DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority, 2014–2038

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority, 2014–2038 Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority, 2014–2038 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report Mid-Pacific Region May 2012 State Clearinghouse No. 2011061057 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority May 2012 1 Table of Contents 2 Executive Summary .................................................................................................... ES-1 3 ES.1 Background ..................................................................................................ES-1 4 ES.2 Project Purpose and Need/Objectives ..........................................................ES-2 5 ES.3 Public and Agency Involvement ..................................................................ES-4 6 ES.4 Alternatives Considered and Preferred Alternative .....................................ES-5 7 ES.4.1 No Action/No Project Alternative ...................................................ES-5 8 ES.4.2 Action Alternatives ..........................................................................ES-6 9 ES.5 Summary Comparison of Impacts/Effects of Alternatives ..........................ES-8 10 1.0 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................. 1-1 11 1.1 History and Background ................................................................................ 1-2 12 1.1.1 Wetland Habitat Water Requirement ................................................. 1-4 13 1.1.2 Central Valley and State Water Project Contractors .......................... 1-4 14 1.2 Purpose and Need / Project Objectives .......................................................... 1-5 15 1.2.1 Refuge Water Supplies ...................................................................... 1-6 16 1.2.2 Agricultural Water Use ...................................................................... 1-7 17 1.2.3 Santa Clara Valley Water District ...................................................... 1-9 18 1.2.4 Potential Additional CVP Contractors ............................................. 1-10 19 1.2.5 Potential Additional SWP Contractor .............................................. 1-12 20 1.3 Possible Related Projects ............................................................................. 1-12 21 1.3.1 Irrigated Lands Waiver (Central Valley Regional Water 22 Quality Control Board) .................................................................... 1-15 23 1.3.2 San Joaquin River Restoration Program .......................................... 1-15 24 1.3.3 Review and Potential Amendment of State Water Resources 25 Control Board Southern Delta Salinity and San Joaquin River 26 Flow Objectives from the 2006 Bay-Delta Plan .............................. 1-16 27 1.3.4 Review and Possible Issuance of Rules by U.S. 28 Environmental Protection Agency Relating to Delta 29 Conditions ........................................................................................ 1-17 30 1.3.5 Grassland Bypass Project, 2010–2019 ........................................................ 1-17 31 2.0 Alternatives............................................................................................................ 2-1 32 2.1 Project Location ............................................................................................. 2-2 33 2.2 No Action / No Project Alternative ............................................................... 2-2 34 2.2.1 Assumptions Related to the Wetland Habitat Areas ........................ 2-12 35 2.2.2 Assumptions Related to the Delivery of Water to CVP 36 Contractors ....................................................................................... 2-13 Water Transfer Program, 2014–2038 Draft EIS/EIR i – May 2012 EC 2012 DEIS-R___TOC.docx San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority 1 2.2.3 Assumptions Related to the Delivery of Water to SWP 2 Contractors ....................................................................................... 2-14 3 2.2.4 Assumptions Related to the Exchange Contractors ......................... 2-14 4 2.3 Action / Project Alternatives ....................................................................... 2-17 5 2.3.1 Water Development Alternatives ..................................................... 2-18 6 2.3.2 Water Acquisition Scenarios............................................................ 2-21 7 2.4 Required Approvals and Permits ................................................................. 2-25 8 2.5 Alternatives Considered but not Evaluated in Detail .................................. 2-25 9 2.6 Agency Preferred Alternative ...................................................................... 2-27 10 2.7 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................ 