HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04012008 - D.5 5 Eq_y
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
Costa
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP =. ...:;
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ' � . County
. SQA.COUC1'('l
1
DATE: April 01', 2008.
SUBJECT: Report from Water Agency on Delta Water Issues
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ACCEPT Report from County Water Agency on Delta Water Issues.
2. REVIEW existing Water Agency strategy and activities and CONSIDER alternative strategies for
future action.
3. AUTHORIZE the Chair of.the:.Board to sign the attached letter to DWR indicating the County's
objection to any consideration of a peripheral canal in the absence of a comprehensive plan to
address the overall health of the Delta.
4. CONSIDER placing the question of developing a position on the peripheral canal on a future Board
agenda.
FISCAL IMPACT
Any increase in the County's level of participation in water/delta issues will require additional resources
and supplemental funding allocated during the County budget process.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
_ ECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO MIT
t,-OPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF BO D ON D APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
ZNANIMOUS E OF SUPERVISORS
// I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
(ABSENT /t/ ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Roberta Goulart (925/335-1226) ATTESTED
cc: County Administrator JOHN CULLEN LER -OF
Community Development Department(CDD). THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
Public Works Flood Control AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
I u_'.Coi)senatio i!_Rril�ertalEO Delta Water Issues 4 01.doc
I
April 1, 2008
Page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Update on recent actions by Governor Schwarzenegger on delta conveyance alternatives as part of the
Bay Delta Conservation Plan BDCPprocess:
In February 2008, speculation surfaced that the Governor was considering issuance of an Executive
Order to expedite planning and funding of a peripheral canal (isolated water transfer) in the delta. Senate
leadership responded with a strongly worded letter expressing their displeasure at such unilateral action,
bypassing the legislature and subverting the Delta Vision process the Governor himself had initiated. The
Governor responded, also by.letter, laying out his current priorities for the delta. These priorities included
a 20% reduction in water use`statewide (by 2020), floodplain "protection", land use restrictions (through
Delta Protection Commission Management Plan update), levee protection, disaster planning, water
quality, storage (surface and groundwater), conveyance options for consideration and implementation of
interim delta actions. A great number of workshops and public information meetings are scheduled by a
number of state agencies, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) primary among them.
Consideration of conveyance alternatives described in the Governor's letter is indeed being expedited
through the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process (this plan was initiated by the State Water
Contractors as the applicant, to obtain Incidental Take Permits (under the Endangered Species Act) for
some form of a peripheral canal. This process has been underway for some time, and where it has a
large and varied steering committee (including environmental groups and CCWD), it examines a very
small array of alternatives for isolated conveyance, as an example. Environmental Review of this process
has begun, with issuance of a federal Notice of Intention (NOI) and state Notice of Preparation. Despite
the initiation of environmental review. the alternatives and/or project (especially isolated transfer) have yet
to be described in any detail. The Water Agency has commented on the NOI, attached.
Despite the Governor's assertions to the contrary, the BCDP process does indeed seem to be on a faster
track than the other, equally important ecosystem water quality and other topics of importance to the Delta
Vision Process (although these issues will need to be appropriately examined in the environmental
document).
The Delta Vision Process
The Delta Vision Task Force (DVTF) completed its vision in November 2007, and is currently creating a
strategic plan to implement the Vision (due in October 2008). The Vision holds that water supply and
ecosystem health are of equal importance, and outlines 12 integrated, linked recommendations that must
be implemented together for success.
For the Strategic Plan, the Task Force has created working groups in the areas of(reliable) Water Supply,
Delta as a Place, Governance/Finance, and Ecosystem, in addition to the Stakeholders Committee, which
meets less regularly. It would be important for.County staff to be involved in these committees to the
extent possible, as issues important to the county (such as water quality, governance over land use
activities, etc.) will be discussed, and recommendations made to the task force.
Assessment of Impacts on the County and the Delta
Impacts in and around the County and the Delta will become better defined as specific projects are
formulated and as these projects undergo environmental review. At this time, there have been no specific
projects identified, and therefore impacts are difficult if not impossible to determine, in any but the most
general sense. As projects become defined, so will resultant impacts of those projects.
Contra Costa Water District comments that "A number of alternatives involving an isolated facility have
the potential to significantly degrade water quality in the South Delta. The San Joaquin River would
become the primary source of water in that part of the Delta, the water quality of which is very poor
(dominated by agricultural drainage, including pollutants such as selenium, pesticides and high salt
levels). This will result in serious impacts to fish and wildlife in the Delta, as well as to the quality of water
delivered to customers of Contra Costa Water District (Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Clayton,
Concord, Pacheco, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley as well as industries and refineries), Antioch (at
their own intake on the lower San Joaquin River), East Contra Costa Irrigation District (including the City
of Brentwood, who purchases water from ECCID and has it conveyed and treated by CCWD) and Byron-
Bethany Irrigation District.
Under the Delta Protection Act (Water Code Sections 12200 et seq.), these in-Delta water users are
entitled to an adequate quality and supply of water at their intakes, so the State Water Project would be
required to mitigate for water quality degradation or provide a substitute supply; if the latter is done, the
April 1, 2008
Page 3
Delta Protection Act requires that the substitute supply be made at no additional financial burden to the
Delta water users by virtue of such substitution. What mitigation the SWP would make, or how they
would accomplish the mitigation has not been addressed."
Water Agency Priorities, Activities to date
Water Agency staff monitors-(and provides input, comments when appropriate) on as many delta plans,
projects and processes as possible, recognizing the need to be part of the process, and help guide it, to
the extent possible. We have had mixed success in these endeavors, having varying degrees of impact.
Regarding water issues overall, the County remains somewhat outside the established delta realm of
'experts'. This is due to several factors, the most primary being that the Contra Costa Water District has
such a significant degree of expertise in the.field of water quality/supply considerations (numeric
modeling, etc) that the County with the similar name is often overlooked, either by mistake (thought to be
the same entity) or design (too many parties from one geographic area). Despite the fact that we indeed
benefit greatly from CCWD's expertise (they are the greatest resource to us, and provide information and
help on a regular basis), the County has responsibilities beyond that of water quality and supply, that the
water district may not address. CCWD also.has greater staff resources with which to stay involved with
the multitude of meetings.
Nonetheless, the Water Agency has established a County presence at a significant number of forums,
including;
• Delta Vision Stakeholders Group (as an alternate) Staff has been invited to continue to remain at
the table and provide input regularly (albeit informally).
• Water Agency staff is listed as a "resource" to the Vision Water Supply subcommittee
• County staff closely Monitor meetings of the DVTF, and relay Board comments and/or provide
general commentary on established issues of import to the County/Board (we will participate in
subcommittees when possible).',,
• Longtime attendees of the CALFED levee subcommittee, a consortium of engineers, rec. districts,
consultants working with DWR on levee funding, policy issues etc.
• County established, gets funds for and regularly attends/expedites the Delta Long Term
Management Strategy (LTMS) process, where all relevant agencies meet to streamline the permit
process (one permit for all) and provide scientific study to provide necessary data to aid agency
decisions.
• County and Contra Costa Council created the Delta Levee Coalition, a group advocacy attempt to
obtain funds from Proposition 1 e for,western and central delta levees outside the state plan of
flood control (western delta levees were at one time designated as the most important to
preservation of water quality in the delta (protection against salinity intrusion from the bay)).
• County is the primary advocate for federal funds for regional delta projects (which benefit other
counties in addition to our own) including levee repair under the CALFED Levee Stability
Improvement Program (LSIP) primarily, and the CA Delta Islands and Levees Program (in the
past). The County was instrumental in`getting start-up funds for the CALFED LSIP (through
Senator Feinstein's office) for the initial`US Army Corps of Engineers' (Core's) report which
identified delta levee projects for funding and repair(without the flood restriction). The County was
instrumental (FFY '07) in getting funds to,,keep the program going (despite dissatisfaction with
CALFED) through Congresswoman Tauscher's office. Bethel Island will be a recipient of some of
this funding, among other islands spread throughout the delta.
• The County is a vocal and consistent advocate for repair of levees in the western and central delta
• County meets with other delta legislators on projects requiring federal funding
• High level of interaction with other affected `delta agencies and organizations as part of delta vision
activities; meetings with delta parties and contribution to alternative vision document promoting
regional self sufficiency (Board supported this document).
• Interaction with other delta counties, cities other agencies, individuals involved in Delta Protection
Commission (County is a member).
• Panelists on delta issues
Areas in which we could become more effective
• Participation in key meetings of importance (areas of.limited monitoring to date)
• Increased level of participation at key meetings and in other areas (CSAC, legislative hearings, etc)
• Increased state lobbyist involvement
• Explore areas in common with key partners
April 1, 2008
I
Page 4
Examination of Water Agency Strategy, consideration of alternate strategies
To date, the Water Agency staff has proceeded to monitor and report on delta activities. While the Board
has provided a number of comments and some positions on documents.related to the Delta Vision
process, the Board had not,yet declared current positions on a Peripheral Canal, and to some extent, on
surface water storage (the Board commented on the process, but stopped short of supporting the process
because it includes an isolated facility).
