A comparison of the taxonomic and trait structure of macroinvertebrate communities between the riffles and pools of montane headwater streams

Hydrobiologica, Springer International Publishing | May 30th, 2018

Macroinvertebrate community taxonomic and trait structure showed consistent differences between riffles and pools across 12 headwater streams in the Sierra Nevada (Cali

Macroinvertebrate community taxonomic and trait structure showed consistent differences between riffles and pools across 12 headwater streams in the Sierra Nevada (California) even as flows varied from wet to dry years and between seasons. Densities of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Elmidae, Orthocladiinae and Diamesinae midges, and mites were greater in riffles, whereas Tanypodinae, Chironominae, Sialis, and Pisidium were more abundant in pools. Pools had higher densities but estimated biomass was greater in riffles. Collector-gatherer and micropredator abundances were greater in pools whereas grazers, collector-filterers, and macropredators were more abundant in riffles. Stonefly shredders were most abundant in riffles but some caddis shredders were more abundant in pools. Trait state patterns were related to food resource and physical habitat differences between riffles and pools. Of the distinct pool–riffle differences we found among taxa, only about half conformed to expectations from the literature. Pool and riffle assemblages were most dissimilar at intermediate discharge and converged at low and high flows when one or the other habitat dominated. Bioassessment sampling will need to account for these flow-related differences. Benthic invertebrate communities in these mountain streams clearly differ between pools and riffles, but the relative extent of habitats and biological similarity shift with flow regime.

A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) | August 14th, 2014

Federal regulations define the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical cha

Federal regulations define the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (U.S. Congress 1986). Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the OHWM defines the lateral extent of federal jurisdiction in non-tidal waters of the United States (WoUS) in the absence of adjacent wetlands (U.S. Congress 1977). Thus, accurate and consistent OHWM delineation practices are essential for proper implementation of the CWA. The dynamic nature of stream systems and fluvial processes presents challenges for OHWM delineation. Natural sources of variability in river and stream systems (e.g., climate, sediment supply, landscape position, etc.) are compounded by direct and indirect anthropogenic sources of variability (e.g., watershed alteration, dam emplacement and removal, climate change, etc.). Thus, it is challenging to impose a consistent measure of “ordinary” high flow conditions across systems in which the hydrology and geomorphology can vary greatly in both space and time. OHWM delineation in non-perennial (i.e., intermittent and ephemeral) streams can be especially challenging. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) defines intermittent streams as having “flowing water during certain times of the year, when groundwater provides water for stream flow. During dry periods, intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow” (USACE 2012). Ephemeral streams have “flowing water only during, and for a short duration after, precipitation events in a typical year. Ephemeral stream beds are located above the water table year-round. Groundwater is not a source of water for the stream,” and “[r]unoff from rainfall is the primary source of water for stream flow” (USACE 2012). In contrast to both intermittent and ephemeral streams, perennial streams have “flowing water year-round during a typical year. The water table is located above the stream bed for most of the year,” and “[g]roundwater is the primary source of water for stream flow” (USACE 2012). Given the less persistent streamflow regimes characteristic of non- perennial streams, particularly ephemeral systems, the characterization of ordinary high water flows is perhaps more challenging than in perennially flowing systems. Moreover, depending on climate, vegetation, and other related factors, the appearance of some OHWM indicators may vary greatly between wet and dry seasons or between relatively infrequent flow events, more so than in many perennial streams. Mountainous terrain can present additional challenges to OHWM delineation. For instance, the relatively steep and confined valleys in which mountain streams commonly flow can restrict the development of some alluvial features (e.g., flood-plains, bankfull benches, etc.) that are typical of low-gradient systems and that may help to identify the OHWM. Thus, in non-perennial mountain streams, it is often difficult to determine what constitutes ordinary high water and to interpret the physical and biological indicators established and maintained by ordinary high water flows. Challenges and inconsistencies pertaining to OHWM delineation practices are becoming increasingly relevant in mountainous parts of the western U.S. in light of expanding development. This increased pressure on fluvial systems highlights the need for accurate, consistent, and repeatable OHWM delineation practices in this region. These factors, combined with the particular challenges of OHWM delineation in non-perennial mountain streams, provided the impetus for developing this delineation guide. This guide presents the concepts, field indicators, and methods for assessing, delineating, and documenting the OHWM in non-perennial streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (WMVC) Region of the United States (Figure 1). The information presented here is based on the findings of Mersel et al. (2014) (discussed in Section 1.5) and on years of field observations and data gathering in the WMVC Region and in other regions of the U.S. by the authors and other contributing experts. The remainder of Section 1 provides background information regarding the concept of the OHWM and pertaining to stream hydrology and geomorphology in general. Section 2 discusses and provides examples of the specific field indicators used to identify the OHWM in non-perennial streams in the WMVC Region. Section 3 discusses field methods for delineating the OHWM and addresses additional techniques and lines of evidence that may help in problematic delineation scenarios. The information presented here is technical guidance and does not define, amend, or replace any existing regulations, laws, or legal guidance related to the OHWM or to the regulation of WoUS. Furthermore, determining whether any stream is a jurisdictional WoUS is beyond the scope of this document and involves further assessment in accordance with regulations, case law, and clarifying guidance. This guide pertains to non-perennial streams in the WMVC Region of the U.S., and while the information presented here may have a wider applicability to other regions or to perennial rivers within the WMVC Region, this has not been tested or validated. This manual serves as a companion to A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (Lichvar and McColley 2008) as these two regions—the WMVC and the Arid West—are interspersed with one another. Best professional judgment is required to determine which manual is most appropriate for any given location within these two regions. The technical guidance presented here aims to provide an informed and consistent approach to OHWM delineation within the WMVC Region; however, OHWM delineation is not a precise practice. The OHWM can take on a variety of appearances and characteristics and may change over time due to natural or anthropogenic causes. Best professional judgment and consideration of the unique characteristics of each project site are always required.

