Independent Panel Review of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan prepared for The Nature Conservancy and American Rivers

Nature Conservancy | September 19th, 2013

Two non-­governmental organizations, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and American Rivers (AR), are evaluating their options for engagement with the Bay Delta Conservation P

Two non-­governmental organizations, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and American Rivers (AR), are evaluating their options for engagement with the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). If approved, the Plan would become a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under the federal Endangered Species Act and a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) under California law. The purpose of the Plan is to allow for construction of new water diversion facilities in the Sacramento-­San Joaquin Delta while also protecting aquatic and terrestrial species that may be adversely affected by the project and accompanying changes in the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) operations. The Plan also includes habitat restoration and a commitment to assist in the conservation and recovery of species that are listed for protection under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. With financial support from the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, Saracino and Mount, LLC, convened an independent panel of experts, with technical support from NewFields, Inc., to evaluate portions of the Plan. The panel, working jointly with TNC and AR, developed a series of technical and legal questions about the Plan. This report provides answers to these questions, along with limited recommendations on how to improve BDCP. To simplify analysis, this review focuses on conditions for federally listed fishes during the Early Long Term (ELT), a decade after a permit would be issued (approximately year 2025). These are described in detail in the BDCP Effects Analysis and accompanying Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. We compared the performance of three different scenarios: a No Action Alternative (NAA) where no new North Delta diversion facility is constructed, a High Outflow Scenario (HOS) where the facilities are operated in a way that allows for occasional high spring and fall outflows, and a Low Outflow Scenario (LOS) with lower spring and fall outflows. The review also emphasizes in-­Delta and Sacramento River watershed conditions during the ELT, with less attention to San Joaquin River conditions and fishes. Although multiple data sources were used in this analysis, most hydrologic data came from CALSIM simulations conducted by BDCP consultants. The Panel strongly cautions about the conclusions drawn from these simulations. Flow simulations have three compounding uncertainties that can lead to significant error: (1) uncertainty in system understanding and future conditions, (2) model uncertainties (particularly the relationships between 1-­, 2-­, and 3-­dimensional models), and (3) behavioral/regulatory uncertainty where the models cannot capture the scope of human behavior in operating the projects under various conditions. These uncertainties, which are not described in BDCP documents well, makes all of our conclusions contingent on the projects actually being operated as simulated.

Independent Review Panel (IRP) Report for the 2014 Long-Term Operations Biological Opinions (LOBO) Annual Science Review

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | December 1st, 2014

Independent Review Panel (IRP) Report for the 2015 Long-Term Operations Biological Opinions (LOBO) Annual Science Review

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | December 1st, 2015

This report presents findings and opinions of the Independent Review Panel (IRP) assembled by the Delta Science Program to inform the National Marine Fisheries Service (N

This report presents findings and opinions of the Independent Review Panel (IRP) assembled by the Delta Science Program to inform the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) as to the efficacy of water operations and certain regulatory actions prescribed by their respective Long-term Operations Biological Opinions’ (LOBO) Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Actions (RPAs) as applied from October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015 (Water Year 2015).  This year’s annual review focused primarily on: (1) Shasta Reservoir and Sacramento River temperature monitoring, modeling, and management, (2) the River Assessment for Forecasting Temperature (RAFT) decision support tool (model), (3) an Enhanced Particle Tracking Model (E-PTM), and (4) a USFWS report on past, present, and future approaches to incidental take of Delta Smelt.  After reviewing a required set of written documents (Appendix 1), the IRP convened at a public workshop in Sacramento, CA on 5-6 November 2015. The first day of the 2-day workshop included agency presentations and provided a forum for the IRP to interact and consider information presented on water operations, temperature modeling, monitoring and RPA Actions as implemented in yet another critically dry 2015 water year. On the second day, the IRP deliberated in a private session beginning at 9:00 a.m. in order to prepare and present their initial findings at the public workshop at 2:00 p.m., after which there was an opportunity for agency representatives, members of the public, and the IRP members to comment and otherwise exchange impressions and information. Subsequent IRP communication and deliberations were conducted via email and conference calls in the course of drafting this final report. Click here for federal agency response letter

