United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605 

Sacramento, California 95825-1846 


u.s. FIS.II & WILDLIFE St:U.VICt: 

In Reply Refer to: 

OSESMF00­

2015-F-0116-4 


Memorandum 

APR 0 1 2016 

To: 	 Anastasia Leigh, Regional Environmental Officer, Mid-Pacific Regional Office 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California 

From: ris, Field Supe1visor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California 

Subject: 	 Appending the 2016 Proposed Water Transfers to the Programmatic Constt!tation for 


The U.S. Fish and 

Bttreatt 

2024) 

Wildlife 

with 

ofReclamation's 

Potential 

Se1vice 

Effects 

(Se1vice) 

Proposed 

on the 

issued 

Central 

Giant 

the 

Gmter 

Vallry 

Reinitiation 

Snake 

Prqject 

within 

Long 

ofProgrammatic 

Term 

Sacramento 

Water 

Consultation 

Vallry, 

T ran.ifers 

California 


(2015­

for 

Bttreatt ofReclamation's Proposed Central Vallry Prqject Long Term Water T ran.ifers (2015-20 24) with Potential 

Effects on the Giant Garter Snake within Sacramento Vallry, California on June 4, 2015 (Se1vice File 

Number 08ESMF00-2015-F-0116) (Programmatic Biological Opinion). The Programmatic 

Biological Opinion required that the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) provide a description of 

the proposed action for each calendar year no later than January 31. The Service received your 

January 27, 2016, memo with the proposed action for 2016. At issue are the proposed action's 

effects on the federally-listed as threatened giant gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas) (snake). This 

response is provided under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act) and in accordance with the implementing regulations pertaining to 


interagency cooperation (50 CFR §402). 


The proposed action is within the parameters specified in the Programmatic Biological Opinion. 

The maximum transfer volume will not exceed 565,614 acre-feet (AF) nor will the maximum annual 

cropland idling acreages, by region, exceed the values included in Table 4 of the Programmatic 

Biological Opinion. Therefore, this memo is an agreement by the Se1vice to append the proposed 

action to the Programmatic Biological Opinion and represents the Service's biological opinion on 

the effects of the proposed action on the snake. 

We based our evaluation on: (1) the Programmatic Biological Opinion; (2) your January 27, 2016, 


memo; (3) email correspondence between the Se1vice and Reclamation; and (4) other information 


available to the Se1vice. 


Consultation History 

]tt/y 14, 2015 	 The Se1vice received the July 14, 2015, memo from Reclamation transmitting 

the 60-Dqy Compliance Reportfor the Bttreatt ofReclamation '.r Central Vallry Prqject 

Long-term Water Tran.ifers 2015. 

December 30, 2015 The Se1vice received the December 30, 2015, memo from Reclamation 
Regional Environmental Officer 2 

transmitting the Sttpplement to the Consen;ation lvleasttresfor the Reinitiation ef 

Programmatic Consultation for Bureatt ifReclamation's Proposed Central Vallry Prrject 

Long Tenn U7ater Tranifers (2015-2024) with Potential Effects 011 the Giant Gmter 

Snake within Sacramento Vallry, CalifOmia 08ESlvIF00-2015-F-O 116. 

]amtary 29, 2016 	 The Service received the January 29, 2016, memo from Reclamation 

transmitting the 2015 Annttal Compliance Repot1for the Bttreatt efReclamation's 

Central Vallry Prqject Long-term Water Tranifers (2015-2024). 

Febr11ary 25, 2016 	 Representatives of the Service, Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), the California Department ofWater Resources (DWR), and the 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife met for the annual meeting to 

discuss the contents and findings of the 2015 annual report and the proposed 

action. The Service received a copy of the January 27, 2016, memo with the 

proposed action for 2016. 