2-27 11 2.7.1 Environmentally Superior Alternative ......................................................... 2-31 12 3.0 Scope of Impact Analysis ..................................................................................... 3-1 13 3.1 Resources to Be Evaluated ............................................................................ 3-1 14 3.2 Resources Not Evaluated ............................................................................... 3-1 15 3.2.1 Cultural Resources ............................................................................. 3-2 16 3.2.2 Energy ................................................................................................ 3-2 17 3.2.3 Geology and Soils .............................................................................. 3-2 18 3.2.4 Hazardous Materials .......................................................................... 3-2 19 3.2.5 Noise .................................................................................................. 3-2 20 3.2.6 Mineral Resources ............................................................................. 3-3 21 3.2.7 Recreation .......................................................................................... 3-3 22 3.2.8 Utilities and Public Services .............................................................. 3-3 23 3.2.9 Traffic and Transportation ................................................................. 3-3 24 3.2.10 Visual Resources ................................................................................ 3-3 25 3.3 Water Receiving Areas Analysis ................................................................... 3-4 26 3.3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 3-4 27 3.3.2 San Joaquin Valley and Tulare Lake Basin Wildlife Areas .............. 3-4 28 3.3.3 Background of Long-Term and Interim Renewal Contracts ............. 3-5 29 3.3.4 CVP Water Users North of the Delta ................................................. 3-8 30 3.3.5 CVP Water Users South of the Delta ............................................... 3-12 31 3.3.6 SWP Water Users South of the Delta .............................................. 3-23 32 3.3.7 Related Biological Opinions and ESA Consultations ...................... 3-27 33 3.4 Effect and Impact Significance Determinations .......................................... 3-39 34 4.0 Surface Water Resources ..................................................................................... 4-1 35 4.1 Affected Environment/Environmental Setting .............................................. 4-1 36 4.1.1 Surface Water Resources ................................................................... 4-2 37 4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................. 4-8 Draft Water Transfer Program, 2014–2038 ii – May 2012 EIS/EIR EC 2012 DEIS-R___TOC.docx Table of Contents 1 4.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................ 4-9 2 4.2.1 Key Impact and Evaluation Criteria ................................................ 4-10 3 4.2.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation ........................................... 4-12 4 4.2.3 Cumulative Effects........................................................................... 4-49 5 4.2.4 Impact and Mitigation Summary ..................................................... 4-50 6 5.0 Groundwater Resources ....................................................................................... 5-1 7 5.1 Affected Environment/Environmental Setting .............................................. 5-1 8 5.1.1 Groundwater Resources ..................................................................... 5-1 9 5.1.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................. 5-9 10 5.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................... 5-10 11 5.2.1 Key Impacts and Evaluation Criteria ............................................... 5-10 12 5.2.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation ........................................... 5-11 13 5.2.3 Cumulative Effects........................................................................... 5-16 14 5.2.4 Impact and Mitigation Summary ..................................................... 5-18 15 6.0 Biological Resources ............................................................................................. 6-1 16 6.1 Affected Environment/Environmental Setting .............................................. 6-1 17 6.1.1 Resources ..........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network
