Suisun Marsh Monitoring Program Annual Data Summary Water Year 1999

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 31st, 2001

This report summarizes data collected in the Suisun Marsh during Water Year 1999 (October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999) pursuant to the following agreements, perm

This report summarizes data collected in the Suisun Marsh during Water Year 1999 (October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999) pursuant to the following agreements, permits, and water rights decisions: • State Water Resources Control Board Decision 1485, August 1978 (SWRCB 1978); • State Water Resources Control Board Order WR 95-6, 1995 (SWRCB 1995a); • Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, 1987 (USBR and others 1987); • Suisun Marsh Monitoring Agreement, 1987 (DWR and others 1987); • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Permit No. 35-78 (M) Amendment 7, 1997 (for construction of the initial facilities, namely the Roaring River Distribution System, Morrow Island Distribution System, and Goodyear Slough Outfall) (BCDC 1997); • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Permit No. 4-84 (M) Amendment 4, 1991 (for construction of the Suisun Marsh Salinity Control Gates) (1991); and, • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 16223E58 (for construction of the Suisun Marsh Salinity Control Gates), Special Condition 1, 1986 (USACE 1986). This report fulfills a portion of the annual reporting requirements of the above-listed, agreements, permits, and water rights decisions as detailed in Table 1. Remaining reporting requirements will be fulfilled in other Department of Water Resources (DWR) and/or University of California Davis reports. DWR and the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) primarily collected data summarized in this report. The data include • general hydrologic data; • continuous channel water specific conductance and tidal height measurements; • marsh-wide vegetation survey update; • waterfowl abundance; and • salt marsh harvest mouse occurrence.

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 Draft Environmental Impact Report Peripheral Canal Project

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | August 1st, 1974

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.