While there has been much planning on these issues, no specific projects (environmental review or other
hard documents from which to respond) have surfaced to date, which has been the basis of the Water
Agency's 'monitor and report'`I,strategy. There has been much debate on the peripheral canal issue in
particular, with some entities taking a preemptive "oppose" stance, such as some of the delta Water
Agencies, and San Joaquin County. Other agencies and organizations have adopted a "wait and see"
strategy, or are partners in actively studying a peripheral canal (environmental groups, Contra Costa
Council), and finally the proponents (of which there are many) actively promoting a peripheral canal, with
the Governor at the top of the list.
Staff recommends that the Board consider continuing a 'monitor and report' strategy, or another strategy,
and direct the Water Agency accordingly. An alternate strategy would include taking additional positions
on projects and programs (such as a peripheral canal and the Delta Vision process), and working with
other agencies and organizations`'on group support of these positions, and negotiating with the Governor
and legislature accordingly.
A letter to the Department of Watetr Resources regarding concern with a peripheral canal
In its action on March 11, 2008, the`''',Board of Supervisors directed that a letter to be sent to DWR
indicating the County's objection to any consideration of a peripheral canal in the absence of a
comprehensive plan to address delta water quality, ecosystem and public safety concerns. The letter is
attached. However, while the Board's concern is certainly a valid one, by making this statement the
Board may be perceived as having developed a de facto position on a peripheral canal (i.e. it is ok to
proceed with a peripheral canal if delta water and ecosystem are addressed).
The Board of Supervisors has had a long-held position of opposition to a peripheral canal, and recent
strategy has been to avoid taking a more current position at this time. In order to avoid any ambiguity
regarding its position, a strong position statement for the record should be considered.
I
;
11
1
II
,1
ADDENDUM TO D.5
APRIL 1, 2008
On this day the Board the Board ACCEPTED a report from the County Water Agency on Delta
water issues; CONSIDERED authorizing the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to sign a letter to the
State Department of Water Resources indicating the County's objection to any consideration of a
peripheral canal in the absence of a comprehensive plan to address the overall health of the
Delta; and CONSIDERED placing the question of developing a position on the peripheral canal
on a future Board agenda, and taking related actions.
'1
Roberta Goulart, Contra Costa County Water Agency, provided the Board with an update
regarding Delta Water,Issues including the Governor's intention to proceed with the National
Environment Policy Aet/California Environmental Quality Act analysis on alternatives for the
Delta conveyance through the Bay Delta Conservation Plan process. She made particular
reference to the events on Attachment 2 of Board Order D.5 dated April 1, 2008. Ms. Goulart
explained the Delta Vision Task Force would create a strategic plan to implement the Vision by
October 2008. She noted the impacts around the Delta would be better defined as projects are
formulated and undergo environmental review. She emphasized the Water agency staff has
monitored and reported on Delta activities and said there has been much debate on the peripheral
canal issue, with some entities taking an"oppose" stance and other agencies adopting a"wait
and see" strategy, but many would like to promote a peripheral canal with the Governor and
Legislature. Ms. Goulart referred to March 11, 2008 Board Order D.l and noted in its action the
Board directed a letter to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) (attached)that indicated
the County's objection to proceeding with a peripheral canal prior to the development of a plan
to address Delta water quality and a healthier ecosystem. She cautioned that by making the
statement, the Board could be,perceived as having a de facto position and suggested that the
Board may wish to consider a',current position to avoid any ambiguity regarding its position on a
peripheral canal.
'I
Supervisor Piepho asked Ms. Goulart to affirm the stance that was supported by the Board in
1982 that opposed the peripheral canal.
Ms. Goulart stated a Board Order,in 1982 opposed a canal, and expressed concern over a lack of
assurances to protect the Delta if a peripheral canal were constructed. She offered to get a copy
of that Board Order from the archives.
I
Chair Glover said he is reluctant tol'�send the letter to the DWR, as he does not want it to be
perceived that if certain conditions were met the Board would want to consider a peripheral
canal. He asked Ms. Goulart what her stand would be on any type of communications with
DWR.
Ms. Goulart responded that DWR is a large agency, and often has a single focus with one or two
things that are important to them. ,
'I
1, 1
'I
I
I'II
I
Supervisor Uilkema said she would like the Board to examine the issue of sending the letter to
DWR at the next Transportation and Water Infrastructure Committee meeting(TWIC) with a
specific recommendation on the peripheral canal. She noted after the Board concludes their
recommendations, the Chair should invite prominent persons dealing with the peripheral canal or
Delta issues to meet with the full Board, and pointed out that she would like to include Contra
Costa Council. Iri conclusion, Supervisor Uilkema said she would prefer to wait till the next
TWIC meeting and she reiterated a letter should be sent to DWR after the full Board has
discussed publicly''the next action to be taken. She said this letter should reflect the full Board's
position
I
Supervisor Piepho referred to the Peripheral Canal issue and said one County staff person is
spread very thin in trying to handle this matter. She said this Board has historically taken a very
strong position and in 1982, due to local advocacy on the proposed peripheral canal, won the
fight statewide. She`talked about going back and reviewing the Board's historic position on the
Canal. She said the action before the Board today is part and parcel of the direction of the March
11, 2008 Board Order's (see attached)which was supported by the Board. She said the Board
should call on everyone, pull partners together so that Ms. Goulart is not a"one woman" show
and work with Contra`Costa Water District partners and have in Contra Costa Council a serious
discussion to sit down to protect the County's interest. Supervisor Pieho asked Ms. Goulart if
the County responded too the Notice of Intention process of the Bay Delta Conservation.Plan with
a deadline of March 24,12008.
Ms. Goulart said there was a response from the County and she would provide the Board with a
copy.
Chair Glover said this matter should be directed to the Board for a very open and intense
dialogue going forward.
I
Supervisor Gioia reiterated".one County staff person alone would not be able to handle this issue
in a way that will be meaningful at the State level. He suggested the County work with East Bay
Municipal Utilities District I(EBMUD) and Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) and understand
their principles. He suggested a workshop with EBMUD and CCWD and added that these two
agencies have spent enormous amounts of money trying to particulate in statewide solutions.
He suggested the letter to theIDWR should be written in conjunction with a workshop with
EBMUD and CCWD. He also said he thought it is important that the County get some positions
on Delta issues from environmental and agricultural interests.
Supervisor Piepho suggested the Board direct TWIC to discuss a Board workshop on Delta water
issues, including an agenda and list of attendees, and report back to the Board on May 6.
Chair Glover concurred with Supervisor Gioia and said the Board would re-evaluate the position
and find partners to share resources in advocacy.
,I
By an unanimous vote, with Supervisor Bonilla absent, the Board took the following action:
II
I
I
2
I
'I �
�I
I
I
'I
ACCEPTED the Report from County Water Agency on Delta Water Issues; REVIEWED
existing Water Agency strategy and activities and CONSIDERED alternative strategies for
future action; DEFERRED authorizing a letter to the State Department of Water Resources;
MOVED the discussion to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee for
consideration and the development of a workshop with Contra Costa water district partners; and
DIRECTED the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure to REPORT back to the Board on May
6, 2008. I
I
'II
�I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
,I
li
II�
I
I
I
II
�I
I
I
I
'I
I
�I
I
'I
'I
`I
I
3
�I
I
!,
TO: BOARD QF SUPERVISORS — ConFra
FROM: SUPERVISOR MARY NEJEDLY PIEPHO =- Costa
DATE: March 11, 2008
I STa COU
County
SUBJECT: Contra Costa County Delta Water Plan Update \' .
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Direct the Water Agency to provide an update to the Board of Supervisors at the April 1,
2008 Board Meeting regarding Delta Water Issues including the Governor's stated
intention (see letter dated February 28 to Senators Perata, Steinberg, and Machado) to
proceed with the�,NEPA/CMA analysis on at least four alternatives for Delta conveyance.
They shall consider the following:
• The possibility of no new Delta conveyance facility;
• The possibility of a dual conveyance facility, as suggested by the Task Force;
• The possibility of an isolated facility;
• The possibility of substantial improvements and pro s of the existing
water export system, most often referred to as `ar he Delta' or a
"through-Delta" solution.
'I
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ❑ YES SI NATURE:
I
❑ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ❑ ECOM!11114ROIION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
❑APPROVE ❑ OTHER
I
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON 0100
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Fq
I
I
I
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
I� I/ CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
�C UNANIMOUS(ABSENT /V o ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
AYES: NOES: ! SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED: YjV C4
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I �
I
Contact: Tomi Van de Brooke i JOHN CULLEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Office of Supervisor Mary N. Piepho SUPERV ORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
(925)820-8683
`! r
cc: John Cullen,County Administrator By: Deputy
Roberta Goulart,Water Agency
I
'I
2. Direct the Water Agency to work with affected Delta counties to undertake an assessment
of impacts on Contra Costa County, the Bay Delta, and surrounding islands and other
land and water quality that may result from proposed transfer facility.
