Final Environmental Assessment Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Management Measures for Fisheries Managed under the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | March 1st, 2018

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 Report Volume II: Revised Draft EIR Comprehensive Groundwater Cleanup Strategy for Historical Chromium Discharges from PG&E’s Hinkley Compressor Station, San Bernardino County

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | April 20th, 2013

Click here for Volume I.

Click here for Volume I.

Final Environmental Impact Statement Post-2026 Operational Guidelines and Strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | July 31st, 2026

The Colorado River Basin (Basin) provides essential water supplies to approximately 40 million people, nearly 5.5 million acres of agricultural lands, and habitat for eco

The Colorado River Basin (Basin) provides essential water supplies to approximately 40 million people, nearly 5.5 million acres of agricultural lands, and habitat for ecological resources across seven states which includes broad areas in the Southwestern United States (U.S.) and Northwestern United Mexican States (Mexico). Prudent management of the Basin is critically important because the Colorado River is the foundation for diverse resources across a large geographic region and faces exceptional challenges from prolonged drought and future uncertainty. States, tribes, and Mexico rely on the Colorado River to support essential municipal, agricultural, environmental, cultural, and hydropower needs. These resources are now at significant risk: since the onset of the current drought in 2000, the Basin’s primary reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, have fallen to historically low elevations. Several of the major reservoir- and water-management documents and agreements developed to guide Colorado River operations through the persistently dry conditions expire in 2026, including the 2007 Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2007 Interim Guidelines; Reclamation 2007), the 2019 Colorado River Drought Contingency Plans (Reclamation 2019), and key international agreements between the U.S. and Mexico. Despite the significance of these agreements, actions taken over the past two decades have not been sufficiently robust to prevent continued decline of the reservoirs through the prolonged drought. The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), acting through the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), proposes adoption of new guidelines and coordinated management strategies to address Lake Powell and Lake Mead through their full operating ranges to take effect when the current agreements expire in 2026. Volume I Executive Summary Cover, Abstract, Table of Contents, and Acronyms Chapter 1. Purpose and Need Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination Volumes II,  III, IV Click here to be taken to Reclamation for Supporting Appendices, Preparers, References, Glossary, and Index

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 EPA-USGS Technical Report: Protecting Aquatic Life from Effects of Hydrologic Alteration

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | December 6th, 2016

The natural flow regime of a water body, defined as its characteristic pattern of flow magnitude, timing, duration, frequency, and rate of change, plays a critical role i

The natural flow regime of a water body, defined as its characteristic pattern of flow magnitude, timing, duration, frequency, and rate of change, plays a critical role in supporting the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of streams and rivers and the services they provide. Human-induced alteration of the natural flow regime can degrade a stream’s physical and chemical properties, leading to loss of aquatic life and reduced aquatic biodiversity. Protecting aquatic life from the effects of flow alteration involves maintaining multiple components of the flow regime within their typical range of variation. This report was developed (1) to serve as a source of information for states, Tribes, and territories on the natural flow regime and potential effects of flow alteration on aquatic life and (2) to provide a flexible, nonprescriptive framework that can be used to quantify targets for flow regime components that are protective of aquatic life. As a supplementary resource, Appendix A was added to provide examples where states and Tribes have applied Clean Water Act (CWA) tools to protect aquatic life from altered flow. Anthropogenic landscape change and water management activities are modifying flood flows, base flows, peak-flow timing, and other flow characteristics in streams and rivers throughout the United States. Under natural conditions, a stream’s flow regime is determined by hydrologic properties at two scales, the upstream drainage area (catchment) and the local, reach scale. At the catchment scale, climate determines patterns of water and energy input over time, whereas physical characteristics like soils, geology, and topography determine pathways, rates of runoff, and routing through the stream network. Reach-scale factors such as local groundwater dynamics further influence natural flow regime characteristics. Human activities that alter the natural flow regime also occur at both the catchment and reach scales and include impoundments, channelization, diversions, groundwater pumping, wastewater discharges, urban development, thermoelectric power generation, and agricultural practices. Many of these activities alter hydrologic processes like infiltration, groundwater recharge, channel storage, or routing and lead to flow conditions outside the natural range of variation. Others directly add or remove water from a stream such that flows are uncommonly high or low over long periods of time. Occurring in conjunction with these activities is climate change. Climate trends observed in recent decades and future projections (for example, rising ambient air temperatures, increasing frequency of heavy precipitation events, reductions in the thickness of snow pack and ice) may magnify the effects of other anthropogenic processes on the natural flow regime. Alteration of the natural flow regime can have cascading effects on the physical, chemical, and biological properties of riverine ecosystems. Effects on physical properties include altered channel geomorphology (channel incision, widening, bed armoring, etc.), reduced (or augmented) riparian and flood-plain connectivity, and reduced (or augmented) longitudinal (upstream-downstream) and vertical (surface water/groundwater) connectivity. Effects on water quality can also result from altered flow magnitudes. For example, salinity, sedimentation, and water temperature can increase when flow volumes are reduced, whereas erosion and sediment transport can increase with amplified flow volumes. These changes to a stream can in turn lead to the degradation of aquatic life as a result of the loss and disconnection of high-quality habitat. Furthermore, altered flows can fail to provide the cues needed for aquatic species to complete their life cycles and can encourage the invasion and establishment of non-native aquatic species. The ability of a water body to support aquatic life is tied to the maintenance of key flow-regime components. Efforts to implement strategies to protect aquatic life from flow alteration will be most effective if numeric targets are identified for flow-regime components that equate to intact and healthy aquatic communities. This report presents a flexible framework that can be used to quantify flow targets that incorporate U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) and concepts from contemporary environmental flow literature. The framework consists of eight steps that begin with identifying biological goals and assessment endpoints and end with an evaluation of effects on aquatic life under varying degrees of flow alteration. The framework does not prescribe any particular analytical approach (for example, statistical or mechanistic modeling methodology), but rather focuses on the process and information needed to evaluate relations between flow and aquatic life and the development of narrative or numeric flow targets.

