Native American use of fire (and its effects on water)

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) | January 30th, 2014

Native Americans have a long history of traditional fire use on Mother Earth. Fire use promoted their desired ecological state of the environment. These traditions and ti

Native Americans have a long history of traditional fire use on Mother Earth. Fire use promoted their desired ecological state of the environment. These traditions and time of season to burn for a desired effect have been passed down generation to generation. Henry T. Lewis, who has authored more books and articles on this subject than anyone else, concluded that there were at least 70 different reasons for the Indians firing vegetation. These reasons included hunting, crop management, insect collection, pest management, improving growth and yields, fireproofing areas, clearing areas for travel, felling trees, and clearing riparian areas just to name a few.

Natural Resources Policy: Management, Institutions, and Issues

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | January 17th, 2007

Natural resources management remains a significant issue for the federal government. Growing demands on the nation’s resources and interest in their protection and allo

Natural resources management remains a significant issue for the federal government. Growing demands on the nation’s resources and interest in their protection and allocation among multiple uses have increased the complexity of management. The federal role in defining policy and institutional context shapes the combination of supported uses and protection measures. Certain themes are common to federal resource issues. Many conflicts center on balancing traditional versus alternative uses and protection programs, managing to produce national or local benefits, and supporting current or future resource consumption. Other challenges involve the effect of federal resource management on private lands, fees for using federal resources, and financing of management efforts. Interagency conflicts and overlaps and the coordination of federal, state, and local efforts also are common implementation problems. For many reasons, Congress often confronts resource issues based on the natural resource in question—lands and related resources, oceans and coasts, species and ecosystems, or water. Federal land issues include land ownership and management, prioritization of uses, designation of special areas, and fee collection and disbursement. Energy production and recreation on federal lands remain controversial. Indian land issues include energy rights-of-way across tribal lands and treaty rights. Ocean topics encompass broad policy questions, such as whether to respond to recommendations by two commissions for more coordinated ocean policies and institutions. More specific multi-use management challenges range from fisheries, marine mammal, and coastal zone management, to adherence to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Species management and ecosystem protection topics include federal protection and habitat designations for threatened and endangered species, prevention and response to invasive species, protection of international species, wetlands protection, and large-scale ecosystem restoration. Increased competition for water has fostered interest in the federal role in water resources, particularly in relation to water supply in western states and multi-use river management. Other water topics are dam and levee safety and security, and transboundary water resources management. Natural resource science and management contributes to understanding and mitigating the nation’s natural hazard risks. Science also is instrumental in defining the uncertainty and potential extent and impact of climate change and weather on resource conditions. Often natural resource management is intertwined with other topics of broad public concern, such as environmental protection, energy, and agricultural policy. The 110th Congress may pursue natural resources topics in the context of these other policy areas as well as through authorizations, appropriations, and oversight related to specific natural resources issues.

NEPA and CEQA: Integrating Federal and State Environmental Reviews

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) | February 18th, 2014

This handbook provides advisory guidance to Federal, state, and local agencies and others regarding projects that are subject to both the National Environmental Policy Ac