'll
3. Call on DWR to consider impacts to counties related to actions that will increase salinity
and decrease'llwater quality and mitigate any and all economic or environmental harm by
fully compensating local governments for tax losses, increased expenses related to caring
for fallow land,l,and infrastructure changes necessitated by their actions.
I
4. Prepare a letter to the Department of Water Resources indicating our strong objection to
proceeding with. a "conveyance facility" or"Peripheral Canal" that will send additional
water south prior to developing and funding a plan to address the broader needs of the
Delta including 'improved water quality and a healthier Delta ecosystem.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
BACKGROUND:
In 2006, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed an executive order to develop a Delta Vision to provide
a sustainable management program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta, a unique
natural resource of local, state and national significance. At the same time he appointed a
Blue Ribbon Task Force.
I
I.
The Blue Ribbon Task Force, in its January 17, 2008 report, "cautions that decisions about
storage and conveyance lflow from all 12 recommendations in their vision, and cannot be
decided by themselves."
I
The top three of the Blue',Ribbon Delta Vision's 12 integrated and.Linked Recommendations
issued on January 17th report include recognition of the Delta's ecosystem and status as a
unique and valued area.''I�The first recommendation places the ecosystem at equal status
with water supply:
1. Delta ecosystem and I,a reliable water supply for California are the primary, co-equal goals
for sustainable management of the Delta.
2. The California Delta is',a unique and valued area, warranting recognition and special legal
status from the State of California.
3. The Delta ecosystem must function as an integral part of a healthy estuary.
California State Senators Perata, Steinberg, and Machado indicated in their letter dated
February 27, 2008 strong objections to "Launching a peripheral canal without addressing
ecosystem, water quality, structure and governance simply enflames old sectional passions
and suspicions. And, it movesl,us in the exact opposite direction from a comprehensive water
policy."
The Governor's response letter. to the Senators dated February 28th included the statement
m
that he was directing DWR to ove forward with the environmental studies needed to proceed
with a Peripheral Canal type facility.
I
I
Attachment 1
GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENL- GGER
February 28, 2008
The Honorable Don Perata The Honorable Darrell Steinberg
President pro Tempore California State Senate
California State Senate I State Capitol
State Capitol Room 4035
Room 205 Sacramento, California 95814
Sacramento, California 195814
The Honorable Mile Machado
California State Senate
State Capitol
Room 5066
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Don, Mikc and DrTell,
My administration has been working on solutions for addressing California's water supply
and tiie environmental crisis.in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for more than two years.
As you all have ackno%�Iedged during our negotiations on a.comprehensive water
infrastructure package over the last year, the heart of California's vital water-supply system
is in jeopardy of collapse without both immediate action and long term solutions to restore
the ecosystem and protect water supplies.
1 created the bipartisan)Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force by administrative action in
2006. Tile Task ForceI has issued its Vision and will develop �i Strategic Plan to implement
the Vision by the end of this _year. In its recommendations, tiie Task Force identified a
series of near-term actions that should be taken to protect the estuary, including studying
the options for•improving water transfer in the Delta. Far-from acting unilaterally, my
administration has been transparent in working with stakeholders and le_islators on
identifyingboth administrative Lind legislative actions that will be necessary to address the
recommendations of tale Task Force. As part of that effort.. I will continue to neEiotiate in
good faith with legislators on a comprehensive water infi-astructure package. v
To clarify the adminil trative actions we are considering as part of a comprehensive
solution in the Delta, me outline some of the key elements under development:
i
I
i
i
STATE CAPiTUOL • SACRAA4ENT0, CALIFORNIA 95814 (916) 445-2841
I
I
I
The Honorable Don Perata
The Honorable Mike Mad hado
The Honorable Darrell Steinberg
February 28, 2008
Page two
1. A plan to achiev� a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use statewide by
2020. Conservation is one of the key ways to provide water for Californians and protect
and improve the Delta ecIosystem. A number of efforts are already underway to expand
conservation programs, but I plan to direct state agencies to develop this more aggressive
plan and implement it but
extent permitted by cun-ent law. I would welcome legislation
to incorporate this goal into statute.
2 Protection of fldodplain in the Delta. The Department of Water Resources
(DWR) and other appropriate state agencies will expedite the evaluation and protection of
critical floodplains. This action protects people and property, the existing waater-export
system and the Delta ecosystem.
• Policy gdidance on Delta land use. The Blue Ribbon Task Force made it
clear that changing land use patterns may limit our ability to address critical
issues wiith the existing water export system and the Delta ecosystem.
Accordingly, I will ask the Delta Protection Commission to update their-
Land Use and Resource Management Plan and direct the Governor's Office
of Planning & Research and the State Architect to develop model Delta land
use guidelines for distribution to local governments.
• Levee protection and standards. DWR is actively involved in efforts to
improveiour flood protection and levee systems and, as part of this effort,
should establish recommended standards for Delta levees.
3. Multi-agency Delta disaster planning. DWR, in coordination with the Office of
Emergency Services, and other- appropriate state agencies will develop and implement an
emergency response plan and conduct a multi-agency disaster planning exercise in the
Delta.
• Contract fol-emergency response equipment and services. I will
authorize DWR to continue its efforts to obtain equipment and services
including barge services, sheet piling and other flood fightina materials to
respond to disasters in the Delta. In addition to my previous orders, we
must expedite the placement of materials and supplies in and near the Delta,
to imp I ve our emergency response capabilities.
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
J
The Honorable Don Perata
The Honorable Mike Machado
The Honorable Dan-ell Steinberg
February 28, 2008 I
Page three
I
4. Expedite interim Delta actions. The Resources Agency, DWR, Department of
Fish and Game and the State Water Resources Control Board have already begun efforts to
Help protect and restore Delta habitat and help water users cope with supply interruptions.
I will direct the Resources Agency to expedite the completion of the Bay Delta
Conservation Plan (BDCP), including the environmental review and permitting activities.
Ongoing Delta actions, in conjunction with these efforts, will provide a foundation to help
conserve at-risk speciesland improve water supply reliability.
S. Water quality.) While additional storage Lind improved conveyance can allow
greater control of water flows that improve drinking water quality, more must be done. I
will direct the State Water Resources Control Board to develop and implement a
comprehensive prograt� in the Delta to protect water quality.
G. Improvements to Delta Neater conveyance. DWR and other appropriate state
agencies will soon begin the public process to study the alternatives available for
improving the Deltawater conveyance system. As parr of this study, DWR must
coordinate with SDC I efforts to recover at-risk species. DWR must also incorporate the
issues of water-supplyl reliability. seismic and flood durability; ecosystem health and
resilience. water quality; and projected schedule, cost and funding in their options review,
Lis suggested by.the Task Force.
The Task Force recommended that we stud}, a "dual conveyance facility" as a starting
point. However I believe we must look at a full range of options for improving
conveyance in the Delta.
Accordingly, I intendto direct DWR to proceed with the NEPA/CEQA analysis on at least
four alternatives for Delta conveyance. They shall consider the following:
0 The possibility of no new Delta conveyance facility;
0 The possibility of a dual conveyance facility, as suggested by the Task
Force;
0 The possibility of an isolated facility;
0 The possibility of substantial improvements and protections of the existing,
water expos l system, most often referred to as `armoring the Delta' or a
`1111-otlall-Delta" solution.
4
i
I
i
i
I
I
f
i
I
The Honorable Don PerataI
Tile Honorable Mike Machado
The Honorable Darrell Steinberg
February 28, 2008 I
Page four ►
I
I
7. Water storage. DWR will complete the feasibility studies for the CALFED
storage projects includinc,Temperance Flat, Sites Reservoir, and the Los Vaqueros
expansion. Each of these projects, depending on how they are built and operated, can
provide substantial public benefits. Unlike in the.past, when local entities built storage
facilities for their own benefit and with little state investment, the current deteriorating
condition of the Delta and the statewide water system demand public investment in
exchange for the public benefit the entire state will realize.
In addition, I will direct DWR to expedite funding for groundwater-storage projects
throughout the state that will improve water supply reliability.
Please know that I willlcontinue to wort: with the Legislature and all stakeholders to
develop a comprehensive solution to the crisis in the Delta, and I will act on administrative
measures in a transparl nt manner at the appropriate time.
California's history is filled with innovators and problem solvers. In 2006, with Democrats
and Republicans working.together for a common cause, we added to that legacy by
building up our infrastructure. We showed leadership, not for the benefit of our own
ambitions, but for theifuture of the state. That's something that Californians weren't used
to, and they responded forcefully, approving all of the bonds. It's time for us to put tlle
state first and add another chapter to the history books. It's time to secure a safe, clean and
reliable water supplylfor.tile next generation of Californians. We have a great opportunity,
and the people are c unting on us. Let's not let it piss.
