Dam removal and anadromous salmonid (Oncorhynchus spp.) conservation in California

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries (Springer) | June 4th, 2014

Dam removal is often proposed for restoration of anadromous salmonid populations, which are in serious decline in California. However, the benefits of dam removal vary du

Dam removal is often proposed for restoration of anadromous salmonid populations, which are in serious decline in California. However, the benefits of dam removal vary due to differences in affected populations and potential for environmental impacts. Here, we develop an assessment method to examine the relationship between dam removal and salmonid conservation, focusing on dams that act as complete migration barriers. Specifically, we (1) review the effects of dams on anadromous salmonids, (2) describe factors specific to dam removal in California, (3) propose a method to evaluate dam removal effects on salmonids, (4) apply this method to evaluate 24 dams, and (5) discuss potential effects of removing four dams on the Klamath River. Our flexible rating system can rapidly assess the likely effects of dam removal, as a first step in the prioritization of multiple dam removals. We rated eight dams proposed for removal and compared them with another 16 dams, which are not candidates for removal. Twelve of the 24 dams evaluated had scores that indicated at least a moderate benefit to salmonids following removal. In particular, scores indicated that removal of the four dams on the Klamath River is warranted for salmonid conservation. Ultimately, all dams will be abandoned, removed, or rebuilt even if the timespan is hundreds of years. Thus, periodic evaluation of the environmental benefits of dam removal is needed using criteria such as those presented in this paper.

Decision on Petition for Rulemaking to Set Permanent Minimum Flows on the Shasta River

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | February 16th, 2024

Delta Fish Agreement

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | December 30th, 1986

On December 30, 1986, the Directors of CDFW and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) signed an agreement to provide for offsetting fishery impacts caused by the divers

On December 30, 1986, the Directors of CDFW and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) signed an agreement to provide for offsetting fishery impacts caused by the diversion of water at the Harvey O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant (Banks), located at the head of the California Aqueduct near Tracy, California. The agreement, currently referred to as the Delta Fish Agreement (DFA or Agreement) (PDF), was previously known as the Delta Pumping Plant Fish Protection Agreement or Four Pumps Agreement because it was adopted as part of the mitigation package to add four additional pumps to Banks during the late 1980’s. Direct losses of Chinook salmon, steelhead, and striped bass are offset or mitigated through the funding and implementation of fish mitigation projects.

Delta Independent Science Board -- Comments on the Sacramento / Delta Draft Staff Report

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | January 19th, 2024

Delta Operations for Salmonids and Sturgeon (DOSS) Technical Working Group

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | November 1st, 2018

Delta smelt resiliency strategy

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 11th, 2016

The Delta Smelt Resiliency Strategy (Strategy) is a science-based document that has been prepared by the State of California (State) to voluntarily address both immediate

The Delta Smelt Resiliency Strategy (Strategy) is a science-based document that has been prepared by the State of California (State) to voluntarily address both immediate and near-term needs of Delta Smelt, to promote their resiliency to drought conditions as well as future variations in habitat conditions. The Strategy relies on the MAST Report and Conceptual Models (IEP 2015) to articulate a suite of actions that can be implemented in the next few years that are intended to benefit Delta Smelt. Although the feasibility and effectiveness of each action included in the Strategy requires further exploration and study, the Strategy is an aggressive approach to implementing any actions that can be implemented in the near term, can be implemented by the State with minimal involvement of other entities, and have the potential to benefit Delta Smelt. State agencies that could implement this Strategy include Department of Water Resources (DWR), Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), and Division of Boating and Waterways (DBW). Several of the actions identified in this Strategy could also benefit other species, and coordination across various resource management agencies as appropriate may allow for benefits beyond Delta Smelt. All of the actions will be in compliance with applicable laws, including the Federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species Act, California Environmental Quality Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Federal Clean Water Act. The Collaborative Science and Adaptive Management Program (CSAMP) will be used to determine the appropriate research approach to designing and assessing the outcomes of these management actions individually and synergistically. Additionally, it is expected that the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) would participate in the implementation of this Strategy, including providing enhanced outflows in 2016.

Demographic predictors of urinary arsenic in a low-income predominantly Hispanic pregnancy cohort in Los Angeles

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology (Springer) | July 27th, 2020

Arsenic (As) is a contaminant of top public health concern, due to its range of detrimental health effects. Arsenic exposure has not been well-characterized among the US

Arsenic (As) is a contaminant of top public health concern, due to its range of detrimental health effects. Arsenic exposure has not been well-characterized among the US Hispanic populations and has been particularly understudied in this population during pregnancy. As part of the MADRES ongoing pregnancy cohort of predominantly lower-income, Hispanic women in Los Angeles, CA, we examined levels of maternal first trimester urinary As, including total As and As metabolites (inorganic (iAs), monomethylated (MMA) and dimethylated As (DMA)), in relation to participant demographics, lifestyle characteristics, and rice/seafood consumption, to identify factors that may influence As exposure and its metabolites during pregnancy (N = 241). Total As concentrations ranged from low to high (0.8–506.2 μg/L, mean: 9.0 μg/L, SD: 32.9) in our study population. Foreign-born Hispanic women had 8.6% higher %DMA (95% CI: 3.3%, 13.9%) and −7.7% lower %iAs (95% CI: −12.6%, −2.9%) than non-Hispanic women. A similar trend was observed for US-born Hispanic women. In addition, maternal age was associated with 0.4% higher %iAs (95% CI: 0.1%, 0.6%) and 0.4% lower %DMA (95% CI: −0.7%, −0.1%) per year, which may indicate poor As methylation capacity. Individual factors may predict As exposure and metabolism in pregnancy, and in turn, greater risk of adverse health effects.