Description of the Proposed Action 

Four water agencies that were not identified in the Programmatic Biological Opinion have expressed 

interest in transferring water as part of the proposed action and may transfer water through 

fallowing (italicized in Tables 1 and 2 below). In addition, some water agencies that were listed in 

the Programmatic Biological Opinion are proposing to increase the amount ofwater transferred in 

2016. Reclamation also proposes to reassign the Sutter Mutual Water Company to the Feather River 

Area of Analysis from the Sacramento River Area of Analysis based on its proximity to other 

agencies east of the Sacramento River. Tables 1 and 2 have been updated from the Programmatic 

Biological Opinion to reflect these changes. Despite the proposed changes, the maximum transfer 

volume will not exceed 565,614 AF nor will the maximum annual cropland idling acreages, by 

region, exceed the values included in Table 4 of the Programmatic Biological Opinion, reiterated 

below. 

Table 4 Maximum Annual Rice Cropland Idling Acreages 

Region Rice (acres) 

Sacramento Region 49,924 

Feather Region 10,769 

Delta Region -

Total 60,693 

Conseroation JV!easures 

Reclamation will continue to implement the conservation measures specified in the Programmatic 

Biological Opinion. As per Term and Condition #2 of the Programmatic Biological Opinion, 

Reclamation submitted a supplement to the conservation measures on December 30, 2015. The 

supplement consists of a scope of work for a study entitled Effects ifRice Idling on Occtrpanry Dynamics 

efGiant Gattersnakes (Thamnophis gigas) in the Sacramento Vallry efCalifOmia prepared by USGS. The 

study is expected to begin in 2016. The supplement meets the requirements of Term and Condition 

#2, and the Service will evaluate tl1e success of the study and its results in subsequent years 

throughout the life of the Programmatic Biological Opinion. 
Regional Environmental Officer 3 

Table 1 Maximum Potential Transfer by Seller (AF) Based on 100% Supply* 

Maximum Potential Water Agency Transfer 

Sacramento River Area ofAnalysis 

Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District 5,225 

Burrotll!hs Farms 4,000 

Canal Farms 1,000 

Conaway Preservation Group 35,000 

Cranmore Farms 8,000 

Eastside Mutual Water Company 2,230 

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 91,000 

Guisti Farms 1,000 

Hmle Family Limited Parl11ership 700 

Le1vis R111ch 2,310 

Maxwell Irrigation District* 7,500 

Natomas Central Mutual \Vater Company 30,000 

Pelger Mutual Water Company 4,670 

Felger Road 1700, LLC . 3,400 

~sant Grove-Verona Mutual \Vater Company 18,000 

ceton-Cordora-Glenn Irrigation District 14,600 

Provident Irrigation District 18,900 

Reclamation District 108 55,000 

Reclamation District 1004 29,675 

River Garden Farms 26,000 

Sutter Mutual Water Company 18,000 

Sycamore Mutual \Vater Company 20,000 

T&PFarms 1,200 

Te Velde Revocable Family Trust 7,094 

American River Area ofAnalysis 

City of Sacramento 5,000 

Placer County \Vater Agency 47,000 

Sacramento County \Vater Agency 15,000 

Sacramento Suburban \Vater District 30,000 

Yuba River Area ofAnalysis 

Browns Valley Irrigation District 8,100 

Cordua Irrigation District 12,000 

Feather River Area ofAnalysis 

Butte Water District 17,000 

Garden Highway Mutual Water Company 14,000 

Gilsizer Slough Ranch 3,900 

Goose Club Farms and Teichert Aimregates 10,000 

South Sutter Water District 15,000 

Sutter Mutual \Vater Company 18,000 

Tule Basin Farms 7,320 

Merced River Area ofAnalysis 

Merced Irrigation District 30,000 

Delta Region Area of Analysis 

Reclamation District 2060 3,000 

Reclamation District 2068 7,500 

Pope Ranch 2,800 

Yolo Ranch 8,000 

Total** 565,614 

Source: Reclamatmn m litt. 2016 

* Ma.'rwell Irrigation District maximum transfer would be under a 75% supply scenario. 


**This column is not additive, as the maximum annual transfer is limited to 565,614 t\F. Arulual volumes will change as annual 


participation varies, but will not exceed 565,614 AF. 