    DA 17 DA 67 DA 68 DA 22 DA 29 DA 39 DA 40 DA 41 DA 46 N. FORK N. & M. TUOLOMNE YUBA RIVER FORKS CHERRY CREEK, RIVER Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure ELEANOR CREEK AMERICAN M & S FORK RIVER YUBA RIVER New Bullards Hetch Hetchy Res Bar Reservoir GREENHORN O'Shaughnessy Dam Network Configuration for CALVIN (1 of 2) SR- S. FORK NBB CREEK & BEAR DA 32 SR- D17 AMERICAN RIVER HHR DA 42 DA 43 DA 44 RIVER STANISLAUS SR- LL- C27 RIVER & 45 Camp Far West Reservoir DRAFT Folsom Englebright C31 Lake DA 25 DA 27 Canyon Tunnel FEATHER Lake 7 SR- CALAVERAS New RIVER SR-EL CFW SR-8 RIVER Melones Lower Cherry Creek MERCED MOKELUMNE Reservoir SR-10 Aqueduct ACCRETION CAMP C44 RIVER FAR WEST TO DEER CREEK C28 FRENCH DRY RIVER CREEK WHEATLAND GAGE FRESNO New Hogan Lake Oroville DA 70 D67 SAN COSUMNES Lake RIVER SR- 0 SR-6 C308 SR- JOAQUIN Accretion: NHL C29 RIVER 81 CHOWCHILLA American River RIVER New Don Lake McClure Folsom to Fair D9 DRY Pardee Pedro SR- New Exchequer RIVER Oaks Reservoir 20 CREEK Reservoir Dam SR- Hensley Lake DA 14 Tulloch Reservoir SR- C33 Lake Natoma PR Hidden Dam Nimbus Dam TR Millerton Lake SR-52 Friant Dam C23 KELLY RIDGE Accretion: Eastside Eastman Lake Bypass Accretion: Accretion: Buchanan Dam C24 Yuba Urban DA 59 Camanche Melones to D16 Upper Merced D64 SR- C37 Reservoir C40 2 SR-18 Goodwin River 53 D62 SR- La Grange Dam 2 CR Goodwin Reservoir D66 Folsom South Canal Mokelumne River Aqueduct Accretion: 2 D64 depletion: Upper C17 D65 Losses D85 C39 Goodwin to 3 Merced River 3 3a D63 DEPLETION mouth C31 2 C25 C31 D37
    [Show full text]
  • December 11, 2012- Board of Supervisors
    THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS ACTION AGENDA SUMMARY DEPT: Chief Executive Office BOARDAGENDA#~*B~-~6~ _ Urgent 0 Routine ~ AGENDA DATE December 11,2012 CEO Concurs with Recommendation YES 4/5 Vote Required YES 0 NO ~ (Infor SUBJECT: Approval to Adopt a Resolution in Support of the Efforts of the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley and the Delta Counties Coalition on Water Management Actions of Value to Stanislaus County STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Adopt a Resolution in Support of the Efforts of the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley and the Delta Counties Coalition on Water Management Actions of Value to Stanislaus County FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts associated with this item. A member of the Board of Supervisors is appointed by the Governor to represent Stanislaus County on the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley. Board members also have an opportunity to become engaged through the work group structure. County staff provides technical support to Board members based on their work and involvement on an as needed basis within approved departmental bUdgets. BOARD ACTION AS FOLLOWS: No. 2012-597 On motion of Supervisor Withrow , Seconded by Supervisor _J;;bi~~q _ and approved by the following-Yote,- ----------------- -. Ayes: Supervisors:_Ct*~~a,_WithJ9w.J1l19_nJeLtb~D_e_ MqaLnj .smd_ C_h_ajCI119Il_ OJ~cieD _ Noes: Supervisors: ~,to_n_~ _ Excused or Absent: Supervisors: None Abstaining: Supervisor: --Nofle--- -----------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin Exchange Contractors/Central California
    San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority Assembly Water Bond Hearing April 17, 2014 Mission Statement : To effectively protect the Exchange Contract and maximize local water supply, flexibility and redundancy in order to maintain local control over the members’ water supply, whatever circumstances occur.. 1 San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority 2 The Exchange Contract - What is it Anyway? • The corner stone for the Development of the CVP ( Friant Dam, Shasta Dam, DMC) • Two documents were signed in 1939: 1. Exchange Contract • Monthly Delivery Limits, Flow Limits, Water Quality Criteria, Water Supply( Shasta) Criteria [ We operate under the 1967 Second Amended Contract] 2. Purchase Contract • Conveyed high flow rights, reserved low flow rights, We have our senior water rights on the San Joaquin River 3 Background of the Exchange Contractors . The SJRECWA is a Joint Powers Authority that was formed in 1992, its members include: • Central California Irrigation District (145,000 ac) • Columbia Canal Company (16,000 ac) • Firebaugh Canal Water District( 22,000 ac) • San Luis Canal Company (47,000 ac) . Main Duties: • Protect water rights • Administer AB 3030 Plans & Water Conservation Plans • Administer water transfers • Main point of contact for the administration of the Exchange Contract • Other duties as assigned 4 Background of the Exchange Contractors . Pre-1914 and Riparian Rights on the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers dating back to the 1870’s . Irrigate approximately 240,000 ac in Fresno, Madera Merced and Stanislaus Counties. Normal Year allocation 840,000 acre feet . Critical Year allocation 650,000 acre feet . Allocation is based on Forecasted inflow into Shasta Lake 5 Increased Regional Water Availability .
