Delta Fish Agreement

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | December 30th, 1986

On December 30, 1986, the Directors of CDFW and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) signed an agreement to provide for offsetting fishery impacts caused by the divers

On December 30, 1986, the Directors of CDFW and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) signed an agreement to provide for offsetting fishery impacts caused by the diversion of water at the Harvey O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant (Banks), located at the head of the California Aqueduct near Tracy, California. The agreement, currently referred to as the Delta Fish Agreement (DFA or Agreement) (PDF), was previously known as the Delta Pumping Plant Fish Protection Agreement or Four Pumps Agreement because it was adopted as part of the mitigation package to add four additional pumps to Banks during the late 1980’s. Direct losses of Chinook salmon, steelhead, and striped bass are offset or mitigated through the funding and implementation of fish mitigation projects.

Delta Independent Science Board -- Comments on the Sacramento / Delta Draft Staff Report

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | January 19th, 2024

Delta Vision Strategic Plan

State of California | October 17th, 2008

When it was created by Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S-17-06 in 2006, the charge of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force (Task Force) was nothing less th

When it was created by Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S-17-06 in 2006, the charge of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force (Task Force) was nothing less than to create a vision to repair the ecological damage to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta), and then prepare a strategic plan which would sustain the Delta in future decades while ensuring a reliable water supply for the two-thirds of California’s population who depend in whole or in part on water from the Delta.

Delta Vision Strategic Plan -- from Phil Isenberg, 1939-2023

State of California | October 17th, 2008

When it was created by Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S-17-06 in 2006, the charge of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force (Task Force) was nothing less th

When it was created by Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S-17-06 in 2006, the charge of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force (Task Force) was nothing less than to create a vision to repair the ecological damage to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta), and then prepare a strategic plan which would sustain the Delta in future decades while ensuring a reliable water supply for the two-thirds of California’s population who depend in whole or in part on water from the Delta.

Delta-Mendota Canal Recirculation Feasibility Study Plan Formulation Report

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | September 30th, 2010

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is evaluating the feasibility of using recirculation strategies to improve water quality and flow

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is evaluating the feasibility of using recirculation strategies to improve water quality and flow in the lower San Joaquin River (SJR). Specifically, Reclamation is evaluating the feasibility of the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC) Recirculation Project (Project) in which water from the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) would be recirculated through the Central Valley Project (CVP) pumping and conveyance facilities to the SJR upstream from Vernalis. The DMC, which is part of the CVP, would be the primary conveyance facility utilized. The DMC is 120-mile canal that begins at the C.W. “Bill” Jones Pumping Plant (Jones) and ends at Mendota Pool, near the town of Mendota. Jones pumps water from the Delta into the canal. Water would be released from the canal into either Newman Wasteway or Westley Wasteway and would flow back into SJR near its confluence with the Merced River (Newman Wasteway) or with the Tuolumne River (Westley Wasteway). The water would re-enter the Delta near the town of Vernalis. In 2004, Reclamation initiated the DMC Recirculation Project Feasibility Study (Study). The Study is authorized by the CALFED (California Federal Bay-Delta Program) Bay-Delta Authorization Act of 2004 (118 Stat. §§ 1681-1702.; Public Law 108-361) and a similar study is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as part of Water Right Decision 1641 (D-1641). The purposes of the PFR are (1) to provide information on the existing and potential resources that may be affected by the Project and (2) to present the results of the evaluation of the alternative plans that were carried forward from the 2008 Initial Alternatives Information Report (IAIR). The alternative plans are compared and ranked and the next steps in the study are presented.

Department of Fish and Game Rationale for Effects of Exports

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | November 2nd, 2011

This document describes the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) methodology to quantify the surface area in the Sacramento – San Joaquin delta estuary (Delta)

This document describes the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) methodology to quantify the surface area in the Sacramento – San Joaquin delta estuary (Delta) that is impacted by the operations of the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) pumping facilities. In order to estimate the mitigation required to offset direct and indirect losses of Fish Species due to impacts to surface acres of aquatic habitat in the Delta accounted to the SWP Delta Pumping Facilities operations, DFG used an analysis based on conclusions and information contained in a manuscript that utilizes the Delta Simulation Model-2 Particle Tracking Model (DSM2PTM) (Kimmerer and Nobriga, 2008). This methodology provides the general loss of “particles” to the Delta which is a surrogate for loss of productivity and fish life stages vulnerable to these effects.

Development of Flow Criteria for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Ecosystem

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | August 4th, 2010

Water Code section 85086 (See Appendix B), contained in the Delta Reform Act, was enacted as part of the comprehensive package of water legislation adopted in November 20

Water Code section 85086 (See Appendix B), contained in the Delta Reform Act, was enacted as part of the comprehensive package of water legislation adopted in November 2009. Water Code section 85086 requires the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to use the best available scientific information gathered as part of a public process conducted as an informational proceeding to develop new flow criteria for the Delta ecosystem to protect public trust resources. The purpose of the flow criteria is to inform planning decisions for the Delta Plan and the BDCP. The Legislature intended to establish an accelerated process to determine the instream flow needs of the Delta in order to facilitate the planning decisions required to meet the objectives of the Delta Plan. Accordingly, Water Code section 85086 requires the State Water Board to develop the flow criteria within nine months of enactment of the statute and to submit its flow criteria determinations to the Council within 30 days of their development. This report, required by Water Code section 85086(c) (2009 Delta Reform Act) in 2010, suggests the flows that would be needed in the Delta ecosystem if fishery protection was the sole purpose for which its waters were put to beneficial use. In keeping with the narrow focus of the legislation, this report only presents a technical assessment of flow and operational requirements to provide fishery protection under existing conditions.  

