Invasive Species: Major Laws and the Role of Selected Federal Agencies

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | January 17th, 2017

In the United States, numerous federal and interagency efforts share responsibilities regarding invasive species. Among the federal agencies involved are the Departments

In the United States, numerous federal and interagency efforts share responsibilities regarding invasive species. Among the federal agencies involved are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Transportation, and others, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Executive Office of the President. Of these, three Departments—Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior—play a major role by co-chairing the National Invasive Species Council (NISC). Created by Executive Order 13112 in 1999, NISC provides high-level interdepartmental coordination of federal invasive species actions and works with other federal and nonfederal groups to address invasive species issues at the national level. In FY2016, the U.S. government spent an estimated $2.3 billion across a range of federal agencies and activities in an effort to prevent, control, and eradicate invasive species domestically. Activities at the Department of Agriculture accounted for the bulk of available federal funding, nearly $1.2 billion (53% of total available funds). Activities at the Department of Homeland Security, comprised of mostly border protection and security activities, accounted for about $0.8 billion (33% of total funding). The remainder of federal funding, about $0.3 billion (about 14% of total funding) covers activities across a range of agencies at the Departments of Interior, Commerce, and Defense, and other independent agencies. Despite efforts to achieve high-level interdepartmental coordination, comprehensive legislation on the treatment of invasive species has never been enacted, and no single law provides coordination among federal agencies. Instead, the current legal framework is largely governed by a patchwork of laws, regulations, policies, and programs. Some laws are tailored to individual species or narrowly focused on what is affected by the species. Other laws have a broader intended purpose and may only peripherally address invasive species. Some laws, although they do not directly address invasive species control or prevention, may limit such introductions.

Investigating Factors Contributing to Phytoplankton Biomass Declines in the Lower Sacramento River

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | March 23rd, 2023

Issue Paper for the San Joaquin River spring-run Chinook experimental population – Delta impacts

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | July 23rd, 2013

Joshua Tree National Park: A History of Preserving the Desert

National Park Service (NPS) | March 16th, 2015

Keeping up with the status of freshwater fishes: A California (USA) perspective

Conservation Science and Practice (Wiley) | May 29th, 2021

Klamath Basin Settlement Agreements

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | October 21st, 2015

The Klamath River Basin on the California-Oregon border is a focal point for local and national discussions on water allocation and species protection. Previously, water

The Klamath River Basin on the California-Oregon border is a focal point for local and national discussions on water allocation and species protection. Previously, water and species management issues have exacerbated competition and generated conflict among several interests—farmers; Indian tribes; commercial and sport fishermen; federal water project and wildlife refuge managers; environmental groups; hydropower facility operators; and state, local, and tribal governments. Drought conditions and a call for water by senior water rights holders in 2013 have again brought these issues to the forefront. In 2010, the Secretary of the Interior and the governors of Oregon and California, along with multiple interest groups, announced the results of a multiyear negotiation process to resolve long-standing issues in the basin: two interrelated agreements, supported by the federal government and signed by the two states and numerous other parties. These agreements, known as the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), together aim to provide for water deliveries to irrigators and wildlife refuges, fish habitat restoration, and numerous other related actions. Generally, the KBRA provides for actions intended to restore Klamath fisheries and for assurances for water deliveries to wildlife refuges and federal project irrigators under certain circumstances, among other things. The KHSA lays out a process that could lead to the removal of four privately owned dams on the Klamath River. This dam removal would be one of the largest and most complex projects of its kind ever undertaken. Some parts of the Klamath agreements are being carried out under existing authorities. Studies to inform a determination on dam removal under the KHSA by the Secretary of the Interior are complete, and some restoration actions have been initiated. However, congressional authorization is required for the most significant components of the agreements to be implemented. The KBRA and KHSA did not address all outstanding issues in the basin. A water rights adjudication by the state of Oregon (in progress since the 1970s) is ongoing. In 2013, the adjudication reaffirmed “time immemorial” tribal water rights in the upper part of the Klamath Basin, confirming that tribal water rights are senior to those of other water rights holders. This resulted in a “call” on water rights (i.e., notice by senior water rights holders that their demands exceed available flows), and led to reductions to water supplies for some junior users during the low water year of 2013. To resolve these issues and prevent such a scenario from occurring again, a separate settlement agreement (the Upper Klamath Basin Settlement Agreement) was negotiated by stakeholders and finalized in April 2014. To be implemented, the agreement would need to be authorized along with the KBRA and KHSA. The KBRA and KHSA were originally set to expire in 2012 if no authorizing legislation was enacted, but they have since been extended (most recently through 2015). Parties may also withdraw individually from the agreements, and several parties initiated this process of withdrawal. In the 114th Congress, S. 133 would authorize the Klamath agreements, including a suite of new federal actions that have received support from disparate parties and are required for the agreements to be implemented. Previous legislation in the 113th Congress (S. 2379) was ordered to be reported out of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on November 13, 2014.

Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of Water Use Conflicts

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | June 13th, 2002

Severe drought in 2001 affected the Klamath River Basin, an area on the California-Oregon border, exacerbating competition for scarce water resources and generating confl

Severe drought in 2001 affected the Klamath River Basin, an area on the California-Oregon border, exacerbating competition for scarce water resources and generating conflict among several interests – farmers, municipal and industrial users, commercial and sport fishermen, other recreationists, federal wildlife refuges, environmental groups, and Indian Tribes. The conflicts over water distribution and allocation are physically and legally complex, reflecting the varied and sometimes competing uses of limited water supplies in the Upper Basin. On April 6, 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), which has supplied water to farms in the Upper Basin for nearly 100 years, announced that “no water [would] be available” for farms normally receiving water from the Upper Klamath Lake, so that scarce water could be used to protect species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Water was available to some farmers from other sources (e.g., wells and other Bureau sources); however, many farmers were not able to plant or harvest crops due to severe cutbacks in water supplies. Emotions ran high on all sides of the issues, and the water control gates were unlawfully opened by protesters. Although the Basin has received significantly more precipitation in 2002, many issues remain in dispute. In addition, several judicial decisions have affected the issues with respect to the listed species as well as tribal rights. On May 31, 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service both issued Final Biological Opinions on the Bureau’s 10-year Operation Plan for the Klamath Project. The agencies found that the Bureau’s proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the two listed suckers and coho salmon, as well as result in the adverse modification of proposed critical habitat; however, both Opinions also included “reasonable and prudent alternatives” for operating the Project that would remove the jeopardizing effects of the proposed action. However, on June 3, 2002, the Bureau formally rejected both Final Biological Opinions, but opted instead to operate under a one-year plan that it asserts complies with the Opinions. Independently, in March 2002, the President appointed a high-level working group to develop solutions. Congress has responded to the controversy in a number of ways, including holding several oversight hearings and appropriating funds for water conservation activities in the area. This report provides background on the geographic, historic, and legal underpinnings of the current conflicts. Because the report focuses on the current conflicts, it deals primarily with Klamath Project operations in the Upper Klamath Basin and effects associated with water releases from Upper Klamath Lake.

Landscape Patterns and Processes of the McCormack-Williamson Tract and Surrounding Area: A framework for restoring a resilient and functional landscape

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | March 25th, 2013

This report uses a reconstruction of the historical (early 19th century) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta landscape in concert with contemporary data to elucidate restoration

This report uses a reconstruction of the historical (early 19th century) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta landscape in concert with contemporary data to elucidate restoration opportunities and constraints at the McCormack-Williamson Tract and within the surrounding Delta setting. Historical ecology encourages a landscape-level perspective of restoration through improved understanding of how physical processes created and maintained habitat mosaics in the recent past. This perception of landscapes can be used to evaluate current conditions and develop future restoration scenarios. We used the recently completed study of the historical Delta landscape (Whipple et al. 2012) to explore opportunities for the McCormack-Williamson Tract (MWT), a 1,645 acre (6.6 km2) tract along the Mokelumne River (Figure 1 and Figure 2). This site exemplifies the need to balance contemporary constraints to restoration (including existing infrastructure and flood protection concerns) with the goals of landscape-scale restoration. To explore some of the strategies and opportunities available to advance the landscape-scale restoration in the MWT area, three general concepts emerged: increasing landscape complexity, connectivity, and resilience. To understand how to interpret and improve these attributes, we developed conceptual models that placed the site within the larger landscapes of the historical Delta, relating local habitat features to regional controlling physical gradients. This aided interpretation of the contemporary physical landscape and allowed identification of opportunities and constraints to both short-term and long-term landscape-scale restoration. The historical record reveals features such as floodplain lakes, forests on natural river levees, and tidal channels in the study area. These and other features could be strategically incorporated into a restoration vision, or an “operational landscape unit” for this part of the Delta (Verhoeven et al. 2008). This type of perspective can help focus restoration targets, including the relative proportion and placement of different habitat types and landscape elements within project design constraints, maximizing the site’s ecological potential. The landscape-scale approach also identifies opportunities to improve ecological connectivity and long-term adaptability to sea level rise and other environmental changes. Some of these opportunities may be critical to the ecological function and resilience of the area, but may not be able to be addressed in the immediate MWT project design. Thus, a central component of translating a historical landscape perspective to site-scale design is envisioning an adaptable restoration process that spans short-term restoration actions that are possible within the site’s bounds, while maintaining a longer-term vision of what is needed at the landscape scale.

Legal Aspects of Instream Water Uses in California: Background and Issues

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | January 1st, 1978

This paper is part of a series of background and issue papers prepared by the staff of the Governor's Commission to Review California Water Rights Law. TABLE OF CONTEN

This paper is part of a series of background and issue papers prepared by the staff of the Governor's Commission to Review California Water Rights Law. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction II. The Nature of Property Rights III. State Water Resources Control Board Authority Related to Instream Uses IV.  Other Authority for the Protection and Enhancement of Instream Uses V. Methods of Protecting Instream Uses in Western States other than California VI.  Issues

Letter to Governor Brown and the Legislature on the Salton Sea

Little Hoover Commission | June 24th, 2016

The Little Hoover Commission in a letter sent Friday to Governor Brown and the Legislature again renewed its call for urgent action at the Salton Sea to prevent a massive

The Little Hoover Commission in a letter sent Friday to Governor Brown and the Legislature again renewed its call for urgent action at the Salton Sea to prevent a massive public health, environmental and economic disaster in Southern California. Policymakers must replicate the effective approach taken to meet the state’s rewewable energy goals, wrote the Commission in its letter. Then, the Govenor gave a senior official the authority to do what it took to get projects through red tape at all levels of government. The model was remarkably simple: Get everyone together and get it done. The letter results from continuing oversight to which the Commission pledged in its 2015 report, Averting Disaster: Action Now for the Salton Sea. The Commission held an April 2016 hearing to get an update on the state’s progress in strategically managing the Salton Sea. It heard from the assistant secretary for Salton Sea policy at the Natural Resources Agency, as well as stakeholders from local government and the environmental community. The Commission’s letter acknowledges that momentum is building and that the state has made important progress in managing the sea, particularly with $80 million in funding in the Governor’s proposed 2016-17 budget. However, the Commission’s letter maintains that the state is not moving fast enough or allocating sufficient resources to prevent a disaster. Timelines have been delayed, short-term goals scarcely cover a fraction of exposed lakebed and much more than $80 million is needed to manage the sea.