Department of Fish and Game Rationale for Effects of Exports

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | November 2nd, 2011

This document describes the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) methodology to quantify the surface area in the Sacramento – San Joaquin delta estuary (Delta)

This document describes the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) methodology to quantify the surface area in the Sacramento – San Joaquin delta estuary (Delta) that is impacted by the operations of the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) pumping facilities. In order to estimate the mitigation required to offset direct and indirect losses of Fish Species due to impacts to surface acres of aquatic habitat in the Delta accounted to the SWP Delta Pumping Facilities operations, DFG used an analysis based on conclusions and information contained in a manuscript that utilizes the Delta Simulation Model-2 Particle Tracking Model (DSM2PTM) (Kimmerer and Nobriga, 2008). This methodology provides the general loss of “particles” to the Delta which is a surrogate for loss of productivity and fish life stages vulnerable to these effects.

Development of Flow Criteria for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Ecosystem

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | August 4th, 2010

Water Code section 85086 (See Appendix B), contained in the Delta Reform Act, was enacted as part of the comprehensive package of water legislation adopted in November 20

Water Code section 85086 (See Appendix B), contained in the Delta Reform Act, was enacted as part of the comprehensive package of water legislation adopted in November 2009. Water Code section 85086 requires the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to use the best available scientific information gathered as part of a public process conducted as an informational proceeding to develop new flow criteria for the Delta ecosystem to protect public trust resources. The purpose of the flow criteria is to inform planning decisions for the Delta Plan and the BDCP. The Legislature intended to establish an accelerated process to determine the instream flow needs of the Delta in order to facilitate the planning decisions required to meet the objectives of the Delta Plan. Accordingly, Water Code section 85086 requires the State Water Board to develop the flow criteria within nine months of enactment of the statute and to submit its flow criteria determinations to the Council within 30 days of their development. This report, required by Water Code section 85086(c) (2009 Delta Reform Act) in 2010, suggests the flows that would be needed in the Delta ecosystem if fishery protection was the sole purpose for which its waters were put to beneficial use. In keeping with the narrow focus of the legislation, this report only presents a technical assessment of flow and operational requirements to provide fishery protection under existing conditions.  

Dioxin Issue Paper: Expert Panel Response and Recommendations

Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) | February 11th, 2010

Congeners of dioxins and furans have been found in the San Francisco Bay in several species of fish sometimes used for human consumption, causing the State of California

Congeners of dioxins and furans have been found in the San Francisco Bay in several species of fish sometimes used for human consumption, causing the State of California to issue an interim fish consumption advisory. This fish consumption advisory has been used by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California as a basis for placing the Bay on the State’s list of impaired waterways required by the Clean Water Act. As a consequence, water quality-based discharge limits for dioxins are now being placed into NPDES permits for dischargers to the Bay where dioxins or furans have been detected in effluents. At the request of the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA), an association of municipal wastewater treatment utilities, the San Francisco Estuary Institute convened a panel of three qualified experts to review the factual case and to make recommendations. As a starting point, BACWA prepared a draft “Dioxin Issue Paper” on February 15, 2008, detailing the environmental problem, the regulatory context, and the specific  difficulties presented by dioxin-related effluent limits in permits. The draft Dioxin Issue Paper also outlined an array of possible regulatory strategies which might help resolve the difficulties faced by dischargers, ranging from strategies related to impairment listing to strategies related to NPDES permit issuance. Panel members were asked to review the draft Dioxin Issue Paper, make recommendations for improvement, and respond to a number of questions posed by the San Francisco Estuary Institute. The Panel met in Oakland, California, on February 22, 2008, at the San Francisco Estuary Institute. We were joined by representatives of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the US Environmental Protection Agency, BACWA, and others with expertise in the field. Subsequently, we held numerous conference calls and agreed that we would address the questions posed by the Institute in both short- and long-term contexts. For the short term, we agreed upon recommendations that could help alleviate some of the dioxin-related regulatory difficulties faced by municipal wastewater treatment plants. For the long-term, however, we agreed that the problems faced by the dischargers are best addressed by solutions for the dioxin contamination problems in the Bay as a whole. We therefore also agreed to recommend a series of steps towards developing an integrated multi-media strategy for reducing dioxin levels in the San Francisco Bay.