I
.Since
i
i
Arnold chwarzeneyl ger
I
I
I
I
►
I
l Attachment 2
3/08 Fall-run salmon populations plummet; scientists blame low river flows (high
export volumes) in delta' and lack of food in ocean
3/08 Bay Delta Conservation Plan initiates the CEQA/NEPA process by releasing
Notice of Intention (NOI) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) for peripheral canal
"takings" permits I
3/08 SB XX 6 introduced in legislative special session (newest potential bond
language) I
3/08 DWR launches campaign to implement Governors list of comprehensive
actions in the delta by announcing workshops and public meetings on a number
of subjects (including iemergency response, water conservation initiatives, water
plan, BDCP, etc)
2/08 Governor sends a letter to Senators Perata, Machado and Steinberg
defending his actions in the delta. Governor announces comprehensive
actions to "fix" theldelta, which include conservation (20% decrease in water
use by 2020), floodplain protection (land use protection & levee protection),
disaster planning, interim actions, water quality, conveyance and storage.
2/08 Senators Perata, Machado, Steinberg send letter to Governor, blasting his
behind-the-scenes actions pushing an peripheral canal
2/08 Governor meets with Senator Feinstein on rebuilding CA water
infrastructure
2/08 Governor releases 211 million (Prop 1e bond funds) for 4 flood control
projects I
12/07 Judge Wanger issues pumping restrictions to protect Delta Smelt (listed as
threatened) until nlew Biological Opinion and Operations Criteria & Plan (OCAP)
are completed. (BDCP is working on this)
11/07 CALFED issues)its end of Stage One Report
10/07 Governor signs1water/flood control legislation (CV Flood Protection Plan,
increased attention to flood by land use agencies, level of flood protection urban
development, etc)
I
9/07 Special Legislative Session on water/delta (ongoing). Several bills are
introduced as potential bond measures, and for shore term actions (none have
been successful to date)
6/07 Delta Risk Management Strategy DRMS Phase One (draft) documents
released (Pha ie 2 is ongoing)
D:\Roberta\delta gel era)\chronology delta water events.doc
I
I
I
i
I
2/07 County & Contra Costa I Council establish the Delta Levee Coalition to advocate
for Proposition 1 e funds for non-project levees in the larger delta (to date, no
funds have been forthcoming for levees not part of the state plan of flood control)
I
12/06 Department of Water Resources announces their FLOODSAFE Program,
which would reduce flood risk, create a sustainable management system for
floods, and help to red uI ce impacts of floods when they occur.
11/06 Bond measures approved by voters (including $4.1 billion for delta levees, etc)
9/06 Governor signs legislation and issues an executive order directing development
of a long-term Delta Vision. A Blue Ribbon Task Force was created (as were
other committees), with the task of developing a Vision for a sustainable delta by
the end of 2007, and i Strategy to attain this Vision by October 2008.
5/06 Delta Risk Management Strategy; contract awarded to URS; risk assessment
of Delta levees (phase 1), and strategy to address risk (dependant upon
importance) I
4/06 Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process is initiated. Touted as a
habitat conservation plan, this process, paid for by the State Water Contractors
(exporters) as the applicant, looks at permitting under the Endangered Species
Act for a peripheral i anal future scenario.
3/06 Governor signs Executive Order directing DWR to repair 24 (initially; there were
additional sites added over time) critically eroded levee areas (flood control)
2/06 Governor declares state of emergency for levees flood control on
9 Y (
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers)
I
1/06 DWR presents "Flood Warnings: Responding to California's Flood Crisis"
Report to legislature.r
10/05 County lobbies for and obtains $500,000 in federal funds for the Corps to launch
the Delta Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) process, an agency-
driven process tolstreamline permitting, provide scientific certainty and consider
dredged materials for large scale levee rehabilitation activities (Process begins
1/06) I
1/04 CALFED Reauthorization Act passes, authorizing $90 million for levee work
2000 CALFED Record of Decision signed (CALFED stage 1 program moves ahead)
I
I
1993 Delta Smelt listed as Threatened under Endangered Species Act
. I
DARoberta\delta general\chronology delta water events.doc
Attachment 3
John Culieri
65-1 Fine Sireet. Room
Maninez, aiifoirua 94ri7l��-0095 County
John Gioia. Distnct I
Susan A. Boniha, Disinci IV
Federal D.G
.... Honorable Phil ...
berg and Members,
Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force September 18, 2007
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 958114
Dear Chairman Isenbel rg and Members of the Task Force.,
Today the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the following parameters to
guide a vision and components of a vision that.. as a county, we consider to be vitally
important. We thanki You for your work on this most important topic, and offer the following
0 Through-delta conveyance actions did not progress in the CALFED process; through-
delta conveyance actions need to be implemented, monitored and managed prior to
consideration
° A /ovel playing field" is encouraged, in that some users should no' unduly benefit at tile
expense of others-. all parties wil! have to compromise if we are to save 'the delta
ecosystem and!its species.
`
°
The delta is p,a I rt of a larger ecosystern that includes San Francisco Bay and environs.
Chances to and in the Delta will affect this ecosystem. Studies; analysis and modeling
of the Delta hleed to be ecosystem based, and should include the watershed to the
e^'e/x practicable. Needs of the ecosystem need to be determined prior to revision of
°
Improvement I bf the delta environment and protection of water quality from additional
pollutant levels in the delta ecosystem and delta outflows should be included in any
vision for _the
°
The o wester I n delta islands are- paramount to protection of the delta ecosystem, and to
t state s existing water supply now and under any future delta supply scenario. it is
critical nnsx relhabilitation cnthese' levees commence immediately.
°
Climate change
.Any solutions proposed for the delta need to address climate change.
" VVe support//out-of-delta (statewide) solutions to the delta's problems vvhena possib|s.
Water exported from the delta serves rriost of the etate, providing domestic and
agriuu|tuna|'water supply. The watersheds draining tothe delta region cover nnuoh of �
'
'
1 �
California. Many oii the delta's problems can be managed in the service area. or the
upstream watersheds. before problems become acute within the delta itself. For
example:
Conjunctive use (groundwater storage for use in dry times in the San ,Joaquin
Valley and elsewhere)
Flood plain management in the watershed (to reduce flood extrernes within the
delta)
Consideration of other water supply options such as desalination and reuse
where practicable
o Optimizing use of floodwater for water supply purposes.
• Middle River conv I yance. while promising, raises many questions, including definition of
"variable" water quality:.comments; concerns are as follows:
o Agreement should be reached regarding the scientific dispute over what a
variable delta really is (i.e. historic salinity levels possibly skewing study
conclusions)
* Potential impacts to the western delta habitat, fishery in terms of high salinity
o Water supply (to cities, agricultural districts, groundwater users. industries
located iii Contra Costa County): what amount of freshwater flow can be
expected,)and when: can intakes in the western delta be accommodated (water
rights)
o Impacts, benefits to Old River, western delta with Middle River conveyance.
• We support measures to be implemented now, (consistent with the Contra Costa Wate,
District's (CCWD) Staged Conveyance Actions), specifically including the following:
Emergency response: stockpiling rock throughout the delta, including the
western Idelta. to protect water quality and levees
V'Wer gba!ity and tishery improvements at Franks Tract
Additional and improved fish screens at pumps
o Habitat i improvement projects at Dutch Slough, and Suisun Bay (and in general;
o Multi-year funding commitment to restore levees (non-project levees and levees
butcsdeIthe state pian of flood control)
Immediate rehabilitation of levees for the 8 western delta islands and other
islands in the central delta important for infrastructure-
* We support the Vision for the 21" Century, a Regional self-sufficiency scenario, put
forward by Tom Zuckerman and the delta group which embodies most of the above-
mentioned items as well as:
Considers out-of-delta solutions to reduce stress on the delta
n Envisions less water out of the delta in dry years (when more is taken and the
delta needs it the most)
C� RepleInishes groundwater basins
Addresses the water supply-dernand imbalance prior to conveyance issues
0 A flood management plan as a necessary tool early in process
Expanding central valley groundwater storage
c; Restoi re enough outflow to restore mixing zone to Suisun Bay
Restoration of levees throughout the delta.
We support )aspects of the August 21, 2007 Delta Vision Stakeholder Coordination
aroun's Report , as follows:
e T he Guiding Principles (pg 4j
o Concepts of action-based decision making (pg 6)
i
2
i
Upstream floodplain management (pg 9)
Out-of-delta strategies (pg 9)
o Outcome topics (pg 31) as follows;
• Preparing Emergency Plans for the Delta for life. property &
infrastructure
Continuing to provide funding for levee maintenance and restoring tidal
marsh
• Identifying lands needed for flood protection
e Reuse of dredged materials for levee maintenance (pg 56 #11)
• We support the Col tra Costa Council's Delta Vision and Principles document with the
following comments:
c. Climate chanae needs to be addressed
o The County
lhas not taken a position on surface storage at this time
o An understanding of the impact of delta flows on habitat and the health of the
estuary needs to be examined.