This handbook provides advisory guidance to Federal, state, and local agencies and others regarding projects that are subject to both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Once President Nixon signed NEPA on January 1, 1970, and California Governor Reagan followed suit signing CEQA into law on September 18 of the same year, these laws expressly required the incorporation of environmental values into governmental decision making. Those statutes require Federal, state, and local agencies to analyze and disclose the potential environmental impacts of their decisions, and, in the case of CEQA, to minimize significant adverse environmental effects to the extent feasible. NEPA was codified under Title 42 of the United States Code, in section 4331 et seq. (42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq.). Under NEPA, Congress established the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to ensure that Federal agencies meet their obligations of the Act. CEQ’s Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (hereinafter CEQ NEPA Regulations) are in Title 40 of Code of Federal Regulations section 1500 et seq. (40 C.F.R. § 1500 et seq.). In California, CEQA was codified under Division 13 of California’s Public Resources Code, in sections 21000 et seq. (Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). The Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act are in Title 14 of California’s Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.; hereafter CEQA Guidelines). NEPA and CEQA are similar, both in intent and in the review process (the analyses, public engagement, and document preparation) that they dictate. Importantly, both statutes encourage a joint Federal and state review where a project requires both Federal and state approvals. Indeed, in such cases, a joint review process can avoid redundancy, improve efficiency and interagency cooperation, and be easier for applicants and citizens to navigate. Despite the similarities between NEPA and CEQA, there are several differences that require careful coordination between the Federal and state agencies responsible for complying with NEPA and CEQA. Conflict arising from these differences can create unnecessary delay, confusion, and legal vulnerability. Federal, state and local agencies have cooperated in the environmental review of projects ranging from infrastructure to renewable energy permitting. As the state and Federal governments pursue shared goals, there will be a continued need for an efficient, transparent environmental review process that meets the requirements of both NEPA and CEQA. Recognizing the importance of implementing NEPA and CEQA efficiently and effectively, the CEQ and the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) developed this handbook to provide advisory guidance on conducting joint NEPA and CEQA review processes. The CEQ oversees Federal agency implementation of NEPA, which includes writing the CEQ NEPA Regulations1 and preparing guidance and handbooks for Federal agencies. OPR plays several roles in the administration of CEQA, including developing the CEQA Guidelines in coordination with the California Natural Resources Agency, providing technical assistance to state and local agencies, and coordinating state level review of CEQA documents. The purpose of this handbook is to provide practitioners with an overview of the NEPA and CEQA processes, and to provide practical suggestions on developing a single environmental review process that can meet the requirements of both statutes. This handbook contains three main sections. First is a “Question and Answer” section that addresses the key similarities and differences between NEPA and CEQA. This section compares each law’s requirements or common practices, and identifies possible strategies for meeting the requirements of both laws. These strategies are not meant to prescribe methods that agencies must use; rather, this handbook provides suggestions that will help agencies identify and think through potential issues. Indeed, developing a common understanding of the NEPA and CEQA review processes and their differences at the beginning of a joint review process may be among the most important ways to conduct an efficient and effective review process. Second, this handbook provides a framework for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between two or more agencies entering a joint NEPA/CEQA review process. MOUs can clarify responsibilities and avoid potential conflicts. The MOU framework in this handbook highlights a number of issues that agencies can consider before embarking on their joint effort. This handbook is not intended to replace or replicate any existing MOUs; rather, it raises topics agencies might consider incorporating into their own MOUs. Much like the Q&A document, a key goal of this framework is to encourage state and Federal agencies to consider and resolve potential challenges common to joint NEPA/CEQA review processes in order to avoid complications late in the review process. Finally, the third section addresses the California Energy Commission (CEC) licensing process for decisions on thermal power plants 50 megawatts and larger. This licensing process is a certified regulatory program under CEQA and therefore the process and documents prepared by the CEC serve as the functional equivalent of a CEQA review (CEQA Guidelines, § 15251, subd. (j)). As noted above, this handbook is advisory and does not supplant the administrative regulations set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, or the CEQ NEPA Regulations. Agencies conducting an environmental review must also take into account any additional requirements or time periods established in an individual agency’s administrative regulations or procedures implementing NEPA and CEQA, which could prescribe additional or more stringent requirements than the CEQ NEPA Regulations and the CEQA Guidelines.

North Bay Mercury Biosentinel Project 2016 - 2017

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | March 1st, 2018

Concentrations of methylmercury throughout San Francisco Bay are high enough to warrant concern for the health of humans and wildlife. Large-scale tidal wetland restorat

Concentrations of methylmercury throughout San Francisco Bay are high enough to warrant concern for the health of humans and wildlife. Large-scale tidal wetland restoration is currently being implemented as a means of increasing populations of wildlife species of concern. There is concern that these restoration activities may lead to increased concentrations of methylmercury in the estuarine food web and exacerbate the existing methylmercury problem.

North Delta Water Management Program

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | March 1st, 1988

Water management issues surrounding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta continue to challenge water resource planners in California. Many agree there are problems and urge

Water management issues surrounding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta continue to challenge water resource planners in California. Many agree there are problems and urge that they be corrected, but a consensus on how best to solve them has not yet been reached. Problems include frequent flooding due to unstable levees and constricted channels, flow patterns that are unfavorable for fish and water quality, and water level and circulation patterns that hinder irrigation. During the last several years, various water resources problems have been corrected through application of the public environmental documentation and regulatory permit process. This process has also shown the importance of Federal permit regulations in governing projects in the Delta estuary. To facilitate planning, the estuary has been divided into three study areas for evaluation of problems and needs unique to each area -- North, South, and West. This report discusses concepts for a North Delta Water Management Program. The long-term planning and environmental documentation process will includeother reports and will take about three years to complete. Planning flexibility afforded by the environmental documentation and regulatory permit process is expected to allow many of the concerns surrounding Delta water management to be resolved.

