Project Joint Venture), the GWD Water

Management Plan, and the Merced County General Plan.

(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?



(b) 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

GRCD, and therefore excavation of mineral resources would not be precluded.

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?


CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

B-14 SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(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, and would not generate noise or 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: The Gustine airport is located adjacent to the GRCD; however, no element of the

proposed project would affect how the airports are operated or how people reside or work in

the general area.

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

due to enhanced recreation 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?


CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC B-15

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Comment: No individuals would be relocated under the proposed project.

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project:

(a) Would the project 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 GRCD is primarily for recreational duck hunting on private clubs.

Recreation use may increase due to the more effective management of existing wetlands, but

this is not expected to translate into an increased need for public services such as police and

fire protection.

(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) Would the project 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 recreation use of private

duck clubs in the GRCD, and have overall recreation benefits throughout the Grasslands

Ecological Area. 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?

CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

B-16 SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?



(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 due to improvement of

on-refuge habitats (and therefore improved duck populations), this is not expected to

translate into a noticeable difference in terms of traffic (i.e., hunters traveling to individual

duck clubs in the GRCD). Accordingly, traffic-related impacts (e.g., congestion, safety,

parking) would not be impacted 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?


CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC B-17

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Comment: There are no wastewater treatment requirements applicable to the individual

landowners on the GRCD. 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 due to

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?



Comment: The amount of water discharge 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 GWD with sufficient water to effectively

manage wetland habitats on the GRCD, per Reclamation’s Report on Refuge Water Supply

Investigations and GWD’s Water 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 GRCD is not supported by a wastewater treatment facility.

(f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient

permitted capacity to accommodate the

project’s solid waste disposal needs?



(g) Comply with federal, state, and local

statutes and regulations related to solid

waste?



Comment: Delivering water to the GRCD would not generate solid waste.
CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

B-18 SAC/15333/JAN 2001/010180024 SJ APPENDIX B.DOC

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?



(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?


Appendix C:

Management Measures for Listed Species

and Other Special-Status Species

under the Project Alternatives
SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC) C-1

APPENDIX C

Management Measures for Listed Species

and Other Special-Status Species

TABLE C-1

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species on the San Luis NWR Complex under the Proposed Action

Species Avoidance Measures

Aleutian Canada goose

Do not convert agricultural lands to other uses in the high-use areas identified

for Aleutian Canada geese. Any proposed conversion of agricultural land

requires formal consultation.

To the extent practicable, restrict construction activities in areas used for

Aleutian Canada goose wintering habitat to the period between May 15 and

September 30.

To the extent practicable, avoid disturbing flocks of foraging geese during peak

goose foraging times: the first and last two hours of daylight.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

prior to starting the action.

Bald eagle

If construction activities are going to occur near areas with suitable nesting sites

(snags or large trees more than 20 inches in diameter), survey for eagle activity

before construction.

Construction activities must not occur within one-half mile of a nest site from

January 1 through August 31.

Construction activities must not occur within one-half mile of a roost site from

November 15 through March 15.

Avoid removing large mature trees or snags, more than 20 inches in diameter at

breast height (DBH), along watercourses, lakes, or reservoirs.

Maintain and protect local fish populations from sedimentation and other habitat

disturbance.

If nest surveys are conducted, begin after mid-April.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

before starting the action.

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard

Before staging and construction, have a Service-approved biologist survey for

the presence of the habitat types used by this species and signs of leopard

lizards, such as burrows. The protocol developed by the CDFG shall be used to

survey for this species. During the blunt-nosed leopard lizard’s hibernation time,

surveys are unreliable and cannot be used to determine absence of this species.

Notice will be given to the CDFG and the Service 30 days before beginning

construction to determine whether capture is desired.

For projects from 5 to 10 acres in size (or 5 to 10 linear miles), within suitable

habitat, schedule surface disturbance activities during the active season

(approximately April 15 to October 15).

A Service-approved biologist will survey any trenches in the morning and late

afternoon to remove lizards that fall into the trench.
APPENDIX C

C-2 SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC)

TABLE C-1

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species on the San Luis NWR Complex under the Proposed Action

Species Avoidance Measures

A Service-approved worker awareness program shall be conducted for all

projects located in areas that provide, or may provide, habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not exhibit the habitat types and

sign listed above with an adequate buffer (not less than 200 feet). The biologist

must stake and flag to exclude construction activities within 200 feet of potential

habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and sunrise within 0.5 mile of

potential habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on the project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers and removed daily.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

before starting the action.

Fresno kangaroo rat

Before any ground disturbing activities, have a Serviced-approved biologist

survey for the presence of the plant associations considered habitat for the

Fresno kangaroo rat. The Service-approved biologist must survey for the

presence of Fresno kangaroo rat sign, such as burrow systems, haystacks, and

areas of clipped vegetation.

A Service-approved worker awareness program shall be conducted for all

projects located in areas that provide, or may provide, habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not exhibit the signs listed above

with an adequate buffer (not less that 200 feet). The biologist must stake and

flag to exclude construction activities within 200 feet of potential habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and sunrise within one-half mile of

potential habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on the project site.