• We actively support the Delta Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) process to..,.
improve the permitting process in the delta and which considers the beneficial reuse of
dredoed materials for levee rehabilitE:tion.
While we greatly appreciate the Task Force's taking on the responsibility for a vision of this
magnitude, the Board is quite concerned that local land use agencies have not had a strong
presence in the process to date, and we strongly encourage the Governor and the Blue Ribbon
Task Force to engage the Idelta counties and cities in the discussion of land use and
governance. Many land use agencies have not been part of the discussions, and have not been
contacted as part.of recent studies considering land use activities.
At your last meeting. the Task Force asked if Contra Costa County was working with other delta
counties and cities in land use and emergency response issues. As indicated by our staff at
that meeting, the answer is yes on both counts. The county is a member of the Delta Protection
Commission. (which deals primarily with land ..ise issues) and ciected officials work together it-, a
number of other forums (C SAC, Mayors Conference, etc.). The County sits as an alternate (for
the former Mayor of Rio VIista) on the Stakeholder Coordination Group and as Co-Chair of the
CALFED Levees Subcommittee. County staff (and to a lesser extent city staff) meet regularly
on any number of delta related issues, including but not limited to emergency response (a lona
history of cooperation here). habitat conservation planning, wetlands preservation; levee
maintenance & rehabilitation; transportation, navigation and flood control. We also wort: directiy
with the reclamation districts in our county and in the larger delta.
Thant: you for your attention to these matters, which we consider to be vitally important.
If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact our staff. Robera 600art at (925) 33351- 226.
Sincer,elj
Mar�4 N.. J`ahb
card of Supervisors
3
i
. I
Attachment 4B ,
j
Glossary of Delta and Suisun Initiatives
Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting
January 31 —February 1, 2008 j
i
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP)
The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan is being developed to allow for projects to
proceed that restore and1protect water supply, water quality, and ecosystem health
within a stable regulatory framework. When finished, this proposed
comprehensive regional conservation plan will address compliance with federal
and California endangered species laws and regulations covering activities by
various Potentially Regulated Entities (PREs) in the Statutory Delta. The process
for planning is outlined in the BDCP Planning Agreement, dated October 6, 2006.
BDCP planning goals are:
• Provide for the conservation and management of Covered Species within the Planning Area;
• Preserve,restore,andjenhance aquatic,riparian and associated terrestrial natural communities
and ecosystems that support Covered Species within the Planning Area through conservation
partnerships; 1I
• Allow for projects to proceed that restore and protect water supply,water quality,and
ecosystem health wii thin a stable regulatory framework;
• Provide a means to implement Covered Activities in amanner that complies with applicable
State and federal fish and wildlife protection laws,including CESA and FESA,and other
environmental laws,including CEQA and NEPA;
• Provide a basis forlpermits necessary to lawfully take Covered Species;
• Provide a comprehensive means to coordinate and standardize mitigation and compensation
requirements for Covered Activities within the Planning Area;
• Provide a less cosily,more efficient project review process which results in greater
conservation values than project-by-project,species-by-species review;and
• Provide clear expectations and regulatory assurances regarding Covered Activities occurring
within the Planning Area.
CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program Conservation Strategy (ERP)
This document will describe the ERP's strategy to achieve the recovery of at-risk
species and the rehabilitation and restoration of natural processes and functions
within the Bay-Delta estuary and its watershed.
The End of Stage I Evaluation, produced by the Department of Fish and
Game, qualitatively assesses actions that were deemed technically, economically,
and politically feasible to.implement in the first seven years of the Ecosystem
Restoration Program. The report describes the status of fulfilling these Stage l
program priorities and implementation of restoration activities. Information is
summarized by program elements, ecological management zones, and regional
summaries. This report is part of the overall ERP assessment and is meant to
compliment the more quantitative ERP Milestone Assessment.
The Milestone Assessment, produced by the Department of Fish and
Game, quantitatively evaluates how well the ERP has achieved a discrete set of
conservation factions embodied in 119 milestones. The milestones were intended
to be carried but during the CALFED Program's Stage I (the first 7 years of the
30-year pro&am) and were developed to ensure ESA, NCCPA, and CESA
I
i
I
i 1
i
i
I
i
i
. i
compliance. The Milestone Assessment provides a status for each milestone,
states what was done to achieve designated actions, and discusses
recommendations for meeting milestones in the future. This report is part of the
overall ERP assessment and is meant to compliment the more qualitative ERP
End of Stage 1 Evaluation. A summary of EWA operations and the effects of the
EWA on targeted species are discussed as well.
CALFED Stage 2 Planning
As the CALFED Program completes Stage 1, a direction needs to be established
for continuation of the Program. As envisioned by the ROD, CALFED agencies
are currently evaluating alternative approaches for Delta conveyance,primarily by
participating in the Delta Vision and BDCP processes that include consideration
of alternative conveyance approaches for the Delta. Similarly, the agencies are
participating in DRMS to assesses the major risks to the Delta resources from
floods, seepage, subsidence, and earthquakes and develop recommendations to
manage the risk. As such, it is premature to set a specific future direction at this
time. However, it is expected that many of CALFED's Stage 1 actions will
continue in the future. Further, recommendations from the initiatives may lead to
some revision or refinement of Delta actions identified in the ROD or
development of new,IDelta actions.
I
I
CALFED State of the Science of the Bay-Delta System (SOSBDS)
The SOSBDS is anliterative effort to compile, synthesize and communicate the
current scientific understanding of the Bay-Delta ecosystem and provide relevant
scientific context to inform resource management and decision making. The first
edition will focus on the key issues relevant to CALFED Program Stage 2
decisions and the Delta Vision process and will incorporate the most current
understanding of system function and a description of ecosystem services as well
as describing the drivers or demands and the influence of management action on
these services and the system of the whole.
I
CALFED Surface Storage Investigations (SSI)
SSI was formulated to evaluate the five surface storage projects identified in the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision (August 28, 2000). The goal of
the Storage Prob am is to increase water supply reliability, improve water quality,
and support ecosystem restoration through expanded.storage capacity and
increased operational flexibility. Additional surface storage will provide
flexibility to the State's water management system, which can be operated to
contribute to the long-term sustainability of the Delta ecosystem, maintaining
water quality and supply reliability, and preventing and planning for catastrophic
failure of the Delta system. With additional capacity and integrated operations,
water diversion and deliveries can also be timed in ways that will allow for better
response to the effects of earthquakes, floods, and climate change.
The Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
with input from stakeholders and assistance from local water agencies, are
i
I 2
i
I
i
I
I
• I
• I
I
I
conducting the planning and feasibility studies. The five surface storage
investigations are: I
• Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation (SLWRI)
• North-of-the-Delta Offs ltream Storage(NODOS)
• In-Delta Storage Project (IDSP)
• Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion (LVE)
• Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation(USJRBSI)
I
California Water Plan Update 2009
The California Water Plan provides a framework for water managers, legislators,
and the public to consider options and make decisions regarding California's
water future. The Plan, which is updated every five years, presents basic data and
information on California's water resources including water supply evaluations
and assessments of agricultural,urban, and environmental water uses to quantify
the gap between water 'supplies and uses. The Plan also identifies and evaluates
existing and proposed statewide demand management and water supply
augmentation program is and projects to address the State's water needs.
Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted a comprehensive General
Plan (1990-2005) in IJanuary 1991 following an extensive public outreach and
participation processi initiated in 1986. This comprehensively updated General
Plan superseded the County's prior General Plan (and each of the previously
adopted elements), and consolidated several area specific General Plans into one
plan document. ThelContra Costa County General Plan was reconsolidated by the
Board of Supervisors in July 1996 to reflect General Plan Amendments from 1991
to 1995 and to correct minor errors and omissions discovered in the original 1991
General Plan text. (This first County General Plan Reconsolidation covered the
period from 1995 1 ithrough 2010. A second General Plan Reconsolidation was
approved by the Board of Supervisors in January 2005 to reflect General Plan
Amendments adopted betweenl995 and 2004, to revise text and maps to reflect
the 1999 incorporation of the City of Oakley, formerly an unincorporated
community that was covered under the County General Plan, and to consolidate a
newly adopted ffousing Element into the General Plan. The second County
General Plan Reconsolidation was adopted in January 2005 and covers the period
from 2005 through 2020.