Regional Environmental Officer 4 

Table 2 Transfer Types by Water ~ency (AF; Upper Limits) (2016) 

April-June 

Water Agency 

Sacramento River Area of Analysis 

Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District 2,613 

Burroughs Farms 2000 

Canal Farms 575 235 

Conaway Preservation Group 21 ,55U 7,900 

Cranmore Farms 5,140 925 

Eastside Mutual Water Company 1,067 683 

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 12,500 24,420 

l\faxwell Irrigation District 1,330 888 

G11isti Fam1s 500 

Natomas Central Mutual Water Company 15,000 

He11/e Fa111i/y Ulilited Part11mhit> 425 

Le111is Ra11th 855 

Felger Mutual Water Company 2.151 

Plel):er Road 1700, LLC =1,700 !-----------'"'--'----­ ---'----f-----l--

Plcasant Grove-Vernna Mutual \Vater 8,000 

939 

3,330 

Company 

2,613 

2000 

425 

13,450 

2,860 

,163 

12,500 

2,270 

500 

15,000 

275 

0 

10,000 

July-September 

400 

13,450 

1,575 

1,163 

41,580 

1,512 

1,4-­

1,5 

5,670 

Princeton-Codora-Glcnn Irrigation District 2,000 3,552 3000 6,048 

t: 

0 

·~ 

<V 

fJ} 

t: 

8 

Provident 1,..,,,,.•. ~- District 3,000 4,773 3,000 8,127 f------=---------------+------+-----f-----+---f-----f-----f---·---t------;

Reclamation District 108 7,500 14,800 7,500 25,200 

Reclamation District 1004 8,325 7,175 14,175 

River Garden Farms 5,000 9,250 5,000 15 !50 

1--S~vc_am_o_r_e_l\_I_u_tu_al_~~Xl:~a_te_r_C_o_m_1._pan_,~·-----+---7 ,~50~0"--+--'-3~,7~0~0-+---.:....+--+---7~,~5~0~0-+----'t.3oot~'----+-----! 

T&P Farms 650 330 550 56oi 

Te Velde Revocable Family Trust 2,700 2,581 4,394 4,394 

American River Area ofAnalysis 

City of Sacramento 5,000 

Placer Countv \Vater Agency 47,000 

Sacramento Countv Water Agency 15,000 

Sacramento Suburban \Xfater District 15,000 15,000 

Yuba River Area of Analysis 

Browns Valley Jrrigadon District 5,000 

Cordua Irrigadon District 12,000 

Feather River Area ofAnalysis 

Butte \'\later District 2750 5,750 2,750 5,759 

Garden Highwav 1\lutual \Vater Company 6,500 7,500 

Gilsizer Slough Ranch 1,500 2,400 

Goose Club Farms and Teichert Aggregates 4,000 3,700 6,000 6,300 

South Sutter Water District 15,000 

Sutter Murual \Xfater Company* 12,660 22,680 

Tule Basin Farms 3,800 3,520 

Merced River Area of Analysis 

Merced Irrigadon District 30,000 

Delta Region Area of Analysis 

Reclamation District 2060 1,110 1,890 

Reclamadon District 2068 2,250 2,775 2,250 4,725 

Pope Ranch 1,400 1,400 

Yolo Ra11ch 2,960 5,040 

Total (AF)** 140,101 116,441 0 0 178,365 195,352 97,000 

3,100 

3,100 

Source: Reclamauon m litt. 2016 

* ~!0\-ed from the Sacramento c\rea of Analysis to the Feather fu,·er Area of Analysis 

**These totals cannot be added together. Agencies could !Tk~kc water aYailable through groundwater substitution, cropland idling, 

or a combination of the two; howe\·er, they would not rrui.ke the full quantity aYailable through both methods. Table 2-1 reflects 

the total upper limit for each agency. 
Regional Environmental Officer 5 

Action Area 


The action area is defined in 50 CFR § 402.02, as "all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the 


Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action." The action area remains 


the same as that described in the Programmatic Biological Opinion. 