On unposted roads vehicle speeds shall not exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

prior to starting the action.

Giant garter snake

Avoid construction activities within 200 feet from the banks of giant garter snake

aquatic habitat. Confine movement of heavy equipment to existing roadways to

minimize habitat disturbance.

Construction activity within habitat should be conducted between May 1 and

October 1. This is the active period for giant garter snakes and direct mortality is

lessened, because snakes are expected to actively move and avoid danger.

Between October 2 and April 30, contact the Service’s Sacramento Fish and

Wildlife Office to determine whether additional measures are necessary to

minimize and avoid take.

Confine clearing to the minimal area necessary to facilitate construction

activities. Flag and designate avoided giant garter snake habitat within or

adjacent to the project area as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. This area

should be avoided by all construction personnel.
APPENDIX C

SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC) C-3

TABLE C-1

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species on the San Luis NWR Complex under the Proposed Action

Species Avoidance Measures

Construction personnel should receive a Service-approved worker

environmental awareness training. This training instructs workers to recognize

giant garter snake and its habitat(s).

The project area should be surveyed for giant garter snakes 24 hours before

construction activities. Survey of the project area should be repeated if a lapse

in construction activity of 2 weeks or greater has occurred. If a snake is

encountered during construction, activities shall cease until appropriate

corrective measures have been completed or it has been determined that the

snake will not be harmed. Report any sightings and any incidental take to the

Service immediately by telephone at (916) 979-2725.

Any dewatered habitat should remain dry for at least 15 consecutive days after

April 15 and before excavating or filling of the dewatered habitat.

After completion of construction activities, remove any temporary fill and

construction debris and, wherever feasible, restore disturbed areas to preproject conditions. Restoration work may include replanting species removed

from banks or with emergent vegetation in the active channel.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

before starting the action.

Giant kangaroo rat

Before any ground-disturbing activities, have a Service-approved biologist

survey for the presence of the plant associations considered habitat for the giant

kangaroo rat. The Service-approved biologist must survey for the presence of

giant kangaroo rat sign, such as burrow systems (precincts), haystacks, and

areas of clipped vegetation.

A Service-approved worker awareness program shall be conducted for all

projects located in areas that provide, or may provide, habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not exhibit the signs listed above

with an adequate buffer (not less than 200 feet). The biologist must stake and

flag to exclude construction activities within 200 feet of potential habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and sunrise within one-half mile of

potential habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on the project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers and removed weekly.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

prior to starting the action.

San Joaquin kit fox

Project-related vehicles should observe a 20-mph speed limit in all project

areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is

particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. To the extent

possible, night-time construction should be minimized. Off-road traffic outside of

designated project areas should be prohibited.

To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the

construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches

more than 2 feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by

plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps

constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are

filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a

trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the procedures under number 13 of this

section must be followed.
APPENDIX C

C-4 SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC)

TABLE C-1

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species on the San Luis NWR Complex under the Proposed Action

Species Avoidance Measures

Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored

pipe becoming trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar

structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction

site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit

foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or

moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe

should not be moved until the Service has been consulted. If necessary, and

under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved once to

remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.

All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps

should be disposed of in closed containers and removed at least once a week

from a construction or project site.

No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.

To prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens by dogs or

cats, no pets should be permitted on project sites.

Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is

necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the

depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such

compounds should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and

Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional projectrelated restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. If rodent control must be

conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of proven lower risk to kit

fox.

A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent, who will be the

contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or

injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped individual. The

representative will be identified during the employee education program. The

representative’s name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service.

An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has

expected impacts to kit fox or other endangered species. The program should

consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and

legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors,

their employees, and military and agency personnel involved in the project. The

program should include the following: a description of the San Joaquin kit fox

and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project area; an

explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered

Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the

species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying

this information should be prepared for distribution to the above-mentioned

people and anyone else who may enter the project site.

Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground

disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline

corridors, etc., should be re-contoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote

restoration of the area to pre-project conditions. An area subject to “temporary”

disturbance means any area that is disturbed during the project, but that after

project completion will not be subject to further disturbance and has the potential

to be revegetated. Appropriate methods and plant species used to revegetate

such areas should be determined on a site-specific basis in consultation with the

Service, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and revegetation

experts.

In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed
APPENDIX C

SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC) C-5

TABLE C-1

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species on the San Luis NWR Complex under the Proposed Action

Species Avoidance Measures

immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service should be contacted

for advice.

Any contractor, employee, or military or agency personnel who inadvertently kills

or injures a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their

representative. This representative shall contact the CDFG immediately in the

case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox.

The Sacramento Fox and Wildlife Office and CDFG will be notified in writing

within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit

fox during project related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and

location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other

pertinent information.

Valley elderberry longhorn

beetle

A qualified biologist should survey proposed project sites within the range of the

valley elderberry longhorn beetle for the presence of the beetle and its

elderberry host plant.

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 should 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.

