Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Final Rule Defining "Harm" in the Definition of "Take" in the ESA

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | October 1st, 1999

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is issuing a final rule defining the term "harm" contained in the definition of "take" under the Endangered Species Act of 19

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is issuing a final rule defining the term "harm" contained in the definition of "take" under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). This rulemaking will codify NMFS' interpretation of "harm" is that habitat modification can result in a take under the ESA. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. requires the preparation of an initial and final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses unless an agency determines that a rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In the May 1, 1998 Federal Register Notice for the proposed rule to define harm (63 FR 24148-24150), NMFS opined that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as described in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and that therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis would not be required for adoption of the final rule. However, numerous public comments were received in response to the Federal Register Notice and accompanying draft EA requesting that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis be performed. This document constitutes NMFS' Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

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.

Fish & Wildlife Groundwater Planning Considerations

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | June 6th, 2019

In 2014, California passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) (AB1739, SB 1168, SB 1319), authorizing local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to d

In 2014, California passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) (AB1739, SB 1168, SB 1319), authorizing local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) for a subset of California’s alluvial aquifers. To comply with SGMA, GSAs must achieve sustainable groundwater management, defined by SGMA as the avoidance of locally-defined undesirable results. To achieve sustainability, GSAs must develop and implement effective groundwater management plans that consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of groundwater, including environmental users of groundwater. [Water Code § 10723.2.] In many groundwater basins, fish and wildlife that rely on groundwater are among these beneficial uses and users. Many sensitive species and habitats comprise groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs), which are natural communities that rely on groundwater to sustain all or a portion of their water needs. The unsustainable use of groundwater can impact the shallow aquifers and interconnected surface waters on which GDEs depend and may lead to adverse impacts on fish and wildlife. As trustee for California’s fish and wildlife resources, CDFW intends to engage as a stakeholder in groundwater planning processes (where resources are available) to represent the groundwater needs of GDEs and fish and wildlife beneficial uses and users of groundwater. The information provided here is intended to help local groundwater planners, groundwater planning proponents and consultants, and CDFW staff work together to consider the needs of fish and wildlife when developing groundwater management plans and implementing SGMA. The document includes three categories of groundwater planning considerations: Scientific Considerations Management Considerations; and Legal, Regulatory, and Policy Considerations. Links to additional guidance and considerations developed by CDFW and other organizations that address the impacts of groundwater pumping on GDEs and depletion of interconnected surface water can be found at the end of this document. Except to the extent that this document directly references existing statutory or regulatory requirements, use of these groundwater planning considerations is not mandated under law and should not be interpreted as a rule, regulation, order, or standard for local groundwater plans. Practical application of these considerations must be based on the best available information and groundwater basin-specific conditions.

Fish & Wildlife Groundwater Planning Considerations: Freshwater Wetlands

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | June 6th, 2019

 In 2014, California passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) (AB1739, SB 1168, SB 1319), authorizing local groundwater sustainability agencies to develo

 In 2014, California passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) (AB1739, SB 1168, SB 1319), authorizing local groundwater sustainability agencies to develop groundwater sustainably plans for a subset of California’s alluvial aquifers. This document provides considerations to assist local groundwater sustainability agencies in avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts to freshwater wetland beneficial uses and users of groundwater in local groundwater management planning and implementation. The information provided is intended to help local groundwater planners, groundwater planning proponents and consultants, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) staff work together to protect wetlands as a public trust resource. 

Fish and Game Commission Twenty-Second Biennial Report for the Years 1910-1912

State of California | December 31st, 1912

Fish Bulletin 133. Ecological Studies of The Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary Part 1: Zooplankton, Zoobenthos, and Fishes of San Pablo and Suisun Bays, Zooplankton and Zoobenthos of the Delta

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | September 9th, 1965

The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers have a common estuary. These two streams meet in the center of California's central valley to form the Delta (Figure 1). A hundred y

The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers have a common estuary. These two streams meet in the center of California's central valley to form the Delta (Figure 1). A hundred years ago the Delta was an extensive tidal marsh, but it has been almost entirely reclaimed for agriculture. The Delta now includes about 738,000 acres of land and water, 700 miles of navigable channels, and 30 large, below sea level islands. About 39,000 acres are covered by water. Some Delta channels are edged with narrow stretches of intertidal marsh but most of them have steep banks of mud or are covered with large cobbles to prevent erosion. They vary in width from a few hundred feet to a mile and are seldom more than 30 to 40 feet deep. In some areas there are small "waste" islands that flood during high tides. These waste islands and levees that surround all Delta channels are covered with an assortment of emergent aquatic plants, grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees. Water heading toward the sea from the Delta passes through Suisun Bay, which is merely the wide combination of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers below the Delta. Thirty-six percent of Suisun Bay is flooded by less than 3 feet of water at mean lower-low tide, and at this stage about 3,000 acres of intertidal zone is exposed. Richard Painter (see p. 40) has included a map of the 6-foot contour. From Suisun Bay the water flows through the 6-mile long and up to 100 feet deep Carquinez Strait into San Pablo Bay. Almost 60 percent of San Pablo Bay's 73,000 acres is less than 6 feet deep at mean lower-low tide. San Pablo Bay has a much more extensive intertidal area than Suisun Bay. San Pablo Bay water flows into San Francisco Bay and then through the narrow Golden Gate into the Pacific Ocean. The investigations reported on in this bulletin were geographically limited to the upper and middle portions of the estuary—from the Delta through San Pablo Bay. We have not investigated below San Pablo Bay. McCarty et al (1962) described south San Francisco Bay, and Storrs, Selleck, and Pearson (1964) described north San Francisco Bay. Gillian (1957) wrote an interesting and useful popular account of the entire bay.

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 die-offs are concurrent with thermal extremes in north temperate lakes

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | July 8th, 2019

As environmental temperatures continue to rise and organisms experience novel and potentially lethal conditions, the possibility of increased mass mortality events for an

As environmental temperatures continue to rise and organisms experience novel and potentially lethal conditions, the possibility of increased mass mortality events for animal populations appears likely. Yet, due to die-off rarity and unpredictability, there have been few large-scale attempts to quantify the relationship between mass die-offs and local environmental temperatures. Here, we address this issue by analysing a database of 502 freshwater fish die-offs combined with lake-specific temperature profiles simulated for north temperate lake ecosystems. Die-offs driven by extreme summer conditions occurred disproportionately in lakes with warmer average surface temperatures and during periods of extreme heat. In contrast, we observed no relationships between current thermal extremes and die-offs attributed to infectious disease or winter environmental conditions. We forecast fish die-offs driven by summer environmental conditions to double by mid-century for north temperate lakes (2041–2059) and to increase more than fourfold by late century (2081–2099), particularly at southern latitudes. These results expose a direct link between novel temperature regimes and the increased probability of catastrophic ecological events in freshwater ecosystems.

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.