Status of the Species 


Refer to pages 19-23 of the Programmatic Biological Opinion. 


Environmental Baseline 

Table 5 has been updated from the Programmatic Biological Opinion to reflect changes in the 

amount of rice produced in the Sacramento Valley. 

Table 5 Estimated Sacramento Valley Rice Production (acres) from 1992~2013 by County 

Total 

Year Butte Colusa Glenn Sacramento Sutter Yolo Yuba Total Annual 

Change 

1992 76,300 94,800 6 8,900 73,100 19,000 31,700 369,600 

1993 79,300 112,000 7 , 10,400 81,000 21,400 31,300 409,900 40,300 

1994 88,000 123,000 81,000 11,500 90,000 26,700 34,000 454,200 44,300 

1995 83,000 122,000 79,000 10,300 82,000 27,000 32,000 435,300 -18,900 

1996 97,000 136,000 87,000 8,800 86,000 21,600 34,000 470,400 35,100 

1997 97,000 137,000 89,000 9,400 90,000 24,000 35,000 481,400 11,000 

1998 88,000 121,000 83,000 9,100 91,000 20,400 37,300 449,800 -31,600 

1999 102,500 135,000 88,000 9,700 104,500 30,000 39,200 508,900 59,100 

2000 98,000 145,000 87 9,000 108,000 35,500 39,000 522,000 13,100 

2001 86,800 126,300 78,300 7,800 

87,'.~ 450,000 -72,000 

2002 100,000 138,500 87,500 8,200 101,700 503,400 53,400 

2003 87,800 138,000 82,500 8,100 96,900 ' 481,000 -22,400 

2004 105,800 156,400 90,300 9,600 124,000 41,900 34,300 562,300 81,300 

2005 96,800 145,600 87,100 7,900 101,800 29,200 33,300 501,700 -60,600 

2006 99,100 145,900 87,500 3,700 106,600 28,900 33,200 504,900 3,200 

,000 155,000 86,5 3,700 106,000 33,700 510,700 5,800 

2008 96,500 152,000 8 2,500 97,300 27,300 35,200 497,500 -13,200 

2009 106,400 150,400 8 , 3,120 115,300 35,900 38,000 534,820 37,320 

2010 93,800 153,000 85,600 4,184 116,000 41,000 38,700 532,284 -2,536 

2011 111,000 154,000 88,600 3,200 123,000 41,000 39,000 561,000 28,716 

2012 93,000 157,000 86,000 5,899 119,000 40,461 39,400 540,760 -20,240 

2013 104,000 164,000 80,000 8,363 117,000 33,200 37,500 544,063 3,303 

2014 78,000 115,000 63,500 8,589 98,000 39,325 37,000 439,414 -109,881 

2015 88,000 109,0 NA 92,000 NA 33,500 TBD TBD 

Avg.* 94,352 138,1 7,476 100,691 30,549 35,709 489,886 -­ Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture 2016; Sacramento County 2014; Yolo County 2014 

*Average only calculated through 2014; 2015 acres for Sacramento and Yolo Counties not available at time of siPTiature. 
Regional Environmental Officer 6 

Between 2013 and 2014, rice production in the Sacramento Valley decreased by 20% to the lowest 

acreage since 1995. Of the 109,881-acre decrease, idling of 23,120 acres was due to transfers under 

Reclamation's Central Valley Project (CVP) (Reclamation 2014) (Service File Number 08ESMF00­

2014-F-0359). Although 2015 estimates are not yet available for Sacramento and Yolo Counties, 

rice production again decreased further in every other county except Butte. A total of 40,490 acres 

of rice were idled due to transfers under CVP in 2015, within the parameters set forth in the 

Programmatic Biological Opinion (Reclamation 2015). Monitoring confirmed that all transfers were 

conducted in compliance with the Programmatic Biological Opinion. 