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 should be used in the 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 must 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, the Service should be contacted for

information before starting the action.
APPENDIX C

C-6 SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC)

TABLE C-1

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species on the San Luis NWR Complex under the Proposed Action

Species Avoidance Measures

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

Longhorn fairy shrimp

Conservancy fairy shrimp

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp

Stay at least 250 feet from the margin of the pool/swale edge. When conducting

activities beyond 250 feet from habitat, be careful to avoid activities that will

eventually result in effects to the pool/swale through changes in hydrology,

sedimentation, or contamination of the habitat.

Adequate fencing will be placed and maintained around any avoided (preserved)

vernal pool habitat to prevent impacts from vehicles.

If habitat is avoided (preserved) onsite, then a Service-approved biologist

(monitor) will inspect any construction-related activities at the proposed project

site to ensure that no unnecessary take of listed species or destruction of their

habitat occurs. The biologist will have the authority to stop all activities that may

result in such take or destruction until appropriate corrective measures have

been completed. The biologist also will be required to report immediately any

unauthorized impacts to the Service and CDFG.

All onsite construction personnel will receive instruction regarding the presence

of listed species and the importance of avoiding impacts to these species and

their habitat.

The applicant will ensure that activities that are inconsistent with the

maintenance of the suitability of remaining habitat and associated onsite

watershed are prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to: (i) alteration of

existing topography or any other alteration or uses for any purposes, including

the exploration for or development of mineral extraction; (ii) placement of any

new structures on these parcels; (iii) dumping, burning, and/or burying of

rubbish, garbage, or any other wastes or fill materials; (iv) building of any new

roads or trails; (v) killing, removal, alteration, or replacement of any existing

native vegetation; (vi) placement of stormwater drains; (vii) fire protection

activities not required to protect existing structures at the project site; and (viii)

use of pesticides or other toxic chemicals.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

before starting the action.

Colusa grass

Before any ground-disturbing activities, have a Service-approved botanist

survey for the presence of the soils and plant association considered habitat for

this species.

Avoid known occupied habitat by at least 300 feet. Be careful not to directly or

indirectly affect the habitat through changes in hydrology, sedimentation, or

contamination of the habitat or the surrounding area.

Temporarily fence the plant or plants to be avoided so that it is obvious that

it/they are not to be disturbed (such as bright orange construction fencing).

Take appropriate measures to avoid and minimize adverse effects such as the

temporary construction of berms or drains to protect the area.

After the work is completed, restore the surrounding areas to their original

condition. If seeding is necessary when restoring to previous condition, use

locally native, non-invasive species that will not compete with the listed plants.

If repair activities must come within 300 feet of the habitat, initiate formal

consultation with the Service before starting the project.
APPENDIX C

SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC) C-7

TABLE C-2

Measures to Protect Federally-Listed Species Required in CESA Biological Opinions for each CDFG Wildlife Area in the San

Joaquin River Basin.

Wildlife Area/Species Measures to Protect Listed Speciesa

Los Banos WA

Aleutian Canada goose Management of Los Banos WA includes providing roosting, foraging, and loafing

habitat for Aleutian Canada geese. No adverse effects to this species are

expected.

Bald eagle Because the Los Banos Management Plan provides for the continued

maintenance of habitat for this species, the Plan’s implementation will not affect

bald eagles.

California red-legged frog Surveys will be conducted for this species. If California red-legged frogs are

found, the Management Plan will be revised to provide for the maintenance and/or

improvement of habitat for this species, and a revised Biological Opinion will be

prepared. Any needed mitigation measures will be developed, will receive public

review, and will be implemented prior to any activities that might affect this

species.

Giant garter snake No alteration of potential giant garter snake habitat will occur until multiple-year

surveys for the species have been conducted and a management plan for the

species has been developed. The giant garter snake management plan shall

receive public review and a revised Biological Opinion will be prepared. Any

needed mitigation measures will be developed, will receive public review, and will

be implemented prior to any activities that might affect this species.

Fresno kangaroo rat Prior to any land or vegetation disturbance or modification of water regime, all

upland habitat will be surveyed by a qualified biologist to determine whether this

species is present. After the surveys are completed, the Los Banos WA will

initiate internal consultation pursuant to CESA and also will consult with the

Service. Prior to any activities on these areas, a revised Biological Opinion will be

prepared. Any needed mitigation measures will be developed, receive public

review, and be implemented prior to any activities that might affect Fresno

kangaroo rats.

North Grasslands WA

Giant garter snake CDFG will consult with the Service prior to implementing the Management Plan.

Restoration will create permanent and semi-permanent wetlands that will enhance

and increase habitat.

Earthen ditches and ditch banks shall not be cleaned or altered in winter months.

Ditch cleaning and maintenance in the summer will only be accomplished in small

segments so that habitat is not significantly reduced.

Once restoration and development is complete, rubble or rip-rap can be added to

create potential denning areas near appropriate waterways and wetlands.

Mendota WA

Aleutian Canada goose Proposed management of Mendota WA will have no adverse impact upon or

jeopardize the continued existence of Aleutian Canada geese. The project will

provide additional loafing and roosting sites within the WA. Future tasks within the

WA will improve foraging habitat.