A New Approach to Accounting for Environmental Water Insights from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | November 9th, 2017

How water is apportioned to California’s cities, farms, and the environment can lead to conflict and competition in times of drought. Allocation of water to the environ

How water is apportioned to California’s cities, farms, and the environment can lead to conflict and competition in times of drought. Allocation of water to the environment in particular is poorly accounted for and poorly understood—shortcomings that can affect water policy, decision making, and public perception. This report reviews the state’s long-standing methods for defining and accounting for environmental water and proposes reforms to improve the timeliness, transparency, and detail in the accounting of environmental water allocation.

A practical guide to environmental flows for policy and planning (with 9 case studies)

The Nature Conservancy | May 18th, 2012

Environmental flows are gaining broad recognition across the United States, and the underlying science is sufficiently developed to support regional planning and policy a

Environmental flows are gaining broad recognition across the United States, and the underlying science is sufficiently developed to support regional planning and policy applications. This report explores how six states and three interstate river basins are effectively developing and applying regionalized environmental flow criteria to water resource planning, water withdrawal permitting, and multi-dam re-operation. The broad range of approaches they relate clearly demonstrates the feasibility of integrating science-based environmental flow needs into regional water management in the absence of site-specific assessments. The case studies embrace the following principles: • Regionalized environmental flow criteria apply to all the water bodies across a state or large river basin for which site-specific criteria have not yet been established. • Flow criteria link explicitly to the health of the entire aquatic and riparian ecosystem, and are not limited to specific species. • Flow regimes mimic natural inter- and intra-annual flow variability. • The development of environmental flow criteria and the policies for their implementation are closely linked.  Defining a clear path to policy implementation from the onset ensures that the ensuing science answers the right management questions. • Flow criteria are developed through a transparent, inclusive social process informed by sound science. A structured social process for identifying, understanding, and negotiating tradeoffs is critical. To varying degrees, the Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) framework influenced each of the case studies. ELOHA is a flexible framework for determining and implementing environmental flows at the regional scale using existing hydrologic and biological information. Major components of ELOHA include a hydrologic foundation of streamflow data, classification of natural river types, flow-ecology relationships associated with each river type, and river condition goals.