DISB Review of Bay Delta Conservation Plan/California WaterFix Partially Recirculated Draft EIR/EIS

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | October 1st, 2015

We have reviewed the partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan/Calif

We have reviewed the partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan/California WaterFix (herein, "the Current Draft"). We focused on how fully and effectively it considers and communicates the scientific foundations for assessing the environmental impacts of water conveyance alternatives. The review is attached and is summarized below. The Current Draft contains a wealth of information but lacks completeness and clarity in applying science to far-reaching policy decisions. It defers essential material to the Final EIR/EIS and retains a number of deficiencies from the Bay Delta Conservation Plan Draft EIR/EIS. The missing content includes: 1. Details about the adaptive-management process, collaborative science, monitoring, and the resources that these efforts will require; 2. Due regard for several aspects of habitat restoration: landscape scale, timing, long-term monitoring, and the strategy of avoiding damage to existing wetlands; 3. Analyses of how levee failures would affect water operations and how the implemented project would affect the economics of levee maintenance; 4. Sufficient attention to linkages among species, landscapes, and management actions; effects of climate change on water resources; effects of the proposed project on San Joaquin Valley agriculture; and uncertainties and their consequences; 5. Informative summaries, in words, tables, and graphs, that compare the proposed alternatives and their principal environmental and economic impacts. The effects of California WaterFix extend beyond water conveyance to habitat restoration and levee maintenance. These interdependent issues of statewide importance warrant an environmental impact assessment that is more complete, comprehensive, and comprehensible than the Current Draft.

Draft EIR Monterey Amendment to the State Water Project Contracts (Including Kern Water Bank Transfer) and Associated Actions as Part of a Settlement Agreement (Monterey Plus)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | April 1st, 2015

The California Department of Water Resources (Department), as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prepared the environmental impact rep

The California Department of Water Resources (Department), as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prepared the environmental impact report (EIR) for the Monterey Amendment to the State Water Project Contracts (Including Kern Water Bank Transfer) and Associated Actions as Part of a Settlement Agreement (Monterey Plus) (Monterey Plus EIR). The Department certified the Monterey Plus EIR on February 1, 2010. Several parties challenged the adequacy of the Monterey Plus EIR under CEQA. In 2014, the Monterey Plus EIR was found by the Sacramento County Superior Court (Court) to comply with CEQA in all aspects except with respect to the development, use, and operation of the Kern Water Bank (KWB). The Court specified that the Department is to correct the deficiencies and recertify the EIR without reopening the non-defective portions of the EIR. Upon recertification, only those portions of the Revised EIR (REIR) that are new or changed shall be subject to challenge under CEQA by petitioners or other interested parties. For these reasons, the Department has developed this three-volume Monterey Plus Draft Revised EIR. Document A1 presents all the changes to the Monterey Plus EIR made as a result of the Department’s reanalysis of the Kern Fan Element (KFE) property transfer and new analysis of the KWB development and continued use and operation.  Since DWR decertified the Monterey Plus EIR, pursuant to the Court’s order, the Revised EIR also includes, without modification, the 2007 Draft EIR (Document B, including Volumes I and II) and the 2010 Final EIR (Document C, including Volumes I and II). Together, the three documents constitute the Monterey Plus Draft Revised EIR (Figure P-1). The Draft Revised EIR focuses on the development and continued use and operations of the KWB near Bakersfield. Potentially significant impacts before mitigation were related to groundwater levels and quality, Kern River water quality, the Cross Valley Canal, terrestrial biological resources, erosion, hazardous materials, waterborne disease, cultural and paleontological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and cumulative impacts.  Potentially significant and unavoidable impacts were related to cumulative growth-related impacts. The Draft Revised EIR identifies hazardous sites on or near KWB Lands that have been remediated.

Draft finding of no significant impact, 2-Gates Fish Protection Demonstration Project.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | November 13th, 2009

The proposed Demonstration Project is a 5-year experiment to validate a new delta smelt behavioral model and study the effects of modifying flows in the Sacramento-San Jo

The proposed Demonstration Project is a 5-year experiment to validate a new delta smelt behavioral model and study the effects of modifying flows in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) to protect delta smelt and other sensitive aquatic species from entrainment in Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) export pumps. Research suggests that the pre-spawning migration of adult delta smelt is tied to sediment/suspended particles in the water (turbidity). Temporary gates would be placed across Old River and Connection Slough in the central Delta and operated from December to March to keep turbid water away from the CVP and SWP export pumps, thus keeping adult delta smelt away from the pumps, and in March and June to prevent larvae and juvenile delta smelt from being entrained by the export pumps.