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.

Integrated Water Operations in California: Hydropower, Overdraft, and Climate Change

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | July 16th, 2015

Several management and climate cases are evaluated with the updated CALVIN, a hydro-economic optimization model of California’s inter-tied water supply infrastructure.

Several management and climate cases are evaluated with the updated CALVIN, a hydro-economic optimization model of California’s inter-tied water supply infrastructure. Updates to the CALVIN model include new projected 2050 agricultural target demands and scarcity penalties, improvements to network-flow representation, especially agricultural, urban, and wildlife refuge demands, and extended surface and ground water hydrology, now covering an 82-year historical inflow hydrology. A new energy price scheme is applied to CALVIN, which incorporates hourly energy price variations into monthly CALVIN operations. Using one constant average price for a month underestimates hydropower revenue and overestimates pumping costs. Hourly-varying moving average prices improved representation of hydropower revenue without creating significant scarcities to agricultural and urban water users. Effects of ending long-term groundwater overdraft in the Central Valley are evaluated with several management cases using CALVIN. The cases include effects of Delta outflow and Delta exports from a “no overdraft” policy. The least cost overdraft that minimizes groundwater pumping and scarcity costs is calculated for the 82-year period. Prohibiting Delta exports result in severe water scarcities south of the Delta. Water operations are more economical when overdraft is ended with adaptations, such as more Delta exports, increased groundwater banking, and water trades, than historical operations with overdraft. Finally, climate change effects under a warmer and drier climate scenario are studied and results are compared to historical hydrology. A drier and warmer climate shifts the timing and magnitude of stream flows. Spring snowmelt decreases and winter flows increase. Modelled reduction in rim inflows averages about 28%. This warmer-drier climate increases water scarcities, but adverse effects can be diminished with water sales, higher Delta exports, more conjunctive use, and wastewater recycling. 

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

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

Interbasin water transfers in the United States and Canada

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | January 13th, 2023

Interbasin water transfers (IBTs) can have a significant impact on the environment, water availability, and economies within the basins importing and exporting water, as

Interbasin water transfers (IBTs) can have a significant impact on the environment, water availability, and economies within the basins importing and exporting water, as well as basins downstream of these water transfers. The lack of comprehensive data identifying and describing IBTs inhibits understanding of the role IBTs play in supplying water for society, as well as their collective hydrologic impact. We develop three connected datasets inventorying IBTs in the United States and Canada, including their features, geospatial details, and water transfer volumes. We surveyed the academic and gray literature, as well as local, state, and federal water agencies, to collect, process, and verify IBTs in Canada and the United States. Our comprehensive IBT datasets represent all known transfers of untreated water that cross subregion (US) or subdrainage area (CA) boundaries, characterizing a total of 641 IBT projects. The infrastructure-level data made available by these data products can be used to close water budgets, connect water supplies to water use, and better represent human impacts within hydrologic and ecosystem models.

Issue Paper for the San Joaquin River spring-run Chinook experimental population – Delta impacts

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | July 23rd, 2013

It is Time to Expand the Geography of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

Utah State University | December 2nd, 2024

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.

Kern Water Bank: Myth and Reality

Kern Water Bank Authority | September 21st, 2010

A recent lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity claims that the Kern Water Bank was a “ripoff’ that benefited a few large farms in the Central Valley, t

A recent lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity claims that the Kern Water Bank was a “ripoff’ that benefited a few large farms in the Central Valley, to the detriment of the state of California. Numerous media outlets have reported on this lawsuit, reciting almost word for word from the CBD’s press release, despite the fact that the lawsuit has yet to be heard and none of the claims in the lawsuit have been substantiated by a court. The following is the response by the Kern Water Bank Authority to the misinformation and erroneous reporting surrounding the Kern Water Bank and the lawsuit filed by CBD.

Klamath Basin Settlement Agreements

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | October 21st, 2015

The Klamath River Basin on the California-Oregon border is a focal point for local and national discussions on water allocation and species protection. Previously, water

The Klamath River Basin on the California-Oregon border is a focal point for local and national discussions on water allocation and species protection. Previously, water and species management issues have exacerbated competition and generated conflict among several interests—farmers; Indian tribes; commercial and sport fishermen; federal water project and wildlife refuge managers; environmental groups; hydropower facility operators; and state, local, and tribal governments. Drought conditions and a call for water by senior water rights holders in 2013 have again brought these issues to the forefront. In 2010, the Secretary of the Interior and the governors of Oregon and California, along with multiple interest groups, announced the results of a multiyear negotiation process to resolve long-standing issues in the basin: two interrelated agreements, supported by the federal government and signed by the two states and numerous other parties. These agreements, known as the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), together aim to provide for water deliveries to irrigators and wildlife refuges, fish habitat restoration, and numerous other related actions. Generally, the KBRA provides for actions intended to restore Klamath fisheries and for assurances for water deliveries to wildlife refuges and federal project irrigators under certain circumstances, among other things. The KHSA lays out a process that could lead to the removal of four privately owned dams on the Klamath River. This dam removal would be one of the largest and most complex projects of its kind ever undertaken. Some parts of the Klamath agreements are being carried out under existing authorities. Studies to inform a determination on dam removal under the KHSA by the Secretary of the Interior are complete, and some restoration actions have been initiated. However, congressional authorization is required for the most significant components of the agreements to be implemented. The KBRA and KHSA did not address all outstanding issues in the basin. A water rights adjudication by the state of Oregon (in progress since the 1970s) is ongoing. In 2013, the adjudication reaffirmed “time immemorial” tribal water rights in the upper part of the Klamath Basin, confirming that tribal water rights are senior to those of other water rights holders. This resulted in a “call” on water rights (i.e., notice by senior water rights holders that their demands exceed available flows), and led to reductions to water supplies for some junior users during the low water year of 2013. To resolve these issues and prevent such a scenario from occurring again, a separate settlement agreement (the Upper Klamath Basin Settlement Agreement) was negotiated by stakeholders and finalized in April 2014. To be implemented, the agreement would need to be authorized along with the KBRA and KHSA. The KBRA and KHSA were originally set to expire in 2012 if no authorizing legislation was enacted, but they have since been extended (most recently through 2015). Parties may also withdraw individually from the agreements, and several parties initiated this process of withdrawal. In the 114th Congress, S. 133 would authorize the Klamath agreements, including a suite of new federal actions that have received support from disparate parties and are required for the agreements to be implemented. Previous legislation in the 113th Congress (S. 2379) was ordered to be reported out of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on November 13, 2014.

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.