Shop – California Water Library

Page

Showing
241-251 of 574

Per Page

Sort By

Exposure history determines pteropod vulnerability to ocean acidification along the US West Coast

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | July 3rd, 2017

Summary

The pteropod Limacina helicina frequently experiences seasonal exposure to corrosive conditions (Ωar < 1) along the US West Coast and is recognized as

View Document Download Now Email

Extreme and compound events in lakes

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | August 19th, 2025

Summary

Key points Lake heatwaves have increased in average intensity, average duration and total duration globally, at rates of 0.15 ± 0.3 °C per decade, 2.1

View Document Download Now Email

Extremophile hotspots linked to containerized industrial waste dumping in a deep-sea basin

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

Summary

Decaying barrels on the seafloor linked to DDT contamination have raised concerns about the public health implications of decades old industrial waste dumped off the coas

View Document Download Now Email

Facilitating Adaptive Management in California’s Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | July 1st, 2017

Summary

Uncertainties in understanding ecosystems increase the risk that management will fail to achieve desired results. Adaptive management is a structured, iterative applicati

View Document Download Now Email

Federal Investments for the California Bay-Delta Region

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) | February 5th, 2014

Summary

The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta) region of California is an ecosystem of national significance. It is also the hub of the nation’s largest

View Document Download Now Email

Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | February 9th, 2009

Summary

The federal government owns about 650 million acres (29%) of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Four agencies administer 617.5 million acres of the fede

The federal government owns about 650 million acres (29%) of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Four agencies administer 617.5 million acres of the federal land: the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, all in the Department of the Interior. Most of these lands are in the West, including Alaska. They generate revenues for the U.S. Treasury, some of which are shared with states and localities. The agencies receive funding through the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws, as well as in various trust funds and special accounts. The lands administered by the four agencies are managed for a variety of purposes, primarily related to preservation, recreation, and development of natural resources. Yet each of these agencies has distinct responsibilities for the lands and resources it administers. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 255.8 million acres and is responsible for 700 million acres of subsurface mineral resources. The BLM has a multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate that supports a variety of uses and programs, including energy development, recreation, grazing and wild horses and burros, and conservation. The Forest Service (FS) manages 192.8 million acres also for multiple uses and sustained yields of various products and services, including timber harvesting, recreation, grazing, watershed protection, and fish and wildlife habitats. Most of the lands are designated national forests, but there are national grasslands and other designations. Wildfire protection is an increasingly important activity for both agencies. The BLM and FS have several authorities to acquire and dispose of lands. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages 90.8 million acres of federal land, primarily to conserve and protect animals and plants. The National Wildlife Refuge System includes wildlife refuges, waterfowl production areas, and wildlife coordination units. Units can be created by an act of Congress or executive order, and the FWS also may acquire lands for migratory birds. The National Park Service (NPS) manages 78.1 million acres of federal land to conserve lands and resources and make them available for public use. Activities that harvest or remove resources generally are prohibited. The National Park System has diverse units ranging from historical structures to cultural and natural areas. Units are created by an act of Congress, but the President may proclaim national monuments. There also are three special management systems that include lands from more than one agency. The National Wilderness Preservation System consists of 107.6 million acres of protected wilderness areas designated by Congress. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System contains 11,944 miles of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers, primarily designated by Congress and managed to preserve their free-flowing condition. The National Trails System contains four classes of trails managed to provide recreation and access to outdoor areas and historic resources.

View Document Download Now Email

Fill Mead First: A Technical Assessement

Utah State University | October 11th, 2016

Summary

The Fill Mead First (FMF) plan would establish Lake Mead reservoir as the primary water storage facility of the main-stem Colorado River and would relegate Lake Powell re

View Document Download Now Email

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

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

Summary

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.

View Document Download Now Email

Final land management plan for the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area

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

Summary

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.

View Document Download Now Email

Financing Delta Improvements and Environmental Mitigation

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

Summary

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.

View Document Download Now Email

← Prev

Page : 25

Exposure history determines pteropod vulnerability to ocean acidification along the US West Coast

Extreme and compound events in lakes

Extremophile hotspots linked to containerized industrial waste dumping in a deep-sea basin

Facilitating Adaptive Management in California’s Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta

Federal Investments for the California Bay-Delta Region

Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management

Fill Mead First: A Technical Assessement

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

Final land management plan for the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area

Financing Delta Improvements and Environmental Mitigation

Filter Results

Type

Topic

Keywords

Publisher

Basin

Hydrological Region

Search for:

Search the California Water Library

Type

Topic

Keywords

Hydrological Region

Basin