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Within 60 days prior to initiation of construction or maintenance of habitat suitable

for use by the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, the CDFG will conduct a pre-activity

survey, according to CDFG-approved methodology, to inventory lands that will be

subject to disturbance for the occurrence of listed species. If blunt-nosed leopard

lizards are found, appropriate avoidance measures or full mitigation for
APPENDIX C

C-8 SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC)

TABLE C-2

Measures to Protect Federally-Listed Species Required in CESA Biological Opinions for each CDFG Wildlife Area in the San

Joaquin River Basin.

Wildlife Area/Species Measures to Protect Listed Speciesa

unavoidable impact shall be developed and approved by the Environmental

Services Division and the Service prior to any ground-disturbing activities.

To the extent possible, habitat development and maintenance activities should be

restricted to daylight hours when blunt-nosed leopard lizards are most active and

capable of escaping potential harm.

Use of rodenticides and herbicides on the site shall be permitted only if it is part of

a CDFG-approved management plan, or unless such use is otherwise approved

on a case-by-case basis.

Giant garter snake Operation and maintenance activities conducted within or near habitat suitable for

giant garters snakes should be conducted between May 1 and October, during

the snake’s active period.

Cleaning of ditches and canals should be done from one side of the canal only.

Canals in which construction or maintenance activities are planned should be

dewatered at least 15 days prior to construction.

“Rip rap” installed around water control structures and erodible ditch banks should

be placed in a manner that will provide escape cover for snakes. A base of river

rock should be placed on the levee for levee protection and covered with large

pieces of concrete rubble to provide escape cover.

Fresno kangaroo rat Within 60 days prior to initiation of construction or maintenance of habitat suitable

for use by the Fresno kangaroo rats, CDFG will conduct a pre-activity survey,

according to CDFG-approved methodology, to inventory lands that will be subject

to disturbance for the occurrence of listed species. If Fresno kangaroo rats are

found, appropriate avoidance measures or full mitigation for unavoidable impact

shall be developed and approved by the Environmental Services Division and the

USFWS prior to any ground-disturbing activities.

To the extent possible, habitat development and maintenance activities during

evening hours shall be minimized.

Use of rodenticides and herbicides on the site shall be permitted only if it is part of

a CDFG-approved management plan or unless such use is otherwise approved

on a case-by-case basis.

San Joaquin kit fox Within 60 days prior to initiation of construction or maintenance activities in habitat

suitable for use by the San Joaquin kit foxes, the CDFG will conduct a pre-activity

survey to inventory lands that will be subject to disturbance for the occurrence of

listed species. If San Joaquin kit foxes are found, appropriate avoidance

measures or full mitigation for unavoidable impact shall be developed and

approved by the Environmental Services Division and Service prior to any grounddisturbing activities.

To the extent possible, habitat development and maintenance activities during

evening hours shall be minimized.

Use of rodenticides and herbicides on the site shall be permitted only if it is part of

a management plan approved by CDFG, or unless such use is otherwise

approved on a case-by-case basis.
APPENDIX C

SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC) C-9

TABLE C-2

Measures to Protect Federally-Listed Species Required in CESA Biological Opinions for each CDFG Wildlife Area in the San

Joaquin River Basin.

Wildlife Area/Species Measures to Protect Listed Speciesa

Ferris bird’s-beak

Hoover’s eriastrum

San Joaquin woolly-threads

Conduct an area-wide botanical survey to assemble a comprehensive list of all

botanical species and map all known populations of sensitive species within the

wildlife area.

Prior to implementation of specific habitat development projects or maintenance

tasks within habitat types known to be suitable for these species, conduct a

botanical survey to determine whether any sensitive species are present. If a

sensitive plant is present, the Regional Plant Ecologist should be notified for

consultation to develop measures that will avoid direct take or indirect take of the

species. If take is unavoidable, measures shall be adopted and fully implemented

before the start of the project to mitigate/compensate for the loss.

Coordinate with the appropriate Service personnel regarding activities that might

impact federally listed species.

a

 These measures would be implemented under both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action.
APPENDIX C

C-10 SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC)

TABLE C-3

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species that CDFG Would Implement under the Proposed Action in Addition

Protective Measures of CESA Biological Opinions for Each Wildlife Area in the San Joaquin River Basin

Species Avoidance Measures

Aleutian Canada goose

Do not convert agricultural lands to other uses in the high-use areas identified

for Aleutian Canada geese. Any proposed conversion of agricultural land

requires formal consultation.

To the extent practicable, restrict construction activities in areas used for

Aleutian Canada goose wintering habitat to the period between May 15 and

September 30.

To the extent practicable, avoid disturbing flocks of foraging geese during peak

goose foraging times: the first and last two hours of daylight.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

prior to starting the action.

Bald eagle

If construction activities are going to occur near areas with suitable nesting sites

(snags or large trees more than 20 inches in diameter) survey for eagle activity

prior to construction.

Construction activities must not occur within one-half mile of a nest site from

January 1 through August 31.

Construction activities must not occur within one-half mile of a roost site from

November 15 through March 15.

Avoid removing large, mature trees or snags larger than 20 inches in diameter at

breast height (DBH) along watercourses, lakes or reservoirs.

Maintain and protect local fish populations from sedimentation and other habitat

disturbance.

If nest surveys are conducted, begin after mid-April.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

prior to starting the action.