A Practitioner’s Guide to Instream Flow Transactions in California

SWIFT Working Group, American Rivers, Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, Scott River Water Trust, River Right, Alford Environmental | March 1st, 2016

The purpose of this guide is to help water right holders –and those assisting them – understand their options for keeping water instream in California. Th

The purpose of this guide is to help water right holders –and those assisting them – understand their options for keeping water instream in California. This guide briefly describes some of the most common types of instream flow transactions (i.e., methods for restoring flow for environmental purposes), and discusses in detail how to navigate the process of completing an instream flow dedication by changing a water right, as permitted by Water Code Section 1707. The intended audience for this document includes both water rights holders and practitioners, such as staff for land trusts, water trusts, Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs), and other organizations. This guide focuses on instream dedications via the change petition process administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). Other publications – for example, the Trust for Public Land’s Water Acquisition Handbook (2003) – provide a more general overview of acquiring water for environmental purposes in California. This guide will provide a description of the change petition process, and offer advice on how to navigate, troubleshoot, and work in partnership with the State Water Board and other natural resource agencies to complete an instream flow dedication.

Adapting to Change: Utility Systems and Declining Flows

California Urban Water Agencies (CUWA) | November 1st, 2017

During the recent historic drought, Californians responded to the call for emergency statewide water use reductions, which the state has recognized as a highly su

During the recent historic drought, Californians responded to the call for emergency statewide water use reductions, which the state has recognized as a highly successful outcome. However, this significant reduction in water demands has brought to light some unintended consequences of declining flows that ripple throughout the interconnected urban water cycle. These observations offer a preview into the potential impact of establishing permanent indoor water use targets at or below the thresholds achieved as a result of the governor’s emergency conservation mandate. California’s water industry leaders, including regulators and purveyors, are working to understand the system-wide impacts of increased conservation so that decision makers are better informed as they address California’s current and future water challenges. Through a partnership with California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA), Water Research Foundation(WRF), WateReuse California, and California Water Environment Association(CWEA), California WaterUrban Agencies(CUWA) has developed this white paper to provide decisionmakers, water/wastewater system managers, and other stakeholders an understanding of the impacts of declining flows resulting from substantial reductions in indoor water use and how utilities are adapting to these circumstances.

An overview of multi-dimensional models of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

San Francisco Estuary & Watershed Science (UC Davis) | December 1st, 2016

Over the past fifteen years, the development and application of models in San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta has transformed our ability to analyze an

Over the past fifteen years, the development and application of models in San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta has transformed our ability to analyze and understand the underlying physics of the system. Initial applications of three-dimensional models focused primarily on salt intrusion, and provided a valuable resource for investigating how sea level rise and levee failures in the Delta could influence water quality in the Delta in the future. However, multi-dimensional models have also provided significant insights into some of the fundamental biological relationships that have shaped our thinking about the system by exploring the relationship between X2, flow, fish abundance, and the low salinity zone. Through modeling, it has been possible to move beyond salinity to understand how large-scale changes to the system are likely to affect sediment dynamics, and to assess the potential effects on species that rely on turbidity for habitat. Lastly, the coupling of multi-dimensional hydrodynamic models with particle tracking models has led to advances in our thinking about residence time, the retention of food organisms, the effect of south Delta exports on larval entrainment, and the pathways and behaviors of salmonids that travel through the Delta. This chapter provides an overview of these recent advances and how they have increased our understanding of the distribution and movement of fish and food organisms. The applications presented serve as a guide to the current state of the science of Delta modeling and provide examples of how we can use multidimensional models to predict how future Delta conditions will affect both fish and water supply.  