Not All Rivers Are Created Equal: The Importance of Spring-Fed Rivers under a Changing Climate

Water (MDPI) | June 12th, 2021

In the Western United States, volcanic spring-fed rivers are anticipated to become increasingly more important for salmonids and other native fishes, as these rivers wil

In the Western United States, volcanic spring-fed rivers are anticipated to become increasingly more important for salmonids and other native fishes, as these rivers will retain cold-water habitats as the climate warms. Despite this, little is known about the hydro-biogeochemical interactions within these ecosystems. A review of existing literature on spring-fed rivers, coupled with a decade of research on volcanic spring-fed rivers of northern California, finds that these systems are exceptionally productive and exhibit stable environmental conditions. These unique conditions stem from hydrogeologic processes typical of young volcanic terrains. Aquatic macrophytes, common to some nutrient-rich spring-fed systems, play a disproportionate role in hydrologic and geomorphic processes by facilitating ecological interactions and velocity conditions that improve juvenile salmonid growth. We find that volcanic spring-fed rivers are also resilient to climate change, due not only to their ability to dampen water temperature changes through deep groundwater flow but also because of their nutrient-driven high ecosystem productivity, which may enable cold-water species to metabolically compensate for marginal increases in water temperature. Understanding the fundamental geomorphic and ecological differences between these rare ecosystems and their numerically dominant runoff rivers is essential for developing long-term conservation strategies for cold-water species under a rapidly changing climate.

Notice of Entry of Order for Implementation of Preliminary Injunction – Case No. Bcv-22-103220-Gap, Bring Back the Kern et al v. City of Bakersfield et al

Superior Court of California, County of Kern | November 14th, 2023

Novato Creek Baylands Vision

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | November 1st, 2015

As we rethink land management along the San Francisco Bay shoreline in the face of climate change, we know well-functioning resilient tidal landscapes can protect develop

As we rethink land management along the San Francisco Bay shoreline in the face of climate change, we know well-functioning resilient tidal landscapes can protect development and sustain native ecosystems. Here, we present a possible future vision for lower Novato Creek and adjacent baylands that includes several components that would restore and support natural processes, and, in turn, benefit aspects of flood risk management and ecosystem functioning. The Novato Creek Baylands Vision is an element of an EPA-funded project called Flood Control 2.0, which is aimed at advancing new approaches for flood risk management and habitat enhancement along the San Francisco Bay shoreline for the 21st century and beyond.

Novel aquatic ecosystems: The new reality for streams in California and other Mediterranean climate regions

River Research and Applications (Wiley) | September 24th, 2013

Temporary streams in California and other Mediterranean climate areas are among the aquatic habitats most altered by human actions and by invasions by alien species. They

Temporary streams in California and other Mediterranean climate areas are among the aquatic habitats most altered by human actions and by invasions by alien species. They typically support novel ecosystems, defined as ecosystems dominated by new combinations of organisms in highly altered habitats. Although these new ecosystems have many attributes of the ecosystems they replaced, such as native species, they typically contain many new interactions among species. Managers need to recognize this reality to find ways to direct change towards novel ecosystems with desirable features, including native species. The concept of reconciliation ecology is a practical approach to living with the new reality; it includes actively guiding ecosystem change, as illustrated by Putah Creek, Cosumnes River, Eel River and Six Bit Gulch in California. The first three waterways are all highly altered and managed with varying degrees of success to favour desired aquatic species, whereas Six Bit Gulch experiences such extreme conditions that the original ecosystem is still largely intact. The examples illustrate that most aquatic ecosystems in California are so highly altered that attempting to restore them to an earlier condition or stable state is largely not possible. Where more or less intact systems persist, it is usually because extreme environmental conditions restrict both alien invaders and human use in small watersheds. This pattern appears to be fairly typical of streams in Mediterranean climate areas.

Nutrient Management Strategy for San Francisco Bay

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) | November 1st, 2012

This document presents a draft strategy for developing the science needed to make informed decisions about assessing nutrient impacts on water quality, protecting benefic

This document presents a draft strategy for developing the science needed to make informed decisions about assessing nutrient impacts on water quality, protecting beneficial uses , and managing nutrient loads to San Francisco Bay. The document first provides relevant background, after which management decisions related to nutrients are highlighted. The document then lays out a plan, developed collaboratively by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) and Bay stakeholders, for the technical studies required to support decisions regarding nutrient management .