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard

Before staging and construction, have a Service-approved biologist survey for

the presence of the habitat types used by this species and signs of leopard

lizards, such as burrows. The protocol developed by the CDFG shall be used to

survey for this species. During the blunt-nosed leopard lizard’s hibernation time,

surveys are unreliable and cannot be used to determine absence of this species.

Notice will be given to the CDFG and the Service 30 days before beginning

construction to determine whether capture is desired.

For projects from 5 to 10 acres in size (or 5 to 10 linear miles), within suitable

habitat, schedule surface disturbance activities during the active season

(approximately April 15 to October 15).

A Service-approved biologist will survey any trenches in the morning and late

afternoon to remove lizards that fall into the trench.

A Service-approved worker awareness program shall be conducted for all

projects located in areas that provide, or may provide, habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not exhibit the habitat types and

sign listed above with an adequate buffer (not less than 200 feet). The biologist

must stake and flag to exclude construction activities within 200 feet of potential

habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and sunrise within 0.5 mile of

potential habitat.
APPENDIX C

SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC) C-11

TABLE C-3

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species that CDFG Would Implement under the Proposed Action in Addition

Protective Measures of CESA Biological Opinions for Each Wildlife Area in the San Joaquin River Basin

Species Avoidance Measures

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on the project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers and removed daily.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

before starting the action.

Giant garter snake

Avoid construction activities within 200 feet of the banks of giant garter snake

aquatic habitat. Confine movement of heavy equipment to existing roadways to

minimize habitat disturbance.

Construction activity within habitat should be conducted between May 1 and

October 1. This is the active period for giant garter snakes and direct mortality is

lessened, because snakes are expected to actively move and avoid danger.

Between October 2 and April 30 contact the Service’s Sacramento Fish and

Wildlife Office to determine whether additional measures are necessary to

minimize and avoid take.

Confine clearing to the minimal area necessary to facilitate construction

activities. Flag and designate avoided giant garter snake habitat within or

adjacent to the project area as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. This area

should be avoided by all construction personnel.

Construction personnel should receive a Service-approved worker

environmental awareness training. This training instructs workers to recognize

giant garter snake and its habitat(s).

The project area should be surveyed for giant garter snakes 24 hours prior to

construction activities. Survey of the project area should be repeated if a lapse

in construction activity of 2 weeks or greater has occurred. If a snake is

encountered during construction, activities shall cease until appropriate

corrective measures have been completed or it has been determined that the

snake will not be harmed. Report any sightings and any incidental take to the

Service immediately by telephone at (916) 979-2725.

Any dewatered habitat should remain dry for at least 15 consecutive days after

April 15 and prior to excavating or filling of the dewatered habitat.

After completion of construction activities, remove any temporary fill and

construction debris and, wherever feasible, restore disturbed areas to preproject conditions. Restoration work may include replanting species removed

from banks or with emergent vegetation in the active channel.

To the extent possible, the majority of canal cleaning and excavation will be

performed only from May 1 to October 1.

Excavation will typically occur from only one side of the canal during a given

year. (When possible, one side of the canal will be left undisturbed indefinitely.)

Excavation above the high flow watermark will be avoided whenever possible to

minimize disturbance to burrows and retreat sites.

Vegetation on the tops and sides of canals will be left as undisturbed as

possible.

Roads adjacent to giant garter snake habitat will: 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. These measures decrease the risk of injuring snakes and minimize

loss and disturbance of vegetative cover.
APPENDIX C

C-12 SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC)

TABLE C-3

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species that CDFG Would Implement under the Proposed Action in Addition

Protective Measures of CESA Biological Opinions for Each Wildlife Area in the San Joaquin River Basin

Species Avoidance Measures

If necessary for vegetation control, burning will be conducted during the spring,

summer and fall months on thoroughly dried wetlands or uplands. Where

possible only one bank of vegetation will be subject to prescribed burns.

Vegetation along canal banks will be left undisturbed as much as possible; fire

crews will not reignite bank vegetation passed over by fire. Giant garter snakes

observed within prescribed burn areas will be captured and relocated or

attempts will be made to flush them away from areas where fire is likely to travel.

Discing is restricted to dried wetlands and managed uplands. Discing and

planting for spring production of wildlife forage is restricted to managed uplands

and croplands. Discing activities will be avoided directly adjacent to waterways

and summer wetlands unless they have been allowed to dry.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

prior to starting the action.

California red-legged frog

A Service approved biologist shall survey the work site two weeks before the

onset of activities.

If California red-legged frogs cannot be relocated within 1/4 mile of the work site

within the same drainage, then the Service-approved biologist shall contact the

appropriate Service office before work activities begin.

Before any construction activities begin on any project, a Service approved

biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel about the

California red-legged frog, its habitat, and the necessary measures to protect or

avoid it on-site.

During project activities, all trash that may attract predators shall be properly

contained, removed from the work site and disposed of regularly. Following

construction, all trash and construction debris shall be removed from work

areas.

All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment and staging areas

shall occur at least 20 meters from any riparian habitat or water body. All

workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the

appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.