Effects of the Action 

Refer to pages 28-31 of the Programmatic Biological Opinion. J\faxitnun-1 fallowing as a result of the 

2016 transfers will be approximately 12.4% (60,693 / 489 ,886) of the average annual rice acreage 

grown in the Sacramento Valley from 1992 to 2014. 

Conclusion 

After reviewing the current status of the snake, environmental baseline for the action area, effects of 

the proposed project, cumulative effects, and proposed conservation measures, it is the Service's 

biological opinion that the 2016 water transfers as proposed, are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the snake. 

The proposed project will likely result in the loss of an unknown number of snakes as a result of 

increased mortality from temporal loss of habitat, increased competition for resources, reduced 

reproductive rates, and increased mortality from predation. \V'e expect that crop idling and shifting 

will temporarily remove suitable snake habitat and may also reduce reproduction, recruitment, and 

survival of the snakes and these effects will extend beyond the project time frame. 

However, Reclamation is implementing a comprehensive conservation strategy that is based on 

recent research that focuses on maintaining suitable habitat conditions in prio1-ity areas throughout 

the action area. Water will be maintained in areas most important to snakes and water will not be 

transferred in habitat priority conservation areas (e.g., Natomas). In addition, Reclamation will 

identify where idling has occurred, collect and verify habitat conditions, synthesize species data, and 

implement adaptive management measures to assure effective implementation of the conservation 

measures. 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take of 

endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct. Harass is defined by FWS regulations at 50 CFR 17.3 as an intentional or negligent 

act or omission which creates the likelihood ofinjury to a listed species by annoying it to such an 

extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harm is defined by the same regulations as an act which actually 

kills or injures wildlife. Harm is further defined to include significant habitat modification or 

degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential 

behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that 

is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the 

terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of 

the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under tl1e Act provided that such taking 
Regional Environmental Officer 7 

is in compliance with this Incidental Take Statement. This incidental take statement does not 

authorize any incidental take of listed species resulting from related actions that are not part of or 

controllable by Reclamation, long-term water transfer water sellers, or long-term water transfer 

water purchasers, and that are not included in the project description of this biological opinion. 

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be implemented by Reclamation so 

that they become binding conditions of any agreement, contract, grant or permit issued to the 

applicant, as appropriate, in order the exemption in section 7(0)(2) to apply. Reclamation has a 

continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. IfReclamation (1) 

fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require the applicant to adhere 

to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are 

added to any agreement, contract, permit, or grant document, the protective coverage of section 

7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, Reclamation must report the 

progress of the action and its impact on the snake to the Service as specified in the incidental take 

statement [SO CFR §402.14(i)(3)]. 

Amount or Extent ofTake for 2016 

The Service anticipates incidental take of snakes will occur. The Service is unable to quantify an 

exact number of snakes that will be taken as a result of the proposed action because it is impossible 

to know how many individuals may be present in the action area. Since take is expected to result 

from effects to habitat, the quantification of habitat affected becomes a direct surrogate for the 

species that will be taken. Snakes are secretive and sensitive to human activities and individual 

snakes are difficult to detect unless they are observed, undisturbed, at a distance. Adverse effects to 

snakes are additionally difficult to quantify due to seasonal fluctuations in their numbers, random 

environmental events, or additional environmental disturbances. instances in which the total 

number of individuals anticipated to be taken cannot be determined, the Service may use the 

amount of habitat impacted as a surrogate. Since the take of individuals anticipated will result from 

the acreage of cropland idled by the proposed action, the quantification of habitat lost as a result of 

the proposed action serves as a direct surrogate the snakes that will be lost. 

Based on our analysis presented in the E11viro11t11et1tal Baseline and Effects ofthe Proposed Action sections, 

which describe how the majority of the action area, both under current and proposed land 

management, is considered to be snake habitat, we anticipate that snakes are likely to be exposed to 

adverse effects from the proposed rice field fallowing and crop shifting. The incidental take is 

expected to be in the form of hann as displaced snakes may be taken by predators or may die or 

suffer reproductive failure if they cannot successfully relocate and utilize suitable habitat on or 

adjacent to a field fallowed as a result of implementation of this water transfer program in 2016 in 

and around the 60,693 acres of fields that are idled or have alternative crops. 