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTI8 SMITH, DIEECTOE WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 296 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA PART II. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OP JOHN C. HOYT BY B. D. WOOD In cooperation with the State Water Commission and the Conservation Commission of the State of California WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1912 NOTE. A complete list of the gaging stations maintained in the San Joaquin River basin from 1888 to July 1, 1912, is presented on pages 100-102. 2 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS IN SAN JOAQUIN RIYER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. By B. D. WOOD. INTRODUCTION. This gazetteer is the second of a series of reports on the* surf ace waters of California prepared by the United States Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the State of California as repre­ sented by the State Conservation Commission, George C. Pardee, chairman; Francis Cuttle; and J. P. Baumgartner, and by the State Water Commission, Hiram W. Johnson, governor; Charles D. Marx, chairman; S. C. Graham; Harold T. Powers; and W. F. McClure. Louis R. Glavis is secretary of both commissions. The reports are to be published as Water-Supply Papers 295 to 300 and will bear the fol­ lowing titles: 295. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part I, Sacramento River basin. 296. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part II, San Joaquin River basin. 297. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part III, Great Basin and Pacific coast streams. 298. Water resources of California, Part I, Stream measurements in the Sacramento River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2. Project Update/Activities U.S
    Chapter 2 Project Update/Activities since Publication of the Draft EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Update/Activities since Publication of the Draft EIR/EIS This chapter is intended to provide an update on various aspects of the project that have changed since issuance of the draft EIR/EIS on August 8, 2003. Many of these changes are a result of comments received on the draft EIR/EIS during the comment period, which ended December 15, 2003. Changes to the project are presented in the list below, followed by a more detailed description of each. 1. Modifications to the layout and configuration of the intake facilities 2. Site identification for Zone 40 water treatment plant 3. Revised modeling and coordinated operation agreement assumptions 4. Water contract settlement agreements None of these changes results in new impacts. In some cases they result in a reduction of severity of impacts identified in the draft EIR/EIS. A revised summary of impacts and mitigation measures is provided at the end of this chapter in Tables S-1, S-2, and S-3. Table S-1 summarizes the significant environmental impacts and Table S-2 summarizes the less-than-significant environmental impacts of the FRWP alternatives. Table S-3 summarizes significant cumulative impacts. The tables are organized to present impacts by environmental topic area and to indicate the significance of each impact, available mitigation measures, and the significance of each impact if mitigation is implemented. Responsibility for Project Implementation As noted in Chapter 1 of the draft EIR/EIS, FRWA is a joint powers agency formed by the Sacramento County Water Agency and East Bay Municipal Utility District.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the River Report
    Lower American River State of the River Report Water Forum 660 J Street, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 1 April 2005 Lower American River The Water Forum is a diverse group of business and agricultural leaders, citizens groups, environmentalists, water managers, and local governments in the Sacramento Region that have joined to fulfill two co-equal objectives: • Provide a reliable and safe water supply for the region’s economic health and planned development to the year 2030; and • Preserve the fishery, wildlife, recreational, and aesthetic values of the lower American River. In 2000, Water Forum members approved a comprehensive Water Forum Agreement, consisting of integrated actions necessary to provide a regional solution to potential water shortages, environmental degradation, groundwater contamination, threats to groundwater reliability, and limits to economic prosperity. The Water Forum Agreement allows the region to meet its needs in a balanced way through implementation of seven elements. The seven elements of the Water Forum Agreement are: 1) increased surface water diversions, 2) actions to meet customers’ needs while reducing diversion impacts in drier years, 3) an improved pattern of fishery flow releases from Folsom Reservoir, 4) lower American River Habitat Management Element, 5) water conservation, 6) groundwater management, and 7) the Water Forum Successor Effort (WFSE). The WFSE was created to implement the seven elements of the Water Forum Agreement over the next 30 years. Additional information can be found on the Water Forum’s web site at: www.waterforum.org. Water Forum 660 J Street, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 April 2005 2 Lower American River State of the River Report 3 Letter to Readers Dear Reader, This is the first lower American River State of the River Report.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.3-1 4.3 HYDROLOGY and WATER QUALITY This Section Describes Water Resources at Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Hydroelect