The spread or introduction of invasive exotic plant species shall be avoided to

the maximum extent possible. Project sites shall be revegetated with an

appropriate assemblage of grasses, riparian, or wetland vegetation suitable for

the area. A species list and restoration plan shall be included with the project

proposal for review by the Service.

To the maximum extent possible, stream contours shall be returned to their

original condition at the end of project activities.

The number of access routes, number and size of staging areas, and the total

area of the activity shall be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the

project goal. Routes and boundaries shall be clearly demarcated.

Work activities should be completed between April 1 and November 1. Should

the proponent or applicant demonstrate a need to conduct activities outside this

period, contact the Service.

Only Service approved biologists shall participate in activities associated with

the capture, handling, and monitoring of California red-legged frogs.

Best management practices to control erosion during and after project

implementation shall be implemented.
APPENDIX C

SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC) C-13

TABLE C-3

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species that CDFG Would Implement under the Proposed Action in Addition

Protective Measures of CESA Biological Opinions for Each Wildlife Area in the San Joaquin River Basin

Species Avoidance Measures

If a work site is to be temporarily dewatered by pumping, intakes shall be

completely screened with wire mesh not larger than five millimeters (mm) to

prevent California red-legged frogs from entering the pump system. Water shall

be released or pumped downstream at an appropriate rate to maintain

downstream flows during construction. Upon completion of construction

activities, any barriers to flow shall be removed in a manner that will allow flow to

resume with the least disturbance to the substrate.

Any individuals of exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and centrarchid

fishes that are captured on site shall be permanently removed from the wild.

Additional or modified measures to reduce the adverse effects of actions may be

identified during the project review by the Service.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

prior to starting the action.

Fresno kangaroo rat

Before any ground-disturbing activities, have a Serviced-approved biologist

survey for the presence of the plant associations considered habitat for the

Fresno kangaroo rat. The Service-approved biologist must survey for the

presence of Fresno kangaroo rat sign, such as burrow systems, haystacks, and

areas of clipped vegetation.

A Service-approved worker awareness program shall be conducted for all

projects located in areas that provide, or may provide, habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not exhibit the signs listed above

with an adequate buffer (not less that 200 feet). The biologist must stake and

flag to exclude construction activities within 200 feet of potential habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and sunrise within one-half mile of

potential habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on the project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

prior to starting the action.

Giant kangaroo rat

Before any ground-disturbing activities, have a Service-approved biologist

survey for the presence of the plant associations considered habitat for the giant

kangaroo rat. The Service-approved biologist must survey for the presence of

giant kangaroo rat sign, such as burrow systems (precincts), haystacks, and

areas of clipped vegetation.

A Service-approved worker awareness program shall be conducted for all

projects located in areas that provide, or may provide, habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not exhibit the signs listed above

with an adequate buffer (not less than 200 feet). The biologist must stake and

flag to exclude construction activities within 200 feet of potential habitat.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers and removed weekly.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

prior to starting the action.
APPENDIX C

C-14 SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC)

TABLE C-3

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species that CDFG Would Implement under the Proposed Action in Addition

Protective Measures of CESA Biological Opinions for Each Wildlife Area in the San Joaquin River Basin

Species Avoidance Measures

San Joaquin kit fox

Project-related vehicles should observe a 20-mph speed limit in all project

areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is

particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. To the extent

possible, night-time construction should be minimized. Off-road traffic outside of

designated project areas should be prohibited.

To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the

construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches

more than 2 feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by

plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps

constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are

filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a

trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the procedures under number 13 of this

section must be followed.

Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored

pipe becoming trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar

structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction

site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit

foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or

moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe

should not be moved until the Service has been consulted. If necessary, and

under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved once to

remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.

All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps

should be disposed of in closed containers and removed at least once a week

from a construction or project site.

No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.

To prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens by dogs or

cats, no pets should be permitted on project sites.

Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is

necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the

depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such

compounds should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and

Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional projectrelated restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. If rodent control must be

conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of proven lower risk to kit

fox.

A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent, who will be the

contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or

injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped individual. The

representative will be identified during the employee education program. The

representative’s name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service.

An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has

expected impacts to kit fox or other endangered species. The program should

consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and

legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors,

their employees, and military and agency personnel involved in the project. The

program should include the following: a description of the San Joaquin kit fox

and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project area; an

explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered

Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the
APPENDIX C

SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC) C-15

TABLE C-3

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species that CDFG Would Implement under the Proposed Action in Addition

Protective Measures of CESA Biological Opinions for Each Wildlife Area in the San Joaquin River Basin

Species Avoidance Measures

species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying

this information should be prepared for distribution to the above-mentioned

people and anyone else who may enter the project site.

Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground

disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline

corridors, etc., should be re-contoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote

restoration of the area to pre-project conditions. An area subject to “temporary”

disturbance means any area that is disturbed during the project, but that after

project completion will not be subject to further disturbance and has the potential

to be revegetated. Appropriate methods and plant species used to revegetate

such areas should be determined on a site-specific basis in consultation with the

Service, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and revegetation

experts.

In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed

immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service should be contacted

for advice.