Delta Protection Commission, Governor's Office of Emergency Services, and Five
Delta Counties' Emergency Planning and Response Collaborative Process
The Delta Protection Commission facilitated a summit meeting in 2006 of the five
Delta counties to discuss and agree upon a coordinated effort at Delta-wide
emergency planning especially to ensure that societal issues were included as well
as common assumptions and approaches between the many planning efforts
underway. The Commission moved forward in the fall of 2007 to work with the
Governor's Office of Emergency Services and the Center for Collaborative
Policy, CSUS, Igo develop a process including all local, state, (including the
I
! 3
I
I
I •
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
California Department of Water Resources) and federal agencies involved with
emergency response in the Delta to ultimately achieve a coordinated regional
emergency response framework plan. This plan is envisioned to be the integrating
"overlay"and linking tool to provide one common framework of emergency
response planning that supports and strengthens existing and future jurisdictional
plans in the Delta. Societal issues associated with a catastrophic emergency in the
Delta are to be focused on to ensure there is Delta-wide coordination in the
planning and response to issues such as: regional mass care and shelter, large
scale evacuation,public,,warning, public information, interoperable
communication and so forth.
i
i
Delta Protection Commissions Management Plan Update (MPU)
The Delta Protection Act of 1992 required the Delta Protection Commission to
prepare, adopt, review,�and maintain a comprehensive long-term resource
management plan for land uses within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The
plan covers an area called the Primary Zone which includes approximately
500,000 acres of waterways, levees and farmed lands extending over portions of
five counties: Solano,Nolo, Sacramento, San Joaquin and Contra Costa. The
goals of the Plan are to "protect, maintain, and where possible, enhance and
restore the overall quality of the Delta environment, including but not limited to
agriculture, wildlife habitat, and recreational activities; assure orderly, balanced
conservation and development of Delta land resources and improve flood
protection by structural and nonstructural means to ensure an increased level of
public health and safety." Provisions of the Act preclude the Plan from denying a
landowner the right to continue agricultural use. The Act also specifically
prohibits eminent domain unless requested by the landowner. The Plan has eight
policy areas, including (1) Environment, (2) Utilities and Infrastructure, (3) Land
Use and Development, (4) Water and Levees, (5)Agriculture, (6) Recreation and
Access, (7)Marine'Patrol, and (8) Boater Education and Safety Programs. Since
preparation of.the original plan in 1995, a number of issues (like climate change
and flood management) and initiatives (like Delta Vision) have prompted new
interest in updating the Plan and revisiting the overall structure of Delta
governance. i
I
Delta Regional Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Plan (DRERIP)
DRERIP is one of four regional plans intended to guide the implementation of the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program's Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) element.
The DRERIP will refine the planning foundation specific to the Delta, refine
existing Delta specific restoration actions and provide Delta specific
implementation guidance, program tracking, performance evaluation and adaptive
management feedback. Conceptual models and other DRERIP work products
could be used in�developing the Delta Vision.
I
I
i
i
i
I
4
I
I
. I
I
Delta Risk Management Strategy(DRMS)
The Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS) goals and objectives are:
Phase 1: Evaluate the risk!and consequences to the State(e.g., water export
disruption and economic impact) and the Delta (e.g., levees, infrastructure, and
ecosystem) associated with the failure of Delta levees and other assets considering
their exposure to all hazards (seismic, flood, subsidence, seepage, sea level rise,
etc.) under present as well-as for 50-,100-, and 200-years from now. The
evaluation shall assess the total risk as well as the disaggregated risk for
individual islands. I
Phase 2: Propose risk criterion for consideration of alternative risk management
strategies and for use in management of the Delta and the implementation of risk
informed policies. Develop a Delta Risk Management Strategy, including a
prioritized list of actions to reduce and manage the risks or consequences
associated with Delta levee failures.
Delta Vision (DV) I
The initiative resultinglfrom legislation and Governor Schwarzenegger's
Executive Order S-17-06 to integrate the many but separate Delta planning
efforts, using a collaborative and inclusive public process, to develop and
articulate findings and!recommendations for durable and sustainable management
of the Delta. The Delta Vision will be the basis of a Delta Strategic Plan that will
include recommendations for regional management arrangements among elected
officials, governmentiagencies, stakeholders, academia and affected California
communities. i
FloodSAFE California I
FloodSAFE California is a multi-faceted, strategic initiative to improve public
safety through integrated flood management. The FloodSAFE vision is a
sustainable, integrated flood management and emergency response system
throughout California that improves public safety, reduces the risk of flood-
related damages, protects and enhances environmental and cultural resources,
supports prudent economic development, and lowers operation and maintenance
costs over the next 50 years. The initiative builds upon the State's ongoing flood
management workJ especially progress made since Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger called for improved maintenance, system rehabilitation, effective
emergency response, and sustainable funding.
i
Interagency Ecological Program (IEP)Pelagic Organism Decline (POD) Studies
These documents will describe actions that will attempt to stabilize the ecosystem
in the Delta and address the pelagic organism decline. There are two products:
The Pelagic Fish Action Plan and the POD Synthesis Report. The plan includes
actions that address the three possible categories of courses of the ecosystem
decline being evaluated by the POD Team—water project operations,
contaminants, and invasive species.
I
I
I
i 5
I
I
I
I
i
I
The Great California Delta Trail System
Recognizing the unique natural resources of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
the growing demands for public access to these resources, and the increasing
recognition of the importance of outdoor recreation in addressing childhood
obesity, the California Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill
1556 (Senator Torlakson)lsupporting the creation of a Delta trail network. The
vision is for the trail to link the San Francisco Bay Trail system and planned
Sacramento River trails in Yolo and Sacramento counties to present and future
trail ways around and in the Delta, including Delta shorelines in Contra Costa,
San Joaquin, Solano, Sacramento, and Yolo counties. The Delta Protection
Commission will facilitate the feasibility and planning process, which will include
a Stakeholder Advisory Group and Technical Advisory Group. A consulting
team, consisting of Valley Vision and Alta Planning and Design, has been
selected through an RFP process to assist the Commission. A large grant proposal
has been submitted to Caltrans for Delta trail planning.
Lower Yolo Bypass Planning Forum
The Lower Yolo Bypasslis the most downstream portion of the Yolo Bypass
(Bypass), a massive levied floodway located west the Sacramento River and
within Yolo and Solano'counties. The Bypass provides flood conveyance for the
cumulative high flows from several northern California waterways to the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta). In addition to flood conveyance, the
Bypass provides criticall habitat to a variety of species including numerous bird
species and threatened and endangered fish such as the Delta Smelt and
Sacramento Splittail. The Bypass also provides recreation opportunities, including
widespread hunting and fishing use.
To address these issues (and with generous funding support from the
California Department of Fish and Game), the Delta Protection Commission and
the Yolo Basin Foundation are co-sponsoring The Lower Yolo Bypass Planning
Forum. The Forum will seek to achieve what no single affected stakeholder and
associated agency/organization has achieved to date; the collaborative creation
of a mutually beneficial, mutually agreed on, long-range management strategy
for the Lower Bypass. The Forum Group will be comprised of representatives
from national, state, and local government agencies, as well as private land
owners and recreation;enthusiasts. Participation is completely voluntary and based
on the assumption that'all interest groups will be given equal weight in the
decision/recommendation making process.
I
I
6
I
I
Operations Criteria and Plan ESA Consultation (OCAP)
The Operations Criteria and Plan (OCAP) ESA consultation addresses ongoing
Central Valley and State Water Project operations and future proposed changes.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation formally consults on several new actions, such
as the Freeport Diversion Project and the Delta Mendota Canal/California
Aqueduct Intertie. There is also consultation on the operation of South Delta
Improvement Project (SDIP) stage 1 permanent gates among other projects. The
OCAP consultation is not a decision making process, but rather analyzes the
effects of proposed operation on listed species. It involves issuing a Biological
Assessment(BA) followed by the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issuing Biological Opinions (BOs) on delta smelt,
salmon, green sturgeon, and steelhead and conference on the longfin smelt.
Decisions on implementing new actions are made in separate project specific
planning/environmental compliance processes.
PPIC/UC Davis "Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta"Report
This project is a follow-up to the Public Policy Institute of California/UC Davis
report Envisioning Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,released in
February 2007. Thelproject will: (i) compare promising Delta,solutions in terms
of ecosystem, water quality, and economic outcomes under different scenarios of
climate change, (ii) assess the regulatory implications of different management
alternatives, and(iii) provide a framework and tools for choosing among
alternatives under uncertainty. Analytical tools and information resources include
hydrodynamic modeling of water management scenarios,hydro-economic models
of water delivery quantity and quality costs and benefits, and interviews and
workshops with experts on the Delta ecosystem, water quality management, and
the regulatory environment. Products will include a short report for a policy
audience and several technical appendices. The target publication date is June
2008. Some intermediate results may be available earlier for discussion.
Sacramento County General Plan Update
This project consists of the adoption of an updated General Plan for the County of
Sacramento (Control Number 02-0100. This Plan is intended to guide the
growth and development of the County through the year 2030, and supports the
Sacramento Area!Council of Governments' Blueprint Vision for regional land use
and transportation. The County's existing General Plan was adopted by the Board
of Supervisors in 1993 and is approaching its time horizon of 2010.
