San Francisco Bay

Field Operations Manual for the Regional Monitoring Program (Version 1, Sediment)

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | August 1st, 2018

This Field Operations Manual (FOM) of the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) is intended as a reference document for each sampling effort. The FOM describes in detail how

This Field Operations Manual (FOM) of the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) is intended as a reference document for each sampling effort. The FOM describes in detail how field staff should collect water, sediment, bivalve, bird egg, and sport fish samples for all RMP sampling efforts.  Sampling conducted by the RMP should also reference the QA Program Plan (QAPP) document, which describes the entire program, and is the repository for details about laboratories, analytical methods, MDLs, sample handling, sample preservation, and quality assurance procedures. The FOM is a companion document to the QAPP, and provides a more detailed description of sampling methods that are only outlined in Section 11 of the QAPP.  In addition, each individual sampling effort will have a unique Cruise Plan or Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP). The SAP describes the details of each sampling effort, including dates, times, places, and staff, as well as the parameters that are being collected and analyzed. The SAP will reference this FOM for the detailed sampling methods. If different sampling methods are needed for a particular study, the SAP will describe deviations from the normal methods described in the FOM. 

Final Environmental Impact Report for Adoption of a Regulation for the Hexavalent Chromium Maximum Contaminant Level

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | April 17th, 2024

As the lead agency in accordance with sections 15089 and 15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.),

As the lead agency in accordance with sections 15089 and 15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), this document is the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the adoption of statewide regulations setting the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for hexavalent chromium (Proposed Regulations). The Proposed Regulations include a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 μg/L for hexavalent chromium. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22, § 64431 Table 64431-A.) The Proposed Regulations also include a compliance schedule based on public water system size, by adding subdivision (p) and Table 64432-B to section 64432 of title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, identifies a detection limit for purposes of reporting, sets monitoring and reporting requirements and public notice requirements for violations of the MCL, and establishes the Best Available Technologies (BAT) for treating hexavalent chromium in drinking water. California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Chrom VI MCL rulemaking chronology.

Final Environmental Impact Statement: Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project Central Valley Project, California

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | November 15th, 2024

The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 2021 Endangered Species Act R

The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 2021 Endangered Species Act Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation on the Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP). This EIS is meant to inform the public and decision makers on potential federal actions by examining a range of reasonable alternatives and the potential effect on the environment. Reclamation manages the CVP. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) manages the SWP. Collectively, the operation of the CVP and SWP provides flood control and navigation; delivers water to 30 million people; supports 4 million acres of agriculture; maintains 19 wildlife refuges on the Pacific Flyway; protects numerous iconic and endemic species such as Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, and smelt; generates 4.5 million megawatt hours of electricity; maintains water quality for beneficial uses in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta); and supports recreation throughout Northern California. 

Final Sensitive Beneficial Use Literature Review (Task 3.1.1)

Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-Salts) | May 16th, 2023

Final State Water Project Delivery Capability Report 2023

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 31st, 2024

This Delivery Capability Report presents California Department of Water Resources (DWR) analysis of the State Water Project (SWP) system and provides important planning i

This Delivery Capability Report presents California Department of Water Resources (DWR) analysis of the State Water Project (SWP) system and provides important planning information for users of SWP water. The analysis provides information about how changing climate, regulatory, and operational considerations impact SWP delivery capability.

Final Value Planning Study Report for Through Delta Facility, Sacramento, California

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 1st, 2007

Financing Delta Improvements and Environmental Mitigation

California Research Bureau (CRB) | September 1st, 2008

Resolution of the Delta’s water supply, water quality, and fish problems may involve building various structures, possibly including gates, pumps, canals, levees, and d

Resolution of the Delta’s water supply, water quality, and fish problems may involve building various structures, possibly including gates, pumps, canals, levees, and dams, and undertaking landscaping rearrangements to improve habitat for several species of flora and fauna. Resolution also involves changing water flow regimes in ways that would make more or less water, but probably less, available for human uses. This work and these changes will cost serious money. Cost estimates for many of these actions have not yet been developed. This paper explores approaches to financing these “improvements” and “mitigations.” While a little abstract, this is abstraction that matters. It will determine from whose pockets a good deal of money will come. California has a long history of financing water projects. The first section of this paper reviews this history, in hopes of identifying water-financing principles that might be adapted to Delta improvements and mitigation. Some deep-seated controversies about how Delta improvements should be financed have roots in this history, and it may be helpful to point them out. A core idea in California’s approach to financing water projects is that beneficiaries should pay for them. Decades ago, this was a straightforward proposition – people or water districts should pay for the necessary dams, canals, and pumps and the costs of operating them in proportion to the amount of water they received. In the current age of rising environmental sensitivity, it is a little muddier. An alternative formulation that applies, at least crudely, to housing developments and highway projects, is that project proponents should pay to mitigate at least some of the environmental harm that their project is likely to cause. The second section of this paper explores this controversial subject. It seems unlikely that any consensus can be reached about how to finance facilities in the Delta without reaching some agreement about how to deal with this matter. This paper was first issued in July, 2008. This version contains a few clarifications made in response to the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s reviewers. The author is grateful for their suggestions.

