Delta Conservation Adaptive Management Action Strategy

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | April 11th, 2019

Various efforts are ongoing to restore and enhance ecosystems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Yolo Bypass, and Suisun Marsh (hereafter the Delta) that require suppor

Various efforts are ongoing to restore and enhance ecosystems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Yolo Bypass, and Suisun Marsh (hereafter the Delta) that require support for adaptive management. Adaptive management is a science-based, structured approach to environmental decision making under uncertain conditions. Adaptive management emphasizes acquisition and use of new knowledge in natural resource management, leading to continuous iterative improvements in project planning, implementation, monitoring, and follow-up. Adaptive management is required for compliance with multiple regulatory processes, such as consistency with the Delta Plan and the Suisun Marsh Plan, but recent reviews have found that a full adaptive management cycle is rarely completed at either the project- or system-level in the Delta (Delta Independent Science Board 2016; Nagarkar and Raulund-Rasmussen 2016). To address this issue, the Delta Science Program initiated an effort to work with agency and stakeholder partners in the Delta to develop a comprehensive, science-based adaptive management approach to support achievement of Delta conservation goals. Conservation, as defined in the Delta Conservation Framework (Sloop et al. 2018), consists of efforts to protect, restore, and enhance ecosystems in the Delta. The Delta Conservation Adaptive Management Action Strategy is based on the Adaptive Management Framework outlined in the Delta Plan (Figure 1, Delta Stewardship Council 2013). 

Delta Conveyance Project Final Environmental Impact Report

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 8th, 2023

Delta Conveyance Project: Modernizing California’s Water Infrastructure, Fast Facts 2024

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | September 13th, 2023

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.

Designing Monitoring Programs in an Adaptive Management Context for Regional Multiple Species Conservation Plans

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | January 1st, 2004

Increasing numbers of regional, multiple species conservation plans have been developed in California since the early 1990s. However, building effective monitoring and ad

Increasing numbers of regional, multiple species conservation plans have been developed in California since the early 1990s. However, building effective monitoring and adaptive management programs to support these plans has remained a challenge. In addition to collecting data on the status of resources and the results of management actions, monitoring programs for these plans need to resolve critical uncertainties and channel information into effective decisionmaking.  Because of the broad goals of many regional conservation plans, monitoring programs need to address ecosystem integrity and biodiversity while also tracking species “covered” by plan permits. In this document we provide a step-by-step procedure for developing effective monitoring programs in an adaptive management context. The guidance provided here has been gleaned from experience with large multiple species plans in southern California. The process begins with clearly defining program objectives, partitioning the program into manageable but meaningful pieces, and developing management-oriented conceptual models of system function. Then, based on the objectives and conceptual models, monitoring recommendations and critical uncertainties can be identified and a coordinated program designed. We include practical examples and insights from programs in southern California and discuss the evolution of monitoring and adaptive management programs through three successive stages: 1) inventorying resources and identifying relationships; 2) pilot testing of long-term monitoring and resolving critical management uncertainties; and 3) implementing long-term monitoring and adaptive management. Ultimately, the success of regional conservation planning depends on the ability of monitoring programs to confront the challenges of adaptively managing and monitoring complex ecosystems and diverse arrays of sensitive species.

Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence and Uplift Using Global Positioning System Surveys and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella Valley, California, 2010–17

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | September 3rd, 2020

Groundwater has been a major source of agricultural, recreational, municipal, and domestic supply in the Coachella Valley of California since the early 1920s. Pumpi

Groundwater has been a major source of agricultural, recreational, municipal, and domestic supply in the Coachella Valley of California since the early 1920s. Pumping of groundwater resulted in groundwater-level declines as large as 50 feet (ft) or 15 meters (m) by the late 1940s. Because of concerns that the declines could cause land subsidence, the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have cooperatively investigated subsidence in the Coachella Valley since 1996. Importation of Colorado River water to the southern Coachella Valley began in 1949, resulting in a reduction in groundwater pumping and a recovery of groundwater levels during the 1950s through the 1970s. Since the late 1970s, the demand for water in the valley increased to the point that groundwater levels again declined in response to increased pumping and, consequently, increased the potential for land subsidence caused by aquifer-system compaction. Several management actions to increase recharge or to reduce reliance on groundwater have been implemented since as early as 1973 to address overdraft in the Coachella Valley. The implementation of three particular projects has markedly improved groundwater conditions in some of the historically most overdrafted areas of the valley: (1) groundwater substitution with surface-water imports since 2006 using Colorado River water through the Mid-Valley Pipeline project, which was expanded through 2017; (2) budget-based, tiered rates since 2009; and (3) managed aquifer recharge at the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility since 2009. Global Positioning System (GPS) surveying and interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) methods were used to determine the location, extent, and magnitude of the vertical land-surface changes in the Coachella Valley during 2010–17, updating 1993–2010 information presented in previous USGS reports. The GPS measurements taken at 24 geodetic monuments in August 2010 and September 2015 indicated that the land-surface elevation was stable at 17 monuments but changed at seven monuments during the 5-year period. Subsidence ranged from 0.17 to 0.43 ±0.09 ft (52 to 132 ±28 millimeters, or mm) at three monuments, and uplift ranged from 0.11 to 0.18 ±0.09 ft (33 to 54 ±28 mm) at four monuments between 2010 and 2015. At two of the monuments that subsided, the subsidence rates decreased between 2010 and 2015 from those computed between 2005 and 2010. Data prior to 2010 were not available for the third monument that subsided; thus, the 2010–15 subsidence rate could not be compared to an earlier period. At three of the monuments that uplifted between 2010 and 2015, data collected in 2005 and 2010 indicated stability. Data prior to 2010 were not available for the fourth monument that uplifted; thus, the 2010–15 uplift rate could not be compared to an earlier period. InSAR analyses for December 28, 2014–June 27, 2017, indicated that the land surface uplifted as much as about 0.20 ft (60 mm) near the Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility in the northern Coachella Valley and subsided as much as about 0.26 ft (80 mm) in the La Quinta area and less in Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and other localized areas in the southern Coachella Valley. These areas were identified as subsidence areas in previous reports covering periods during 1993–2010. The comparison of 2014–17 subsidence rates with those derived for 1995–2010 generally indicated a substantial slowing of subsidence, however. Analyses of deformation in the northern Coachella Valley were not included in the previous reports, so a comparison to deformation during the earlier period could not be made. Water levels in wells near the subsiding geodetic monuments, in and near the three subsiding areas shown by InSAR, and throughout the valley generally indicated seasonal fluctuations and longer-term stability or rising groundwater levels since about 2010. These results mark a reversal in trends of groundwater-level declines during the preceding decades. This trend reversal provides new insights into aquifer-system mechanics. Although many areas have stopped subsiding, and a few have even uplifted, the few areas that did subside during 2010–17—albeit at a slower rate—indicate a mixed aquifer-system response. Subsidence when groundwater levels are stable or recovering indicates that residual compaction may have occurred. At the same time, coarse-grained materials and thin aquitards may have expanded as groundwater levels recovered. The continued valley-wide stabilization and recovery of groundwater levels since 2010 likely is a result of various projects designed to increase recharge or to reduce reliance on groundwater.

Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence Using Global Positioning System Surveying and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella Valley, California, 1996–2005

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | June 13th, 2013

Land subsidence associated with ground-water-level declines has been investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey in the Coachella Valley, California, since 1996. G

Land subsidence associated with ground-water-level declines has been investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey in the Coachella Valley, California, since 1996. Groundwater has been a major source of agricultural, municipal, and domestic supply in the valley since the early 1920s. Pumping of ground water resulted in water-level declines as large as 15 meters (50 feet) through the late 1940s. In 1949, the importation of Colorado River water to the southern Coachella Valley began, resulting in a reduction in ground-water pumping and a recovery of water levels during the 1950s through the 1970s. Since the late 1970s, demand for water in the valley has exceeded deliveries of imported surface water, resulting in increased pumping and associated ground-water-level declines and, consequently, an increase in the potential for land subsidence caused by aquifer-system compaction. Global Positioning System (GPS) surveying and interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) methods were used to determine the location, extent, and magnitude of the vertical land-surface changes in the southern Coachella Valley. GPS measurements made at 13 geodetic monuments in 1996 and in 2005 in the southern Coachella Valley indicate that the elevation of the land surface had a net decline of 124 to 9 mm ±54 mm (0.41 to 0.03 ft ±0.18 ft) during the 9-year period. Changes at 9 of the 13 monuments exceeded the maximum expected uncertainty of ±54 mm (±0.18 ft) at the 95-percent confidence level, indicating that subsidence occurred at these monuments between June 1996 and August 2005. GPS measurements made at 20 geodetic monuments in 2000 and in 2005 indicate that the elevation of the land surface changed –192 to +51 mm ±36 mm (–0.63 to +0.17 ft ±0.12 ft) during the 5-year period. Changes at 6 of the 20 monuments exceeded the maximum expected uncertainty of ±36 mm (±0.12 ft) at the 95-percent confidence level—subsidence occurred at five monuments and uplift occurred at one monument between August 2000 and August 2005. GPS measurements at two of the five subsiding monuments for which subsidence rates could be compared indicate that subsidence rates decreased during this period compared with subsidence rates before 2000. InSAR measurements made between May 7, 2003, and September 25, 2005, indicate that land subsidence, ranging from about 75 to 180 millimeters (0.25 to 0.59 foot), occurred in three areas of the Coachella Valley: near Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta; the equivalent subsidence rates range from about 3 to more than 6 mm/month (0.01 to 0.02 ft/month). The subsiding areas near Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta were previously identified using InSAR measurements for 1996–2000, which indicated that about 35 to 150 mm (0.11 to 0.49 ft) of subsidence occurred during the four-year period; the equivalent subsidence rates range from about 1 to 3 mm/month (0.003 to 0.01 ft/month). Comparison of the InSAR results indicates that subsidence rates have increased 2 to 4 times since 2000 in these three areas. Water-level measurements made at wells near the subsiding monuments and in the three subsiding areas generally indicated that the water levels fluctuated seasonally and declined annually between 1996 and 2005; some water levels in 2005 were at the lowest levels in their recorded histories. The coincident areas of subsidence and declining water levels suggest that aquifer-system compaction may be causing subsidence. If the stresses imposed by the historically lowest water levels exceeded the preconsolidation stress, the aquifer-system compaction and associated land subsidence may be permanent. Although the localized character of the subsidence signals is typical of the type of subsidence characteristically caused by localized ground-water pumping, the subsidence may also be related to tectonic activity in the valley.

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.