Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft <br /> <br />003J79 <br /> <br />Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating <br />and Managing Water Resources in California <br /> <br />facilities development, negotiated settlements, and flow objectives. <br /> <br /> <br />Concurrently, under the broad authority of the Endangered Species Act, the federal <br /> <br /> <br />regulatory process was proceeding toward development of Delta standards and lipstream <br /> <br />measures applicable to the CVP and SWP for the protection of the threatened winter-run chinook <br /> <br /> <br />salmon. In February 1993, the NMFS issued a long-term biological opinion governing operations <br /> <br />of the CVP and SWP with Delta environmental regulations that, in certain months, were more <br /> <br /> <br />restrictive than SWRCB's proposed measures. In March 1993, the USFWS listed the Delta smelt <br /> <br />as a threatened species and shortly thereafter indicated that further restrictions of CVP and SWP <br /> <br /> <br />operations would be required. In December 1993, ErA announced its proposed standards for the <br /> <br />estuary in place of the S WRCB water quality standards EP A had rejected in 1991. In addition, <br /> <br />USFWS proposed to list the Sacramento splittail as a threatened species, and NMFS announced <br /> <br /> <br />its decision to change the status of winter-run salmon from threatened to endangered. <br /> <br /> <br />The impending regulatory gridlock lead to the negotiation and signing of the June 1994 <br /> <br />Framework Agreement for the Bay-Delta Estuary. The Framework Agreement and subsequent <br /> <br />Bay-Delta activities are described in Chapter 2. <br /> <br />Fish Protection Agreements. To mitigate fish losses at Delta export facilities, both the <br /> <br />SWP and the CVP have entered into agreements with DFG. As part of the environmental review <br /> <br /> <br />process for installing four additional pumps at DWR's Banks Pumping Plant in the Delta in 1992, <br /> <br />DFG and DWR negotiated an agreement to preserve fish potentially affected by the operation of <br /> <br /> <br />the pumps. This agreement, signed by the two departments in 1986, identifies the steps needed to <br /> <br />offset adverse impacts of the Banks Pumping Plant on fisheries. It sets up a procedure to <br /> <br />calculate direct fishery losses annually and requires DWR to pay for mitigation projects that <br /> <br />would offset the losses. Losses of striped bass, chinook salmon, and steelhead are to be mitigated <br /> <br /> <br />first. Mitigation of other species is to follow as impacts are identified and appropriate mitigation <br /> <br />measures found, In recognition of the fact that direct losses today would probably be greater if <br /> <br /> <br />fish populations had not been depleted by past operations, DWR also provided a $15 million <br /> <br />capital outlay for a program to increase the probability of quickly demonstrated results. In 1996, <br /> <br /> <br />DWR and DFG agreed to extend the period for expending the remainder of the $15 million to the <br /> <br /> <br />year 200 l. <br /> <br />2A-17 <br />