Fire influence on land–water interactions in aridland catchments

Oxford University Press (OUP) | January 9th, 2025

Wildfires have increased in size, frequency, and intensity in arid regions of the western United States because of human activity, changing land use, and rising temperatu

Wildfires have increased in size, frequency, and intensity in arid regions of the western United States because of human activity, changing land use, and rising temperature. Fire can degrade water quality, reshape aquatic habitat, and increase the risk of high discharge and erosion. Drawing from patterns in montane dry forest, chaparral, and desert ecosystems, we developed a conceptual framework describing how interactions and feedbacks among material accumulation, combustion of fuels, and hydrologic transport influence the effects of fire on streams. Accumulation and flammability of fuels shift in opposition along gradients of aridity, influencing the materials available for transport. Hydrologic transport of combustion products and materials accumulated after fire can propagate the effects of fire to unburned stream–riparian corridors, and episodic precipitation characteristic of arid lands can cause lags, spatial heterogeneity, and feedbacks in response. Resolving uncertainty in fire effects on arid catchments will require monitoring across hydroclimatic gradients and episodic precipitation.

Fish Collections and Secondary Louver Efficiency at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility: October 1993 to September 1995

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | May 29th, 1998

Fish Restoration Program Agreement Implementation Strategy for Habitat Restoration and Other Actions for Listed Delta Fish

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | March 6th, 2012

The Fish Restoration Program Agreement (FRPA) (Appendix A), between the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the Department of Water Resources (DWR), was signed on Octob

The Fish Restoration Program Agreement (FRPA) (Appendix A), between the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the Department of Water Resources (DWR), was signed on October 18, 2010. FRPA addresses specific habitat restoration requirements of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) biological opinions (Biological Opinions) for State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) operations. FRPA is also intended to address the habitat requirements of the DFG Longfin Smelt Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for SWP Delta operations. The primary objective of the FRPA program is to implement the fish habitat restoration requirements and related actions of the Biological Opinions and the ITP in the Delta, Suisun Marsh, and Yolo Bypass and is focused on 8,000 acres of intertidal and associated subtidal habitat to benefit delta smelt, including 800 acres of mesohaline habitat to benefit longfin smelt, and a number of related actions for salmonids. DFG and DWR intend that habitat restoration actions implemented in compliance with the USFWS biological opinion that also meet the habitat restoration requirements of the ITP will operate to satisfy the acreage requirements of the ITP. The purpose of this Implementation Strategy is to describe the process by which DWR and DFG will implement the FRPA program, and to satisfy Section B of FRPA. Section B of FRPA requires DWR, with assistance from DFG, to develop an Implementation Schedule that will identify restoration actions, estimated costs, targeted acreage, and a timeline for DWR’s implementation of restoration actions to satisfy DWR’s obligations under the Biological Opinions and ITP. Appendix B lists the specific habitat restoration requirements of FRPA, the Biological Opinions, and the ITP that pertain to this program. This document lays out the strategy to address these requirements. In addition, DWR and DFG will complete the necessary environmental compliance documents to implement site specific habitat restoration projects; this may include tiering from existing programmatic documents where appropriate. Pursuant to FRPA, DFG will work cooperatively with and assist DWR in establishing the management and financial framework necessary to implement the FRPA program. DWR, with assistance from DFG, will begin a process to fund, plan, and implement actions, including aquatic habitat restoration to benefit delta smelt, longfin smelt, and winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon (hereafter referred to as Covered Fish Species) to mitigate impacts to these species caused by the SWP Delta operations. Specifically, these actions include: • Delta Smelt Biological Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) Component 4; • NMFS Biological Opinion RPA Actions 1.2.6 and 1.6.2 in partnership with the US Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation); • NMFS Biological Opinion RPA Action Suite 1.6 and 1.7. FRPA will not be lead, but will provide funding and technical support assistance only; • ITP Condition 7. DWR’s obligations focus on delta smelt, longfin smelt, and winter-run and spring-run salmon, and may also benefit steelhead, sturgeon, and other native fish species.