    4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.3.1 INTRODUCTION TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section describes water resources at Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s hydroelectric facilities and associated Watershed Lands in Northern and Central California, and addresses how utilization and management of the water resources for power production affects the physical environment and other beneficial uses. The section provides an overview of discretionary and non- discretionary factors affecting water use and management, including applicable regulatory constraints. The section then addresses the following for each asset: the location of the drainage basin, the flow of water through the different facilities, a general discussion of water quality, physical characteristics of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s water conveyance systems and capacities, maximum powerhouse capacities, and considerations, including specific regulatory constraints, that affect the management of water for power production and other purposes. Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s hydroelectric facilities were built, for the most part, in the early and mid part of the 20th Century. The existing facilities and their operations are integrated into the water supply system for the State and can affect water quality in the surrounding watershed. 4.3.1.1 Water Use Water is used at Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s hydroelectric facilities primarily for the nonconsumptive purpose of generating electric power. Other uses include minor consumption at powerhouses and recreational facilities (e.g., for drinking water, sanitation, or maintenance activities), provision of recreational opportunities, sale or delivery to other parties, and fish and wildlife preservation and enhancement.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for North of O'neill
    Initial Study / Proposed Negative Declaration For North of O’Neill Forebay Long-Term Exchanges Between California Department of Water Resources and the United States Bureau of Reclamation January 2020 Overview of the Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration 1. Project Title North of O’Neill Forebay Long-Term Exchanges 2. Lead agency name and address: State of California Department of Water Resources State Water Project Analysis Office 1416 9th Street, Room 1620 Sacramento, CA 95814 3. Contact person and phone number: Ms. Anna Fock Chief, Program Development and Water Supply and Transfers Branch State Water Project Analysis Office (916) 653-0190 4. Project location: San Joaquin County, Merced County and Stanislaus County 5. Project sponsor's name and address: N/A 6. General plan designation: N/A 7. Zoning: N/A 8. Description of project: See following. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: See following. Initial Study/Negative Declaration A-1 North of O’Neill Forebay Long-Term Exchange 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): United States Bureau of Reclamation, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, Del Puerto Water District, Oak Flat Water District, and Musco Family Olive Company. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc. No California Native American tribes have requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Collections
    A. andersonii A. Gray SANTA CRUZ MANZANITA San Mateo Along Skyline Blvd. between Gulch Road and la Honda Rd. (A. regismontana?) Santa Cruz Along Empire Grade, about 2 miles north of its intersection with Alba Grade. Lat. N. 37° 07', Long. 122° 10' W. Altitude about 2550 feet. Santa Cruz Aong grade (summit) 0.8 mi nw Alba Road junction (2600 ft elev. above and nw of Ben Lomond (town)) - Empire Grade Santa Cruz Near Summit of Opal Creek Rd., Big Basin Redwood State Park. Santa Cruz Near intersection of Empire Grade and Alba Grade. ben Lomond Mountain. Santa Cruz Along China Grade, 0.2 miles NW of its intersection with the Big Basin-Saratoga Summit Rd. Santa Cruz Nisene Marks State Park, Aptos Creek watershed; under PG&E high-voltage transmission line on eastern rim of the creek canyon Santa Cruz Along Redwood Drive 1.5 miles up (north of) from Monte Toyon Santa Cruz Miller's Ranch, summit between Gilroy and Watsonville. Santa Cruz At junction of Alba Road and Empire Road Ben Lomond Ridge summit Santa Cruz Sandy ridges near Bonny Doon - Santa Cruz Mountains Santa Cruz 3 miles NW of Santa Cruz, on upper UC Santa Cruz campus, Marshall Fields Santa Cruz Mt. Madonna Road along summit of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Between Lands End and Manzanitas School. Lat. N. 37° 02', Long. 121° 45' W; elev. 2000 feet Monterey Moro Road, Prunedale (A. pajaroensis?) A. auriculata Eastw. MT. DIABLO MANZANITA Contra Costa Between two major cuts of Cowell Cement Company (w face of ridge) - Mount Diablo, Lime Ridge Contra Costa Immediately south of Nortonville; 37°57'N, 121°53'W Contra Costa Top Pine Canyon Ridge (s-facing slope between the two forks) - Mount Diablo, Emmons Canyon (off Stone Valley) Contra Costa Near fire trail which runs s from large spur (on meridian) heading into Sycamore Canyon - Mount Diablo, Inner Black Hills Contra Costa Off Summit Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FOLSOM POWERHOUSE NO. 1 1895 National Historic Mechanical
    THE FOLSOM POWERHOUSE NO. 1 1895 National Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark The American Society of Mechanical Engineers September 12, 1976 FACTUAL DATA ON AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION The American River Division, a part of the Central Valley Project, provides water for irrigation, municipal and industrial use, hydroelectric power, recreation, and flood control through a system of dams, canals, and powerplants. The Division includes Folsom and Sly Park Units, both in operation, and Auburn-Folsom South Unit in construction stage. FOLSOM UNIT consists of Folsom Dam, Lake, AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT, authorized in and Powerplant, Nimbus Dam, Lake Natoma, and 1986, will provide agricultural and municipal and Nimbus Powerplant on the American River. The industrial water supplies for Placer, El Dorado, Folsom Unit was added to the Central Valley Project Sacramento, and San Joaquin Counties, together with by Congressional authorization in 1949. hydroelectric power, flood control, fish protection, and new recreational facilities. Principal features of the Unit will be Auburn Dam, Powerplant and Reservoir, FOLSOM DAM AND FOLSOM LAKE. Folsom Dam, the Folsom South Canal, and Sugar Pine and County below a drainage area of 1,875 square miles, was Line Dams and Reservoirs. constructed by the Corps of Engineers and upon completion was transferred to the Bureau of AUBURN DAM presently under construction will Reclamation for coordinated operation as an integral be a 700-foot-high, concrete thin arch structure, with part of the Central Valley Project. The dam has a a crest length of 4,000 feet. The dam will create the concrete main river section with a height of 340 feet 2.4 million acre-foot Auburn Reservoir.