After conducting extensive public outreach and coordinating with various
agencies, organizations and jurisdictions at the federal, state, and local level, the
County unveiled the Public Review Draft of the General Plan on November 8,
2006. The Board of Supervisors then held additional public workshops to review
the key themes of the General Plan, to receive and consider additional input from
the public and other stakeholders, and to make changes to the draft General Plan.
On May 30, 2007, the Board adopted a Resolution (No. 2007-0698) to transmit
the Draft General Plan to the Department of Environmental Review and
Assessment (DERA) to begin the environmental analysis of the Draft Plan.
i
i
i
I 7
I
i
San Francisco Bay ConservatiI n and Development Commission (SF BCDC)
Bay Plan Updates
The Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the Legislature and
Governor in 1969. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission's
recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by
designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and
carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the
Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and its
shoreline to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill. To keep pace with
changing conditions and to.incorporate new information concerning the Bay, the
McAteer-Petris Act specifies that the Commission should make a continuing
review of the Bay Plan and may amend or make other changes to the Bay Plan
provided the changes are consistent with provision of the Act. Since its adoption
by the Commission in 1968, the Bay Plan has been amended periodically and the
Commission continues to systematically review the Plan to keep it current.
San Francisco Estuary Proje It(SFEP) 2007 Comprehensive Conservation and
Monitoring Plan (CCMP)
The San Francisco Estuary Project has completed an Update to its 1993
Comprehensive ConserIVation and Management Plan (CCMP). The Estuary
Project's Implementation Committee recently adopted the revised CCMP which
was based on input from more than 80 representatives from federal and state
agencies, local governments, environmental groups, business and industry,
academia, and the public. The 2007 Draft CCMP is being forwarded to the
Estuary Project's Executive Council for review and expected concurrence. The
2007 Draft CCMP contains many actions pertinent to the protection and
restoration of San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It seeks
to achieve high standards of water quality, including restoration and maintenance
of a balanced indigenous population of fish, shellfish and wildlife, and
recreational activities in the estuary, and assure that the designated uses of the
estuary are protected.
The S.F. Estuary Project is one of over 20 Estuary Projects established by
the National Estuary Program to protect and improve the water quality and natural
resources of estuaries nationwide. It was formed in 1987 as a cooperative
federal/state/local program to promote effective management of the San Francisco
Bay-Delta Estuary. The Estuary Project is financed by federal appropriations
under the Clean Watery Act and matching funds from the state and local entities.
San Joaquin County General Plan Update
San Joaquin County is just beginning the comprehensive update of the General
Plan for the unincorporated areas of the County. It is anticipated that the process
I
i g
will take three to five years. The current General Plan was adopted in 1992 and is
effective through 2010. The General Plan expresses the long-range public policy
to guide the use of private and public lands in regards to development and
resource management. The Housing Element will be updated in 2009 and will be
ated General Plan. The General Plan will include
incorporated into the upd
required elements addressing land use, circulation, safety, noise, open space, and
conservation, and will, also, address agriculture and climate change.
San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan
(SJMSCP)
The key purpose of the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation
and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP or Plan), is to provide a strategy for balancing the
need to conserve Open Space and the need to Convert Open Space to non-Open
Space uses while protecting the region's agricultural economy; preserving
landowner property rights; providing for the long-term management of plant, fish
and wildlife species, especially those that are currently listed, or may be listed in
the future, under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA); providing and maintaining multiple-use Open
Spaces which contribute to the quality of life of the residents of San Joaquin
County; and accommodating a growing population while minimizing* costs to
Project Proponents and society at large.
f
Solano Habitat Conservation Plan
In March 1999, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in
accordance with Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973
(as amended), issued a Biological Opinion(BO) regarding the Solano Project
Water Service Contract'Renewal between the United States Bureau of
Reclamation and the Solano County Water Agency (SCWA). In the BO, USFWS
asked SCWA to consider undertaking a Habitat Conservation Plan to address
impacts to endangered species by the Solano Project, SCWA agreed to do so. The
Solano Project is the Reclamation project that makes water available to SCWA
and its contractors. The 25-year contract between the United States Bureau of
Reclamation and SCWA provides for continued delivery of Solano Project water
for agricultural, municipal, and industrial purposes throughout the SCWA
contract service area.
The purpose of the Solano HCP is to promote the conservation of
biological diversity and the preservation of endangered species and their habitats
consistent with the recognition of private property rights; provide for a healthy
economic environmentifor the citizens, agriculture, and industries.. and allow for
the on-going maintenance and operation of public and private facilities in Solano
County. The Solano HCP is a county-wide Conservation Plan, covering 580,000
acres, 71 species, four Natural Communities, and has fourteen Plan Participants.
The Draft Solano HCP describes the measures, monitoring, and adaptive
management necessary, to conserve the important biological resources of Solano
County.
9
Solano County General Plan Update
A comprehensive update'to the Solano County General Plan to guide both
development and conservation within the unincorporated county through 2030.
The program will update ithe Land Use Element, Circulation Element,
Conservation Element, Open Space Element, Noise Element and Safety Element.
These General Plan elements and along with the existing Housing Element and
Park and Recreation Element will be consolidated into a new single
comprehensive General Plan document. The new General Plan will be organized
by topics rather than by separate individual elements.
South Sacramento Habitat Colnservation Plan (HCP)
The South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP) is a regional approach
to addressing issues related to urban development, habitat conservation, open
space protection and agricultural protection. The SSHCP will consolidate
environmental efforts to protect and enhance wetland (primarily vernal pools),
aquatic, and upland habitats to provide ecologically viable conservation areas. It
will also minimize regulatory hurdles and streamline the permitting process for
projects that engage in development or covered activities.
The SSHCP Study Area encompasses approximately 341,249 acres within
south Sacramento County and includes the cities of Elk Grove, Galt and Rancho
Cordova. The geographical boundaries of the Study Area are U.S. Highway 50 to
the north, Interstate 5 to the west, the Sacramento.County line with El Dorado and
Amador Counties to the east, and San Joaquin County to the south. The Study
Area excludes the City of Sacramento, the City of Folsom and Folsom's Sphere of
Influence, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the Sacramento County
community of Rancho Murieta.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Bay-Delta Strategic Workplan
Op_December 4, 2007, the State Water Board adopted Resolution 2007-0079
outlining regulatory actions the State Water Board, Central Valley Regional
Water Board, and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board will take, or will
consider taking, to address Bay-Delta issues related to water supply, species
protection, and water quality improvements. The resolution directs Water Board
staff to develop a strategic workplan by June of 2008 for the proposed action
items that prioritizes and describes the scope of Bay-Delta activities.
i
Suisun Marsh Charter Implementation Plan (SMP)
The SMP and its accompanying Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement/Report (PEIS/EIR) will develop, analyze, and evaluate potential
I
10
i
environmental benefits and impacts resulting from various actions necessary in
the Suisun Marsh to preserve and enhance managed seasonal wetlands, implement
a comprehensive levee protection/improvement program, and protect ecosystem
and drinking water quality, while restoring habitat for tidal marsh-dependent
sensitive species, consistent with the California Bay-Delta Program's strategic
goals and objectives.
US Army Corps of Engineers (I CE) Delta Dredged Sediment Long-Term
Management Strategy (LTMS)
The.five initial participating agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Water Resources,
California Bay-Delta Authority, and Central Valley Regional Water Board)
agreed to examine the sediment issues and needs within the Delta. The
participating agencies drafted a three-part project purpose statement:
• The Delta Dredged Sediment LTMS development process will examine and coordinate dredging
needs and sediment management in the Delta to assist in maintaining and improving channel
function(navigation,water i conveyance,flood control,and recreation),levee rehabilitation.and
ecosystem restoration.
• Agencies and stakeholders will work cooperatively to develop a sediment management plan
(SMP or LTMS)that is based on sound science and protective of the ecosystem,water supply,
and water quality functions of the Delta.
• As part of this effort,the sediment management plan will consider regulatory process
improvements for dredging and dredged material management so that project evaluation is
coordinated,efficient,timely,and protective of Delta resources.
US ACE Delta Levees and Islands Feasibility Study
Given the serious need to reconstruct Delta levees, the USACE developed action
strategies to address levee improvements and assigned priorities that could be
carried out under the CALFED Act(PL 108-361, 22004) through 2010. This is
known as the short-term CALFED Levee Stability Program. The long-term
strategy for the Delta levees will be developed as part of the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta Islands and Levees Feasibility Study. This study will assess
existing and future flood risks in the Delta area, as well as ecosystem restoration,
recreation, and water supply needs, and develop a comprehensive vision and
roadmap for future Federal.participation in the Delta. The plan, in conjunction
with California Department of Water Resources' Delta Risk Management Study,
will address remaining!levee stability work beyond the $90 million Federal effort
authorized in the CALFED Act.