Independent Review Panel (IRP) Report for the 2017 Long-term Operations Biological Opinions (LOBO) Biennial Science Review (January 24, 2018)

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | January 31st, 2018

Independent Review Panel Report for the 2016 California WaterFix Aquatic Science Peer Review

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | May 12th, 2016

This report presents the findings of the 2016 California WaterFix Aquatic Science Peer Review. An Independent Review Panel was convened by the Delta Science Program to pr

This report presents the findings of the 2016 California WaterFix Aquatic Science Peer Review. An Independent Review Panel was convened by the Delta Science Program to provide the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) with an independent scientific evaluation of the methods and approaches for developing the joint Biological Opinion requirements and analyses prepared for the CDFW 2081(b) Incidental Take Permit application for the California WaterFix. The Panel was charged with reviewing: (1) selected sections of the Biological Assessment (BA) that seeks to predict the effects of the WaterFix project on Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species and their designated critical habitats, (2) the draft Analytical Approach to developing the joint Biological Opinion (AABO) and (3) the proposed methods for assessing project effects on Longfin Smelt. After reviewing a set of documents (Appendix 1), the Panel participated in a public meeting in Sacramento, CA on April 5-6, 2016. On the first day of this meeting, the Panel interacted with agency representatives following their presentations on the three topics above. On day 2, the Panel communicated and discussed its preliminary findings to agency representatives and the public. This report summarizes the Panel’s findings and recommendations in full detail.

Instream flow evaluation: Temperature and passage assessment for salmonids in Mill Creek, Tehama County

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | May 8th, 2017

Mill Creek is among the essential streams for recovery and perpetuation of wild stocks of Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and support

Mill Creek is among the essential streams for recovery and perpetuation of wild stocks of Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and supports Central Valley steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss; Armentrout et al. 1998). In addition, Mill Creek is utilized by fall-run Chinook salmon, late fall-run Chinook salmon, and Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus). The Recovery Plan for Central Valley Chinook Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2014) classified Mill Creek as a high priority Core 1 watershed because of its potential to support independent viable populations. Mill Creek is also identified as a priority stream in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Instream Flow Studies for the Protection of the Public Trust Resources: A Prioritized Schedule and Estimate of Cost (SWRCB 2010), and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Final Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program: A Plan to Increase Natural Production of Anadromous Fish in the Central Valley of California (USFWS 2001). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has interest in ensuring that water flows within streams are maintained at levels which are adequate for long-term protection, maintenance, and proper stewardship of fish and wildlife resources. The Department’s Instream Flow Program develops scientific information to determine what flows are needed to maintain healthy conditions for fish and wildlife. For each species of interest, life stage, and stream, relationships between flow and habitat are developed. The Department recommends using the federal Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) to evaluate and develop instream flow criteria for projects which may affect California’s aquatic resources. The IFIM process, and instream flow evaluations, in general, should include broad consideration of the structure and function of riverine systems while also providing examination of five core components (i.e., hydrology, biology, geomorphology, water quality, and connectivity) of the riverine system. The Public Resources Code (PRC) §10000-10005 outlines the Department’s responsibilities for developing and transmitting flow criteria to the SWRCB for consideration as set forth in 1257.5 of the Water Code. The results from this study are intended to be used, along with other supporting information and data, to identify stream flow requirements necessary for upstream passage of adult Chinook salmon and steelhead into the upper Mill Creek watershed pursuant to the Department’s PRC mandate. Flow criteria for lower Mill Creek will be developed by the Department in a future document.

Interagency Fish Passage Steering Committee 2014 Annual Report Focusing on the Shasta Dam Fish Passage Evaluation

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | July 1st, 2014

Interim instream flow criteria for the protection of fishery resources in the Scott River watershed, Siskiyou County

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | February 6th, 2017

This document describes the methods and results of an analysis using historical flow data and regional regression relationships to develop interim instream flow criteria