Final Groundwater Assessment Study: A Status Report on the Use of Groundwater in the Service Area of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) | September 3rd, 2007

Final Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Yucaipa Groundwater Subbasin

San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District | January 27th, 2022

The Yucaipa Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), acting as the GSA for the Yucaipa Subbasin (Plan Area, Subbasin), developed this Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GS

The Yucaipa Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), acting as the GSA for the Yucaipa Subbasin (Plan Area, Subbasin), developed this Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in compliance with the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) GSP Regulations. The Yucaipa Subbasin lies within the Upper Santa Ana River Basin Hydrologic Region (DWR Basin Number 8-002.07) and underlies an area of approximately 25,300 acres under portions of the cities of Calimesa, Redlands, and Yucaipa, as well as unincorporated San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. DWR designated the Yucaipa Subbasin a high priority basin based primarily on its reliance on groundwater for water supply. However, this Subbasin is not in a state of critical overdraft. Under SGMA, GSAs “have the responsibility for adopting a Plan that defines the basin setting and establishes criteria that will maintain or achieve sustainable groundwater management.” The requirement of the GSP is to maintain or achieve sustainable groundwater management in the Yucaipa Subbasin by 2042. Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration PG&E’s Upper Drum-Spaulding Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2310) and Lower Drum Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14531)

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | February 1st, 2021

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to provide the public, responsible age

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to provide the public, responsible agencies, and trustee agencies with information about the potential environmental effects of relicensing the two specified Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) hydroelectric projects, collectively referred to as the Proposed Projects: Upper Drum-Spaulding Hydroelectric Project (Proposed Upper Drum-Spaulding Project) - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Project No. 2310; and Lower Drum Hydroelectric Project (Proposed Lower Drum Project) - FERC Project No. 14531.

Final land management plan for the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | June 9th, 2008

The Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area (Wildlife Area) comprises approximately 16,770 acres of managed wildlife habitat and agricultural land within the Yolo Bypass (Bypass). The

The Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area (Wildlife Area) comprises approximately 16,770 acres of managed wildlife habitat and agricultural land within the Yolo Bypass (Bypass). The Bypass conveys seasonal high flows from the Sacramento River to help control river stage and protect the cities of Sacramento, West Sacramento, and Davis and other local communities, farms, and lands from flooding. Substantial environmental, social and economic benefits are provided by the Yolo Bypass, benefiting the people of the State of California. The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), as part of the Resources Agency of the State of California, has the following mission to guide its planning and operations: “The mission of the Department of Fish and Game is to manage California’s diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public.” The stated purpose of the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area Land Management Plan (LMP) is to: guide management of habitats, species, appropriate public uses, and programs to achieve DFG’s mission; direct an ecosystem approach to managing the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area in coordination with the objectives of the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP); identify and guide appropriate, compatible public-use opportunities within the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area; direct the management of the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area in a manner that promotes cooperative relationships with adjoining private-property owners; establish a descriptive inventory of the sites and the wildlife and plant resources that occur in the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area; provide an overview of the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area’s operation, maintenance, and personnel requirements to implement management goals, and serve as a planning aid for preparation of the annual budget for the Bay-Delta Region (Region 3); and present the environmental documentation necessary for compliance with state and federal statutes and regulations, provide a description of potential and actual environmental impacts that may occur during plan management, and identify mitigation measures to avoid or lessen these impacts. This LMP was prepared through a partnership between DFG and the Yolo Basin Foundation (Foundation) and with the benefit of an extensive public-input program. DFG provided overall guidance to the planning process and was responsible for all decisions regarding the content of the LMP. The Foundation was responsible for coordinating substantial stakeholder outreach and facilitating stakeholder input in the LMP development. The Foundation was instrumental in the development of environmental education and interpretation programs at the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area and helped facilitate the documentation of these programs in this plan. The public-outreach program featured six focus group meetings conducted before initiation of LMP development (2002); a total of 37 Yolo Bypass Working Group Meetings (1999 to 2006; updates on developments at the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area have been a frequent topic of discussion); one advertised public meeting for initial input (December 12, 2005, in Davis, attended by 30 persons); five additional focus group meetings to receive input on the Preliminary Draft LMP (March and April, 2006), one advertised public meeting for input on the Draft LMP and Initial Study. Appendix A provides a summary of the comments received at the public meetings and examples of the various communication devices that were used to publicize the planning process.