Any contractor, employee, or military or agency personnel who inadvertently kills

or injures a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their

representative. This representative shall contact the CDFG immediately in the

case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox.

The Sacramento Fox and Wildlife Office and CDFG will be notified in writing

within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit

fox during project related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and

location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other

pertinent information.

Valley elderberry longhorn

beetle

A qualified biologist should survey proposed project sites within the range of the

valley elderberry longhorn beetle for the presence of the beetle and its

elderberry host plant.

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 should 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.

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
APPENDIX C

C-16 SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC)

TABLE C-3

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species that CDFG Would Implement under the Proposed Action in Addition

Protective Measures of CESA Biological Opinions for Each Wildlife Area in the San Joaquin River Basin

Species Avoidance Measures

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 should be used in the 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 must 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, the Service should be contacted for

information before starting the action.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

Longhorn fairy shrimp

Conservancy fairy shrimp

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp

Stay at least 250 feet from the margin of the pool/swale edge. When conducting

activities beyond 250 feet from habitat, be careful to avoid activities that will

eventually result in effects to the pool/swale through changes in hydrology,

sedimentation, or contamination of the habitat.

Adequate fencing will be placed and maintained around any avoided (preserved)

vernal pool habitat to prevent impacts from vehicles.

If habitat is avoided (preserved) onsite, then a Service-approved biologist

(monitor) will inspect any construction-related activities at the proposed project

site to ensure that no unnecessary take of listed species or destruction of their

habitat occurs. The biologist will have the authority to stop all activities that may

result in such take or destruction until appropriate corrective measures have

been completed. The biologist also will be required to report immediately any

unauthorized impacts to the Service and CDFG.

All onsite construction personnel will receive instruction regarding the presence

of listed species and the importance of avoiding impacts to these species and

their habitat.

The applicant will ensure that activities that are inconsistent with the

maintenance of the suitability of remaining habitat and associated onsite

watershed are prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to: (i) alteration of

existing topography or any other alteration or uses for any purposes, including

the exploration for or development of mineral extraction; (ii) placement of any

new structures on these parcels; (iii) dumping, burning, and/or burying of

rubbish, garbage, or any other wastes or fill materials; (iv) building of any new

roads or trails; (v) killing, removal, alteration, or replacement of any existing

native vegetation; (vi) placement of stormwater drains; (vii) fire protection

activities not required to protect existing structures at the project site; and (viii)

use of pesticides or other toxic chemicals.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

before starting the action.
APPENDIX C

SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC) C-17

TABLE C-3

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species that CDFG Would Implement under the Proposed Action in Addition

Protective Measures of CESA Biological Opinions for Each Wildlife Area in the San Joaquin River Basin

Species Avoidance Measures

Hoover’s eriastrum

Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak

Before any ground-disturbing activities, have a Service-approved botanist

survey for the presence of the soils and plant associations considered habitat for

these species.

Avoid known occupied habitat by at least 300 feet. Be careful not to directly or

indirectly affect the habitat through changes in hydrology, sedimentation, or

contamination of the habitat or the surrounding area.

Temporarily fence the plant or plants to be avoided so that it is obvious that

it/they are not to be disturbed (such as bright orange construction fencing).

Take appropriate measures to avoid and minimize adverse effects such as the

temporary construction of berms or drains to protect the area.

After the work is completed, restore the surrounding areas to their original

condition. If seeding is necessary when restoring to previous condition, use

locally native, non-invasive species that will not compete with the listed plants.

If repair activities must come within 300 feet of the habitat, initiate formal

consultation with the Service before starting the project.
APPENDIX C

C-18 SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC)

TABLE C-4

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species that Grassland WD Would Implement under the Proposed Action

Species Avoidance Measures

Aleutian Canada goose

Do not convert agricultural lands to other uses in the high-use areas identified

for Aleutian Canada geese. Any proposed conversion of agricultural land

requires formal consultation.

Any proposed conversion of agricultural land requires formal consultation.

To the extent practicable, restrict construction activities in areas used for

Aleutian Canada goose wintering habitat to the period between May 15 and

September 30.

To the extent practicable, avoid disturbing flocks of foraging geese during peak

goose foraging times: the first and last two hours of daylight.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

prior to starting the action.

Bald eagle

If construction activities are going to occur near areas with suitable nesting sites

(snags or large trees larger than 20 inches in diameter) survey for eagle activity

prior to construction.

Construction activities must not occur within one-half mile of a nest site from

January 1 through August 31.

Construction activities must not occur within one-half mile of a roost site from

November 15 through March 15.

Avoid removing large, mature trees or snags larger than 20 inches in diameter at

breast height (DBH) along watercourses, lakes or reservoirs.

Maintain and protect local fish populations from sedimentation and other habitat

disturbance.

If nest surveys are conducted, begin after mid-April.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

prior to starting the action.

Giant garter snake

Avoid construction activities within 200 feet from the banks of giant garter snake

aquatic habitat. Confine movement of heavy equipment to existing roadways to

minimize habitat disturbance.

Construction activity within habitat should be conducted between May 1 and

October 1. This is the active period for giant garter snakes, and direct mortality

is lessened because snakes are expected to actively move and avoid danger.