See US ACE CALFED Levee Stability Program.
US ACE CALFED Levee Stability Program
Given the serious need to reconstruct Delta levees, the USACE developed action
strategies to address levee improvements and assigned priorities that could be
11
i
carried out through 2010 under the CALFED Act(PL 108-361, 2004),which
authorizes the appropriations of a total of$90 million from FY 2005 through FY
2010 for the Federal share of levee project categories (see below). These
strategies are known as the short-term CALFED Levee Stability Program, whose
purpose is to move quickly to implement high priority levee reconstruction
projects within the Section 205 Small Flood Control Projects funding limit($7
million per project and assuming that cost-sharing is 65 percent Federal and 35
percent non-Federal). The long-term strategy for the Delta levees will be
developed as part of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Islands and Levees
Feasibility Study.
Project categories in the CALFED Act include(1) reconstructing Delta
levees to base level protection; (2) further enhancing the stability of levees that
have State-wide importance; (3) developing best management practices to control
subsidence; (4) developing a Delta levee emergency management and response
plan to enhance emergency and readiness response; (5) developing a DRMS after
assessment of the consequences of potential Delta levee failures; (6)
reconstructing Delta levees using dredged materials to the maximum extent
practicable; (7) coordinating levee projects with existing levee and water
resources projects; and (8) evaluating and rehabilitating the Suisun Marsh levees,
if appropriate.
US Fish and Wildlife Service I J FWS)Delta Native Fishes Recovery Plan
This recovery plan is intended to fulfill one of the primary purposes under section
2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 —to provide a means for the
conservation of ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species
.depend. Accordingly, the purpose and scope of this recovery plan is to outline a
strategy for the conservation and restoration of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
native fishes through thIe development of recovery measures that address the
unique biological capabilities and needs of the species and the specific threats to
their existence. Addressing the Delta ecosystem as a whole is a difficult
proposition, considering its biotic and physical complexity and the fact that it has
been, and continues to be, highly altered by human activities (Moyle, P.B., and B.
Herbol.d, 1989. Status iof the Delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacifi.cus. Report
submitted to Office of Endangered Species, US FWS, January 1989). The fish
fauna of the Delta is inI a state of general decline. Of the forty or so fish species in
the present assemblage, approximately half are introduced, with the introduced
species tending to be the most abundant while native species become an
increasingly minor part of the assemblage (Moyle 2002, Inland Fishes of
California, University lof California Press, p 35). The most practical way to
develop recovery or restoration.recommendations that would take into account the
complexity of the Delta ecosystem is to work with a selected group of fishes.
Species addressed in this plan include: delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento
splittail, and Sacramento perch.
The basic objective of the Delta Native Fishes Recovery Plan is to
establish self-sustaining populations of the species of concern that will persist
indefinitely. The basic strategy for recovery is to manage the estuary in such a
1_
i
i
way that it is better habitat for aquatic life in general and for the fish species of
concern in particular. Restoration of the Delta ecosystem may also include efforts
to reestablish the extirpated Sacramento perch.
.US FWS Longfin Smelt Petition
The Bay Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, and Natural Resources Defense
Council formally request that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) list the
San Francisco Bay-Delta population of longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthlys) as
an endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C.
§§1531-1544 (ESA). Petitioners further request that the USFWS review whether
the population warrants emergency listing; and if so, that the USFWS use its
authorities under 16 U.S.C. §1533(.b)(7)to list the population as endangered on an
emergency basis. In the alternative,petitioners request that the USFWS list this
longfin smelt population las a threatened species under the ESA. The petitioners
also request that critical habitat be designated concurrent with the listing, as
required by 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C).
This petition is filed pursuant to the authorities of 5 U.S.C. §553(e), 16
U.S.C. §1533(b)(7) and 50 C.F.R. part 424.14. The USFWS has jurisdiction over
this petition. This petition sets in motion a specific administrative process as
defined by §I533(b)(3) and 50 C.F.R. §424.14(b),placing mandatoryresponse
requirements on the USFWS and very specific time constraints upon those
responses.
US National Marine Fisheries Service Central Valley Salmonids Recovery Plan
The NOAA Fisheries Technical Recovery Team (TRT)met for three years and
Phase I of the recovery planning process is complete. The TRT produced three
papers on 1)current and historical population distributions 2) population viability,
and 3) research and monitoring needs. These papers, as well as other recovery
planning information can be accessed through linkages on NOAA Fisheries
Recovery Planning webpage at http:iswr.ninfs.n.oaa.<,cwirecover�.
Phase II of recovery planning is well underway, initiated in summer 2006
with a series of public workshops to educate attendees about the recovery
planning process and collect threats information for winter and spring-run
Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead. NOAA Fisheries is in the process
of completing a threats!assessment document that serves as the foundation of the
recovery plan, along with the TRT products. Concurrent with completing the
preliminary threats assessment, a second series of public workshops were held in
May 2007,building on11 the (preliminary)prioritized threats information to start
developing recovery aetions that are responsive to these threats. Drafting of the
recovery plan, including the input from all public workshops, is underway.
NOAA Fisheries' intent is to provide a draft recovery plan and threats assessment
for public and peer review in early to mid-2008. It is also NOAA Fisheries' intent
to continue to hold public workshops to introduce the draft recovery plan not only
to solicit public comm ents but also to facilitate implementation of recovery
actions.
l
i
13
i
Yolo County General Plan Update
The Yolo County General Plan provides the comprehensive long-term plan for the
physical development of the County. The County's General Plan does not apply
to the four incorporated cities—each Yolo County city has its own General Plan
independent from the County. In May of 2003 the Board gave direction to begin
the process of updating the General Plan. The General Plan was last
comprehensively updated in 1983 based on the County's original General Plan
from 1958. While the County's fundamental land use goals (such as promoting
agriculture and directing urban growth to the cities)have not changed,the
circumstances facing the County have changed dramatically since the early 80's.
Perhaps the most prominent change is that, for a number of reasons, the County's
economic health has fallen dramatically. There have also been significant
demographic changes, for,example the fact that increasingly many of the citizens
living in our rural areas have no ties to agriculture. The agricultural sector has
changed as well, with new regulations, economic forces, environmental issues,
and crop patters emerging regularly. This update allows the County to examine
these issues is a comprehensive manner.
Yolo Natural Heritage Program
The Yolo County NCCP/HCP Joint Powers Agency ("JPA") was formed in
August 2002 for the purposes of acquiring Swainson's hawk habitat conservation
easements and to serve as'the lead agency for the preparation of a county-wide
Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
(NCCP/HCP), now known as the Yolo Natural Heritage Program. The JPA
governing Board is composed of representatives from member Agencies, which
include two members of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, one member each
from the City Councils of Davis, Woodland, 'Vest Sacramento and Winters, and
one ex-officio member from UC Davis.
The Yolo Natural Heritage Program is a county-wide Natural
Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan(NCCP/HCP) for the
653,629 acre planning area that provides habitat for many special status and at
risk species found within f ve dominant habitats/natural communities. The Yolo
Natural Heritage Program will describe the measures that will be undertaken to
conserve important biological resources, obtain permits for urban growth and
public infrastructure projects, and continue Yolo County's rich agricultural
heritage.
14
Attachment 5
The Board of Supervisors Contra John Cullen
County Administration BuildingC®�t^ Clerk of the Board
651 Pine Street, Room 106 d and
Martinez,California 94553-1293 County County Administrator
John Gioia,1st District.
Gayle B.Uilkema,2nd District
Mary N.Piepho,3rd District
Susan A.Bonilla,4th District �;%� \\.
Federal D.Glover,5th District April 1, 2008
Mr Lester Snow,Director
California Department of Water Resources
P.O. Box 942836
Sacramento, CA 94236
Dear Mr. Snow:
The Contra Costa County Bol rd of Supervisors authorized this letter to convey our
extreme concern that, through the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a peripheral canal project
is moving ahead without equal attention to all of the broader considerations, such as
improved water quality and al healthier ecosystem that are included as part of the Delta
Vision process.
To move ahead with one component of the greater overall plan without the other, equally
important components is contrary to the Delta Vision process, and could have the effect
of breaking up the fragile consensus process that the Vision has achieved, and take us
back to our days of conflict and competing water priorities.
We strongly urge you to resist putting some components of the overall plan ahead of the
other, equally important components. As the Delta Vision has stated, "a comprehensive
vision, together with integrated and linked actions, is the key to success...Our
recommendations are integrated, designed to work together as a whole to achieve
success."
We would appreciate your consideration of the Vision approach,where all components
can move ahead together. Iflyou have questions, or desire additional information,please
contact Supervisor Mary Piepho, or her Chief of Staff, Tomi Van de Brooke at (925) 820-
8683.
Sincerely,
Federal Glover, Chair
Board of Supervisors