This document describes the methods and results of an analysis using historical flow data and regional regression relationships to develop interim instream flow criteria suitable for anadromous fish in the Scott River watershed in Siskiyou County. The Scott River watershed provides aquatic habitat for four species of anadromous fish; Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coho Salmon (O. kisutch), steelhead trout (O. mykiss), and Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata). Specifically, the Scott River is one of the most important Coho Salmon spawning and rearing tributaries in the Klamath River watershed. Instream flow requirements can be generated from flow standard setting techniques or from the results of site specific studies. The interim instream flow criteria presented for the Scott River were developed using flow standard setting techniques. Stream flow standards derived from standard setting techniques are designed to identify the environmental resource in need of flow protection, identify biologically significant criterion that can be used to measure potential flow related impacts, and specify the amount of flow required to protect the resource. Most individual standards evaluate only one or more, but not all the criterion needed to fully evaluate the flow needs of an aquatic species. This limitation can lead to prescribing a single minimum threshold or “flat-line” affect (Poff et al. 1997). The seasonal and inter-annual variability in the hydrograph must be maintained to protect stream ecology and provide an ecosystem based standard (Annear 2004). To account for the seasonal and the inter-annual hydrologic variability of the Scott River, the Department applied a detailed hydrologic analysis along with application of three standard setting methods to evaluate the life history flow needs of salmonids in the Scott River near Fort Jones. Adult fish passage was estimated using the equation developed by R2 Resources (R2 2008) for the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) North Coast Instream Flow Policy (SWRCB 2014), spawning and juvenile rearing were evaluated using the Hatfield and Bruce regional equations (Hatfield and Bruce 2000), and the results were adjusted monthly based on estimates of unimpaired hydrology using Tessmann’s adaptation (Tessmann 1980) of the Tennant or Montana Method (Tennant 1975).

Juvenile Production Estimate (JPE) Calculation and Use/Application of Survival Data from Acoustically-tagged Chinook Salmon Releases Report

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | February 21st, 2014

Each year, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) estimates the number of juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon expected to enter the Delta. NMFS’ June 4, 2009

Each year, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) estimates the number of juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon expected to enter the Delta. NMFS’ June 4, 2009, biological and conference opinion on the long-term operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project provides an incidental take limit on natural juvenile winter-run based on the juvenile production estimate.

Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of Water Use Conflicts

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | June 13th, 2002

Severe drought in 2001 affected the Klamath River Basin, an area on the California-Oregon border, exacerbating competition for scarce water resources and generating confl

Severe drought in 2001 affected the Klamath River Basin, an area on the California-Oregon border, exacerbating competition for scarce water resources and generating conflict among several interests – farmers, municipal and industrial users, commercial and sport fishermen, other recreationists, federal wildlife refuges, environmental groups, and Indian Tribes. The conflicts over water distribution and allocation are physically and legally complex, reflecting the varied and sometimes competing uses of limited water supplies in the Upper Basin. On April 6, 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), which has supplied water to farms in the Upper Basin for nearly 100 years, announced that “no water [would] be available” for farms normally receiving water from the Upper Klamath Lake, so that scarce water could be used to protect species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Water was available to some farmers from other sources (e.g., wells and other Bureau sources); however, many farmers were not able to plant or harvest crops due to severe cutbacks in water supplies. Emotions ran high on all sides of the issues, and the water control gates were unlawfully opened by protesters. Although the Basin has received significantly more precipitation in 2002, many issues remain in dispute. In addition, several judicial decisions have affected the issues with respect to the listed species as well as tribal rights. On May 31, 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service both issued Final Biological Opinions on the Bureau’s 10-year Operation Plan for the Klamath Project. The agencies found that the Bureau’s proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the two listed suckers and coho salmon, as well as result in the adverse modification of proposed critical habitat; however, both Opinions also included “reasonable and prudent alternatives” for operating the Project that would remove the jeopardizing effects of the proposed action. However, on June 3, 2002, the Bureau formally rejected both Final Biological Opinions, but opted instead to operate under a one-year plan that it asserts complies with the Opinions. Independently, in March 2002, the President appointed a high-level working group to develop solutions. Congress has responded to the controversy in a number of ways, including holding several oversight hearings and appropriating funds for water conservation activities in the area. This report provides background on the geographic, historic, and legal underpinnings of the current conflicts. Because the report focuses on the current conflicts, it deals primarily with Klamath Project operations in the Upper Klamath Basin and effects associated with water releases from Upper Klamath Lake.