Sierra frogs breed insight on river management

AppId is over the quota AppId is over the quota  A foothill yellow-legged frog in the shallows of the north fork Feather River. Photo by Ryan Peek/UC Davis CWS

By Sarah Yarnell, hydrologist, UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences

When dam operators schedule outflows to satisfy their downstream environmental obligations, they typically want to know, “How much?”

How much cold mountain water must Shasta Dam release to preserve the Sacramento River’s imperiled winter run of salmon? How much fresh Sierra water must flow out of New Melones Dam to dilute environmentally harmful salinity levels in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta?

The “just add water” recipe, however, is not a cure-all for endangered aquatic species. Increasingly, studies have shown that the pattern of flows from dams can matter as much as the volume.

Consider the foothill yellow-legged frog. It’s a rare frog, the only one in California that breeds exclusively in streams and rivers – not ponds or lakes. Its life strategy evolved to fit the seasonal pattern of river flows in our Mediterranean climate: flush with snowmelt runoff in the spring and anemic through the summer and early fall.

In the Sierra Nevada, early spring is no time for these fist-sized amphibians to breed. Erratic torrents of snowmelt in river channels would wipe out egg masses, which are attached to submerged rocks in the shallows. Mid-spring is no better. Fast-dwindling flows would leave the eggs and tadpoles high and dry. The frog’s sweet spot for reproduction then is usually late spring – late April to June – a period of moderate, gradually declining flows known to hydrologists as the annual “spring snowmelt recession.”

This recession has ecological benefits beyond reproductive cues for the river-breeding frogs. As flows gradually decline, rivers interact with their floodplains, delivering nutrients and providing habitat for aquatic bugs, fish and amphibians. Recession rates also can influence the shape of river bars and how riparian shrubs and trees take root. The magnitude, timing and rate of change of the springtime flows all affect the diversity of native habitat and species in mountain rivers across the western United States.

The importance of the spring snowmelt recession, though, has only recently gained the attention of water managers – mostly in the federal relicensing of northern Sierra hydroelectric projects. In the past two years, negotiators have preliminarily agreed to modify springtime flows to be more like natural rivers.

River flows below dams are unnatural. The typical seasonal hydrograph shows a sharp drop from the peak spring flow to the low, flat-lined summer flows. This abrupt change is the ecological equivalent of pulling the rug out from under the frogs, which see the season suddenly jump from winter to summer. Submerged egg masses and tadpoles are now stranded in the sun. They’re history.

Eggs masses laid by the foothill yellow-legged frog cling to submerged river rocks, as shown here in the north fork Feather River. Photo by Ryan Peek/UC Davis CWS

The foothill yellow-legged frog has disappeared from much of its range in California. Scientists attribute the decline to the unnatural river flows below dams, among other factors. Few knew of the frog’s plight in the northern Sierra until biologists started monitoring their populations on several dammed rivers.

On the north fork of the Feather River, frog surveys grew out of a 2000 legal settlement dictating future operations of Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s Rock Creek and Cresta hydropower dams in Plumas National Forest. PG&E also agreed to intermittently release high flows for whitewater enthusiasts once a month in the summer, beginning in 2002.

These “recreational” pulses were surreal. Boaters paddled roller-coaster rapids and raft-flipping drops along a stretch that only hours earlier could be waded.

Meanwhile, the frog populations were plummeting.

Scientists monitoring the river found that the whitewater pulses released from the Cresta Dam had flushed tadpoles and other small aquatic species downstream, wiping out a year’s reproduction. At the same time, tadpole production remained stable below the Poe Dam, just downstream of Cresta Dam, without pulsed flows.

Although the cause of the frog’s decline was not definitive, the Forest Service in 2005 suspended the whitewater releases as a precaution. The foothill yellow-legged frog was already under the agency’s watch as a federal “species of special concern” because of population declines in the 1990s.

Parties in the relicensing settlement labored to devise a new flow regime that offered boating opportunities without harming frogs, fish and aquatic life.

Templates for environmental flows from dams are limited. A century-old California Fish & Game law simply requires “sufficient water at all times” to the keep fish below dams “in good condition.” About 15 years ago, operators of some dams began scheduling “peak flushing flows” to clear salmon spawning gravels of sediment. More recently, federal operators of the Trinity Dam added a plateau of consecutive high-flow days in the spring to give young salmon a helpful push on their ocean-bound journey down the Sacramento River.

None of these flow strategies mimicked the pattern of the spring snowmelt recession so crucial to the frog and other riverine species.

To help inform decisions on the Feather River, the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences in 2006 launched a series of California Energy Commission-funded studies to investigate the environmental effects of pulsed releases from mountain dams. Field and laboratory experiments and computer modeling all showed such high velocity flows lethal to tadpoles.