    [Show full text]
  • Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Comments
    The Center for Biological Diversity submits the following information for the status review of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) (Docket #FWS-R8-ES-2015-0050), including substantial new information regarding the species' biology, population structure (including potential Distinct Population Segments of the species), historical and recent distribution and status, population trends, documented range contraction, habitat requirements, threats to the species and its habitat, disease, and the potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat. The foothill yellow-legged frog has experienced extensive population declines throughout its range and a significant range contraction. Multiple threats continue unabated throughout much of the species’ remaining range, including impacts from dams, water development, water diversions, timber harvest, mining, marijuana cultivation, livestock grazing, roads and urbanization, recreation, climate change and UV-radiation, pollution, invasive species and disease. The species warrants listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Contact: Jeff Miller, [email protected] Contents: NATURAL HISTORY, BIOLOGY AND STATUS . .. 2 Biology. .2 Habitat . .. .4 Range and Documented Range Contraction . 4 Taxonomy . 9 Population Structure . 9 Historical and Recent Distribution and Status . 15 Central Oregon . .15 Southern Oregon . 18 Coastal Oregon . .20 Northern Coastal California . 25 Upper Sacramento River . 40 Marin/Sonoma . 45 Northern/Central Sierra Nevada . .47 Southern Sierra Nevada . .67 Central Coast/Bay Area . 77 South Coast. 91 Southern California . .. 94 Baja California, Mexico . .98 Unknown Population Affiliation. .99 Population Trends . .. .103 THREATS. .108 Habitat Alteration and Destruction . .. 108 Dams, Water Development and Diversions . .. .109 Logging . .. .111 Marijuana Cultivation . .. .112 Livestock Grazing . .. .112 Mining . .. .. .113 Roads and Urbanization .
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 59/Tuesday, March 30, 2021/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 2021 / Notices 16639 provide drainage service to lands within water annually with the Agency for Recreation Act of March 12, 2019 (Pub. the San Luis Unit of the CVP including storage and conveyance in Folsom L. 116–9). the Westlands WD service area. Reservoir, and a contract with the 42. Shasta County Water Agency, 20. San Luis WD, Meyers Farms District for conveyance of non-project CVP, California: Proposed partial Family Trust, and Reclamation; CVP; water through Folsom South Canal. assignment of 50 acre-feet of the Shasta California: Revision of an existing 31. Gray Lodge Wildlife Area, CVP, County Water Agency’s CVP water contract among San Luis WD, Meyers California: Reimbursement agreement supply to the City of Shasta Lake for Farms Family Trust, and Reclamation between the California Department of M&I use. providing for an increase in the Fish and Wildlife and Reclamation for 43. Friant Water Authority, CVP, exchange of water from 6,316 to 10,526 groundwater pumping costs. California: Negotiation and execution of acre-feet annually and an increase in the Groundwater will provide a portion of a repayment contract for Friant Kern storage capacity of the bank to 60,000 Gray Lodge Wildlife Area’s Central Canal Middle Reach Capacity Correction acre-feet. Valley Improvement Act Level 4 water Project. 21. Contra Costa WD, CVP, California: supplies. This action is taken pursuant Amendment to an existing O&M to Public Law 102–575, Title 34, Section Completed Contract Actions agreement to transfer O&M of the Contra 3406(d)(1, 2 and 5), to meet full Level 1.
    [Show full text]