Summary and Evaluation of Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit 2016

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | April 13th, 2016

The ESA, under Section 4(c)(2), directs the Secretary of Commerce to review the listing classification of threatened and endangered species at least once every five years

The ESA, under Section 4(c)(2), directs the Secretary of Commerce to review the listing classification of threatened and endangered species at least once every five years. After completing this review, the Secretary must determine if any species should be: (1) removed from the list; (2) have its status changed from threatened to endangered; or (3) have its status changed from endangered to threatened. The most recent status reviews for West Coast salmon and steelhead occurred in 2010, and prior to that in 2005 and 2006. This document summarizes NMFS’s 5-year review of the ESA-listed Central Valley (CV) spring-run Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU).

Summary and Evaluation of Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon ESU 2016

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | December 12th, 2016

Many west coast salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus sp.) stocks have declined substantially from their historic numbers and now are at a fraction of their historical abund

Many west coast salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus sp.) stocks have declined substantially from their historic numbers and now are at a fraction of their historical abundance. There are several factors that contribute to these declines, including: overfishing, loss of freshwater and estuarine habitat, hydropower development, poor ocean conditions, and hatchery practices.  These factors, among others, led to NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listing of 28 salmon and steelhead stocks in California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA, under Section 4(c)(2), directs the Secretary of Commerce to review the listing classification of threatened and endangered species at least once every five years. After completing this review, the Secretary must determine if any species should be: (1) removed from the list; (2) have its status changed from threatened to endangered; or (3) have its status changed from endangered to threatened. The term “threatened species” is defined under the ESA as any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. An “endangered species” under the ESA is any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The most recent listing determinations for west coast salmon and steelhead occurred in 2005 and 2006. NMFS previously completed a 5-year status review in 2011 and concluded that the status of the Sacramento River (SR) winter-run Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) should remain as endangered. This document summarizes NMFS’s current 5-year review of the ESA-listed SR winter-run Chinook salmon ESU.

Summary Matrix of the NMFS and Service Coordinated Long-term Operation BiOps RPA actions

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | July 1st, 2019

Summary of Federal and State Water Project Environmental Impacts in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary, California

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) | July 15th, 1996

Summary of NMFS BiOp RPA Actions for Water Year 2014

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | October 30th, 2014

Summary Report on the Transactions of the Smelt Working Group in Water Year 2014

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | August 29th, 2014

The Bay‐Delta Fish and Wildlife Office (BDFWO) has prepared this report to summarize the implementation the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological opi

The Bay‐Delta Fish and Wildlife Office (BDFWO) has prepared this report to summarize the implementation the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological opinion on the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) Long‐term Operations (BiOp) in Water Year (WY) 2014. In addition to background information pertinent to implementation of the BiOp , this report provides a summary of the transactions of the Smelt Working Group (SWG), as well as water operations and during WY 2014. The SWG is a technical team that evaluates biological and technical issues regarding Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) and develops recommendations for consideration by the Service during implementation of the BiOp’s Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) actions. During WY 2014 the SWG made no recommendations for more restrictive water operations and the Service issued no determinations to reduce water exports.

Summary Report on the Transactions of the Smelt Working Group in Water Year 2018

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | November 1st, 2018

Summary report: Green sturgeon, longfin smelt, and dredging operations in the San Francisco Estuary

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | December 1st, 2009

In 2009, California Department of Fish and Game Commission listed longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) as threatened, and NOAA formally adopted “take” provisions f

In 2009, California Department of Fish and Game Commission listed longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) as threatened, and NOAA formally adopted “take” provisions for green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris Ayres). These changes in the management status, and associated permitting issues, have prompted renewed interest among [long term management strategy] LTMS participants in the management of these native fish. In response, LTMS held symposia on December 2 and 3, 2009, to review and consider the science, management, and policy related to dredging activities and these species. A primary stressor to both species is reduction of appropriate habitat, due to water diversion activities and other basin-scale modifications in water flow. Local studies of dredging have shown little evidence of direct entrainment for either species, and the frequency of encounter with sites of dredging activity is likely to be very low. Nevertheless, spatial and temporal patterns of population movements and reproductive activity vary from year to year, making it difficult to employ an environmental work windows approach. Available information is limited on other direct effects of dredging, including sediment contamination, habitat modification, and underwater noise. Indirect effects due to maintenance of active navigation channels pose potential concerns. In particular, introduction of invasive species, and mortality due to propeller strikes, both warrant attention. As a follow up step to the symposia, we recommend that LTMS host a workshop targeted towards specific LTMS management needs for green sturgeon and longfin smelt. The workshop should include LTMS participants, the scientists that presented at the symposium, and dredging operators, and could focus on the integration of current research findings into tools that would be useful for managers. Appropriate tools for consideration include predictive or descriptive models of species distribution, and of potential impacts of various dredging activities. There should also be consideration of management approaches that broadly address the primary ecosystem-level stressors for green sturgeon and longfin smelt, rather than employing small scale project-level mitigation. In particular, an integrated regional restoration and monitoring program may be the most effective approach to improve the health of the species.

Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction Report, Ventura River Habitat Conservation Plan, Ventura River, California

County of Ventura | February 12th, 2001

ENTRIX, Inc. was contracted by the Cooperating Agencies to perform an analysis of surface water and groundwater hydrology in the Ventura River basin as part of th

ENTRIX, Inc. was contracted by the Cooperating Agencies to perform an analysis of surface water and groundwater hydrology in the Ventura River basin as part of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Ventura River in Ventura County, California. The Cooperating Agencies consist of the County of Ventura, the Ventura County Flood Control District (VCFCD), the City of San Buenaventura, the Casitas Municipal Water District (Casitas), the Meiners Oaks County Water District (MOCWD), the Ojai Valley Sanitary District (OVSD), the Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency, the Southern California Water Company (SCWC), the Ventura County Water Agency, and the City of Ojai. These agencies all operate and maintain facilities that may affect sensitive biological resources along the Ventura River. To comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the agencies are developing a HCP in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to serve as the basis for an Incidental Take Permit. The objectives of the surface water-groundwater interaction evaluation, outlined in The Ventura River Habitat Conservation Plan Technical Approach dated March 30, 2000, are to develop an improved understanding of the hydrologic system dynamics and determine the likelihood of groundwater pumping impacts on surface flows, based on available empirical data. The scope of work involved collecting and evaluating available surface flow and groundwater data and prior analyses of the surface and groundwater system. The focus of the evaluation was on the river reaches where the Cooperating Agencies can affect flow. The availability of concurrent surface flow and groundwater data determined the study period(s) and specific reaches analyzed. The study is focused on the Upper Ventura River and San Antonio Creek basins, and a brief discussion is also included for the Ojai Valley groundwater basin. The data reviewed as part of the evaluation included seasonal changes in groundwater levels and groundwater storage, groundwater flow relationships, and estimated contributions from groundwater to surface water.

Survey Fishes: An Illustrated List of the Fishes Captured during the Northwest Fisheries Science Center’s Fishery Resource Analysis and Monitoring Division’s West Coast Survey

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | September 1st, 2017

The intention of this guide is to be a field reference to the fishes captured during the various Fishery Resource Analysis and Monitoring Division (FRAM

The intention of this guide is to be a field reference to the fishes captured during the various Fishery Resource Analysis and Monitoring Division (FRAM) West Coast surveys. Scientific and technical terms have been kept to a minimum and, when used, are defined within the text. Descriptions and distribution are confined to those species within the geographic (U.S.–Canada to U.S.–Mexico borders) and depth (30–1,680 m) parameters of the FRAM West Coast surveys. Many of the fishes described have geographic and/or depth ranges that extend outside of the survey parameters. Distributions include these areas and are described by political boundaries (e.g., state and/or country borders), bodies of water (i.e., the northeastern Pacific, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Columbia River, etc.), islands and/or major geographical features (i.e., the Hawaiian, Farallon, and Channel Islands, Cape Flattery, Point Conception, etc.). Conducted aboard small commercial vessels with limited personnel and space, the majority of the FRAM West Coast surveys do not have access to wet/dry lab facilities for detailed observations. Due to a variety of factors such as body size and specimen damage, internal meristic counts (i.e., vertebrae or pyloric caeca), and others that cannot be made with the naked eye, identification of some groups of fishes included in this text are treated only to the family or generic level. The species accounts are in scientific order as much as possible. The list of common and scientific names are in the List of Species. Photographs are provided when available. The family and species keys are for the families/species within the guide. However, some species not known from within the scope of this work may have been included to complete a couplet.