Between October 2 and April 30 contact the Service’s Sacramento Fish and

Wildlife Office to determine whether additional measures are necessary to

minimize and avoid take.

Confine clearing to the minimal area necessary to facilitate construction

activities. Flag and designate avoided giant garter snake habitat within or

adjacent to the project area as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. This area

should be avoided by all construction personnel.

Construction personnel should receive a Service-approved worker

environmental awareness training. This training instructs workers to recognize

giant garter snake and its habitat(s).

The project area should be surveyed for giant garter snakes 24 hours prior to

construction activities. Survey of the project area should be repeated if a lapse

in construction activity of 2 weeks or greater has occurred. If a snake is

encountered during construction, activities shall cease until appropriate
APPENDIX C

SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC) C-19

TABLE C-4

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species that Grassland WD Would Implement under the Proposed Action

Species Avoidance Measures

corrective measures have been completed or it has been determined that the

snake will not be harmed. Report any sightings and any incidental take to the

Service immediately by telephone at (916) 979-2725.

Any dewatered habitat should remain dry for at least 15 consecutive days after

April 15 and prior to excavating or filling of the dewatered habitat.

After completion of construction activities, remove any temporary fill and

construction debris and, wherever feasible, restore disturbed areas to preproject conditions. Restoration work may include replanting species removed

from banks or with emergent vegetation in the active channel.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

prior to starting the action.

Fresno kangaroo rat

Before any ground-disturbing activities, have a Serviced-approved biologist

survey for the presence of the plant associations considered habitat for the

Fresno kangaroo rat. The Service-approved biologist must survey for the

presence of Fresno kangaroo rat sign, such as burrow systems, haystacks, and

areas of clipped vegetation.

A Service-approved worker awareness program shall be conducted for all

projects located in areas that provide, or may provide, habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not exhibit the signs listed above

with an adequate buffer (not less than 200 feet). The biologist must stake and

flag to exclude construction activities within 200 feet of potential habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and sunrise within one-half mile of

potential habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on the project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

prior to starting the action.

Giant kangaroo rat

Before any ground-disturbing activities, have a Service- approved biologist

survey for the presence of the plant associations considered habitat for the giant

kangaroo rat. The Service- approved biologist must survey for the presence of

giant kangaroo rat sign, such as burrow systems (precincts), haystacks, and

areas of clipped vegetation.

A Service-approved worker awareness program shall be conducted for all

projects located in areas that provide, or may provide, habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not exhibit the signs listed above

with an adequate buffer (not less than 200 feet). The biologist must stake and

flag to exclude construction activities within 200 feet of potential habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and sunrise within one-half mile of

potential habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on the project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers and removed weekly.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the Service for information

prior to starting the action.
APPENDIX C

C-20 SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC)

TABLE C-4

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species that Grassland WD Would Implement under the Proposed Action

Species Avoidance Measures

San Joaquin kit fox

Project-related vehicles should observe a 20-mph speed limit in all project

areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is

particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. To the extent

possible, night-time construction should be minimized. Off-road traffic outside of

designated project areas should be prohibited.

To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the

construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches

more than 2 feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by

plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps

constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are

filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a

trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the procedures under number 13 of this

section must be followed.

Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored

pipe becoming trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar

structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction

site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit

foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or

moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe

should not be moved until the Service has been consulted. If necessary, and

under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved once to

remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.

All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps

should be disposed of in closed containers and removed at least once a week

from a construction or project site.

No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.

To prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens by dogs or

cats, no pets should be permitted on project sites.

Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is

necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the

depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such

compounds should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and

Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional projectrelated restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. If rodent control must be

conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of proven lower risk to kit

fox.

A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent, who will be the

contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or

injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped individual. The

representative will be identified during the employee education program. The

representative’s name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service.

An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has

expected impacts to kit fox or other endangered species. The program should

consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and

legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors,

their employees, and military and agency personnel involved in the project. The

program should include the following: description of the San Joaquin kit fox

and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project area; an

explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered

Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the

species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying
APPENDIX C

SAC\155333\JAN 2001/010180025 (SJ APPENDIX C.DOC) C-21

TABLE C-4

Measures to Avoid Take of Special-Status Species that Grassland WD Would Implement under the Proposed Action

Species Avoidance Measures

this information should be prepared for distribution to the above-mentioned

people and anyone else who may enter the project site.

Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground

disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline

corridors, etc., should be re-contoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote

restoration of the area to pre-project conditions. An area subject to “temporary”

disturbance means any area that is disturbed during the project, but that after

project completion will not be subject to further disturbance and has the potential

to be revegetated. Appropriate methods and plant species used to revegetate

such areas should be determined on a site-specific basis in consultation with the

Service, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and revegetation

experts.

In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed

immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service should be contacted

for advice.

Any contractor, employee, or military or agency personnel who inadvertently kills

or injures a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their

representative. This representative shall contact the CDFG immediately in the

case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox.

The Sacramento Fox and Wildlife Office and CDFG will be notified in writing

within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit

fox during project related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and

location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other

pertinent information.