Bay Delta Plan Phase 2 Workshop Summary Report

California State Water Resources Control Board | January 1st, 2013

The California State Water Resources Control Board (Board) is tasked with updating the 2006 Water Quality Control Plan for the Bay-Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan). The Boa

The California State Water Resources Control Board (Board) is tasked with updating the 2006 Water Quality Control Plan for the Bay-Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan). The Board planning activities for this process have four phases. Phase 1 focused on San Joaquin River flow requirements and southern Delta water quality objectives. The current phase (Phase 2) focuses on fish and wildlife beneficial uses. Phase 3 will focus on modifications to water rights and Phase 4 will focus on the development and implementation of flow requirements for priority Delta tributaries. Phase 2 workshops were held to conduct discussions and generate information regarding the scientific and technical basis for considering potential changes to the Bay-Delta Plan. The workshops were informal; the Board did not take any official action and there was no sworn testimony. Information provided during the workshops will augment information developed through earlier reviews and will inform the Board members and staff on what, if any, changes should be made to the Bay-Delta Plan. Three workshops were held. Full workshop agendas are provided in Appendix A. 1. Ecosystem Changes and the Low Salinity Zone, September 5–6, 2012 – including the effects of the low salinity zone on various estuarine species, the interaction of salinity with non-flow related factors, and the identification of modeling or other tools that can be used to measure and reasonably protect estuarine habitat. 2. Bay-Delta Fishery Resources, October 1–2, 2012 – including flow, cold water pool, habitat, and water project operational constraints needed to reasonably protect Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River winter-run, Central Valley late fall–run Chinook salmon, and pelagic species (including Delta smelt and longfin smelt); and the interaction of these issues with non-flow related factors. 3. Analytical Tools for Evaluating the Water Supply, Hydrodynamic, and Hydropower Effects of the Bay-Delta Plan, November 13–14, 2012 – including the CalSim II water supply model, DSM2 and RMA2 hydrodynamic models, Plexus hydropower model, and others as  applicable, together with results from applying these models to various scenarios.

Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan (Bay Delta Plan)

California State Water Resources Control Board | December 13th, 2006

"Bay Delta Plan" is short for the State Water Resources Control Board's (State Water Board) San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary Water Quality Control P

"Bay Delta Plan" is short for the State Water Resources Control Board's (State Water Board) San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary Water Quality Control Plan. The Bay-Delta Plan identifies the beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta, water quality objectives for the reasonable protection of those beneficial uses, and a program of implementation for achieving the objectives. The Bay-Delta Plan, when implemented, can determine the amount and timing of water entering and moving through the Delta. The State Water Board holds dual responsibilities of allocating surface water rights and protecting water quality. The State Water Board allocates water through an administrative system that is intended to maximize the beneficial uses of water while protecting the public trust, serving the public interest, and preventing the waste and unreasonable use or method of diversion of water. While most water quality control planning is done by the Regional Water Boards, the State Water Board has authority to adopt statewide water quality control plans. The State Water Board adopts the Bay-Delta Plan because of the Delta's importance as a major source of water supply for the state. The Bay-Delta Plan protects water quality in the region and includes water quality objectives to protect fish and wildlife beneficial uses through inflows to the Delta from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and Delta outflows, in addition to objectives for salinity to protect agricultural beneficial uses. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is in the process of a phased review and update of the 2006 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta) (referred to as the 2006 Bay-Delta Plan). To learn more about the Bay-Delta Plan, click here. In 2009, the State Water Board began the process of reviewing and likely revising the 2006 Bay Delta Plan.  At the time of the archiving of this document, that update process still continues.  For the latest information, click here to visit the State Water Resources Control Board page for the Bay-Delta Plan Update.. RELATED DOCUMENT: Water Rights Decision 1641, the document that implements the 1995 Bay Delta Plan and is still in force.

Bulletin No. 5, Flow in California Streams, Being Appendix "A" to Report to Legislature of 1923 on the Water Resources of California

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 1st, 1923