The proposed fallowing or crop shifting on up to 60,693 acres of fields in 2016 will result in the 

loss of an undetermined number of individual snakes through increased mortality levels of adults 

and juveniles due to decreased prey availability and/or reduced reproduction by snakes, and 

mortality of snakes that may move out of areas subject to crop idling and shifting due to predation. 

Effect ofthe Take 

In the accompanying biological opinion appending to the Programmatic Biological Opinion, the 

Service has determined that the level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the 
Regional [~nvironmental Officer 8 

snake because the conservation measures, as proposed by Reclamation, will minin1ize the effects of 

the proposed project by providing assurances that transfers will not occur in high priority snake 

habitat, and in other areas where high l]uality snake habitat exists and snakes are known to occur, 

sellers will be required to maintain habitat features (ditches, drains, canals, etc.) in a condition that 

can be used by snakes, thus providing habitat across the action area. In addition, Reclamation has 

proposed an adaptive approach to the water transfer program so that information collected through 

monitoring and research will be reviewed annually with the wildlife agencies and giant garter snake 

scientists. This approach will enable Reclamation to make adjustments to snake conservation 

measures prior to finalizing each annual transfer program. 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

All necessary and appropriate measures to avoid or minimize effects on the snake resulting from 

implementation of this project have been incorporated into the proposed conservation measures in 

the Programmatic Biological Opinion. Therefore, the Service believes the following Reasonable and 

Prudent Measure is necessary and appropriate to minimize incidental take of these species: 

1. All conservation measures, as described in the Programmatic Biological Opinion, shall be 

fully implemented and adhered to. Further, this Reasonable and Prudent Measure shall be 

supplemented by the Terms and Conditions below. 

Terms and Conditions 

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, Reclamation must ensure 

compliance with the following terms and conditions, which implement the Reasonable and Prudent 

J\Ieasure described above. These terms and conditions are nondiscretionary. 

1. 	 For lands \vhere cropland idling or crop shifting will occur, Reclamation shall condition the 

contracts between them and potential "vater sellers to include the conservation measures 

contained in the project description and the terms and conditions including access by 

Reclamation and Service personnel to said lands to validate their implemenration. 

2. 	 lThe supplement to the conservation measures required by Term and Condition in the 

Programmatic Biological Opinion has been submitted by Reclamation. The Service will 

evaluate the success of the proposed study and its results in subsequent years.] 

3. 	 Reclamation shall submit a compliance report to the Service's Sacramento Fish and 

\Vildlife Office sixty (60) calendar days following water transfer contract execution. This 

report shall detail (i) acreage and location of seller's parcels affected by crop idling/crop 

substitution and maps of where the cropland idling or cropland shifting occurred; (ii) 

confirmation that, where appropriate, water levels are being maintained in ditches around 

affected fields; (iii) occurrences ofincidental take of any snakes including an updated 

occurrence map based on the most recent data available; (v) an explanation of failure to 

meet such measures, if any; (iv) an explanation of failure to meet such measures, if any; and 

(v) other pertinent information. G IS shape files of the parcels that were fallowed will be in 

projected coordinate system NAD 1983 Zone 10 N. 

4. 	 At the end of transfer year 2016, Reclamation \viii submit to the Service a monitoring 

report that contains the following: (i) maps and GIS shape of all cropland idling or 

cropland shifting actions that occurred within the range of potential transfer activities 
Regional Environmental Officer 9 

affected under this program; (ii) results of current scientific research and monitoring 

pertinent to water transfer actions; (iii) a discussion of conservation measure effectiveness; 

(iv) maps and GIS shape files indicating where rice was grown; (v) results of annual snake 

monitoring; (vi) snake detections; (vii) a cumulative history ofthe location and extent of 

crop idling/crop shifting; and (viii) report on water districts/ sellers participation in 

voluntary best management practices. GIS shape files of the parcels that were fallowed 

will be in projected coordinate system NAD 1983 Zone 10 N. The report will be 

submitted to the Service no later than January 31, 2017. Reclamation and the Service will 

establish an annual meeting no later than February 28, 2017, to discuss the contents and 

findings of the annual report and develop additional conservation measures if necessary. 

Reporting Requirements 

For water transfers in year 2017 Reclamation will prepare a description of the proposed action for 

2017 (sellers/buyers, conservation measures, etc.), provide a detailed monitoring report for the 2016 

actions, and submit this info1mation to the Service no later than Janua1y 31, 2017. By February 28, 

2017, the Service will review the description of the proposed action and monitoring report and meet 

with Reclamation regarding the proposed action. The annual monitoring report will include detailed 

information in the action area (narrative and GIS spatial analysis) on implementation of the 

conservation measures, land idling/fallowing, hydrologic conditions, presence/absence/not found 

surveys for the snake, recent reports prepared on the snake, and any other information that is 

relevant to snake impacts and conservation. 

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes 

of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened 

species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid 

adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery 

plans, or to develop information. The Service recommends the following actions: 

1. 	 Reclamation should assist the Service in implementing recovery actions identified in the 

upcoming recovery plan for the snake. 

2. 	 Reclamation should work with the Setvice, DWR, and water contractors to investigate 

the long-term response of snake individuals and local populations to annual fluctuations 

in habitat from fallowing rice fields. 

3. 	 Reclamation should support the reseatch goals of the Giant Garter Snake Monitoring 

and Reseatch Strategy fot the Sacramento Valley proposed in the Ptogrammatic 

Biological Opinion. 

4. 	 Reclamation should wotk with the Service to cteate and testore additional stable 

perennial wetland habitat for snakes in the Sacramento Valley so that they are less 

vulnerable to market-driven fluctuations in rice production. The CVPIA (b)(1) other 

and CVIJCP conservation gtant programs would be appropriate for such work. 

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or 

benefiting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of 

any conservation tecommendations. 
Regional Environmental Officer 10 

REINITIATION- CLOSING STATEMENT 

This concludes formal consultation on the water transfers for 2016. As provided in 50 

§402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required and shall be requested by the federal agency 

or by the Service where discretionaiy federal agency involvement or control over the action has been 

retained or is authorized by law and: (a) if the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental 

take statement is exceeded; (b) if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 

species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (c) if the identified 

action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species or critical habitat 

that was not considered in the biological opinion; or (d) if a new species is listed or critical habitat 

designated that may be affected by the identified action. 

Ifyou have any questions regarding this biological opinion, please contact Ken Sanchez at the 

letterhead address or (916) 414-6671. 

cc: 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Paul Forsberg, Sacramento, CA 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Bruce Oppenheim, Sacramento, CA 

California Department of Water Resources, Tom Filler, Sacramento, CA 

Bureau of Reclamation, Russ Grimes, Brad Hubbard, Dan Cordova, Sacramento, CA 
Regional Environmental Officer 11 

LITERATURE CITED 


Bureau of Reclamation. 2014. Compliance Report - 2014 Water Transfers Biological Opinion 

OSESMF00-2014-F-0359. Undated. 

__. 2015. 2015 Annual Compliance Report for the Bureau of Reclamation's Central Valley 

Project Long-term Water Transfers (2015-2024). January 2016. 

Sacramento County. 2014. Crop and Livestock Report. Sacramento County Divisions of 

Agriculture and Weights and Measures. Undated. 

U.S. Department ofAgriculture. 2016. 1992-2015 California Agricultural Statistics. Accessed on 

March 21, 2016. Available from http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/ 

Publications/ California_Ag_Statistics /index.asp 

Yolo County. 2013. Agriculture Crop Report. Yolo County Department ofAgriculture and 

Weights and Measures. July 2014. 

In Litt. 

Bureau of Reclamation. 2016. Dan Cordova e-mail message to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff, 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA. March 15, 2016.