Discussion among interests in the Rock Creek-Cresta settlement – resource agencies, environmental and boating advocates and PG&E – eventually sparked a winning idea: Reschedule the water allotted for summertime boating for release in the spring, to benefit both frogs and boaters.

PG&E implemented the innovative flow schedule in 2009 for the Cresta dam. The arrangement allows the utility to support both environmental and recreational benefits without sacrificing any additional water for power generation. The boaters lost the luxury of scheduled rapids in the heat of summer, but gained a longer, albeit less predictable springtime whitewater season.

“While unnatural and unpredictable flows are inconvenient and frustrating for whitewater enthusiasts, it can mean life for our fellow river dwelling species,” said Megan Hooker, a representative of the American Whitewater advocacy group, which has been one of the most influential players at the table. “It’s a clear example of what’s good for the river is good for recreation.”

The modified springtime flows may have come too late for the frogs, however. Their population in the Cresta reach of the Feather has not recovered, perhaps because it was so dismally low in 2005. Scientists who continue to monitor the river are nonetheless confident the new flow regime will significantly improve habitat elsewhere for riverine species.

Just this past year, negotiators preliminarily adopted similar springtime flow patterns as environmental safeguards in the federal relicensing of powerhouses on the Poe reach of the north fork Feather, the middle fork of the American River, the Bear River and the larger reaches of the Yuba River. Researchers at the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences have helped to develop the flow schedules with daily percentage declines that mirror the natural pattern of the spring snowmelt recession

The window of opportunity for California water managers to restore some facsimile of this ecologically important flow pattern looks promising: About 50 hydropower projects are scheduled for relicensing in the next 15 years.

Simplified hydrographs for dammed (regulated) and natural (unregulated) rivers showing daily percent change intervals and the typical breeding and egg-laying period for foothill yellow-legged frogs. Graphic by Sarah Yarnell

References and further readings

Epke, GA. 2011.  Spring Snowmelt Recession in Rivers of the Western Sierra Nevada Mountains. Master’s Thesis. Hydrological Sciences, University of California, Davis.

Kupferberg, S., Lind, A., Mount, J., and Yarnell, S. 2009. Pulsed flow effects on the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii): Integration of empirical, experimental, and hydrodynamic modeling approaches. California Energy Commission, PIER. CEC-500-2009-002.

Lind, A. J. (2005). Reintroduction of a declining amphibian: determining an ecologically feasible approach for the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) through analysis of decline factors, genetic structure, and habitat associations. PhD Dissertation. Ecology, University of California, Davis.

Lind, AJ and Yarnell SM. 2011. Frogs that go with the flow. River Management Society Journal 24(4): 10-11.

Trinity River Restoration Program 

Yarnell SM, Viers JH, Mount JF.  2010.  Ecology and Management of the Spring Snowmelt Recession. Bioscience. 60(2)

Lessons from Sandy ouragan pour chefs d'entreprise de Bay Area

Likely flood of seawater in the region of the Bay of an intense storm in 100 years (probability of 1% each year) today (blue) and with 150 cm (red) sea-level rise. U.S. Geological Survey, 2010

By Jeffrey f. Mount, geology professor and founding Director of the UC Davis Center for watershed Sciences

As you read this today, Sandy hurricane is coming into collision with the cold air from the Canada and create an impressive storm in the Northeast.

An intense low pressure system and strong onshore winds are causing storm surges also higher than 13 feet in Lower Manhattan, threatening to flood the underground network. On Earth, 5-10 inches of rain flooded streams and rivers and flooding the storm water systems.

This combination of too many header of runoff into the ocean and too much water in the pumping of the ocean will continue to cause dramatic coastal flooding this week. Worse yet, the combination is centered on the most densely populated part of the northeast coast, paving the way for maximum economic damage and disruption.

The San Francisco Bay Area business community should take notes. This trio of high tide, storm surge and heavy rain is also a scenario from the Bay Area. Scientists and a host of government agencies have been warning about such an event for years.

It may not be, so on a map, but the Bay area has half of the California coast. Unlike the rest of the coast of the State, most of this coastline is along the recovered lowlands which are prone to flooding creeks bay and the surrounding area - such as cities of waterfront in New York and New Jersey.

A major in the area storm Bay would put more 140,000 people at risk of serious flooding, as well as public goods that include the Port of Oakland, two major airports and 800 km of roads of 30 billion $.

Although they are not the hurricanes, California has its own form of tropical storms, known as the Pineapple Express. Scientists call these storms "atmospheric rivers." They tap into the energy and moisture from the tropics, producing winds and precipitation rates that match the fury of Hurricane Sandy. When these storms combine with the tides as much as Sandy has, they can cause flooding extended along the coast of the Bay.

Several regional and local planning agencies have sounded the alarm: the Association of Bay area Governments. the Conservation of the Bay of San Francisco and the Development Commission; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. the Bay Area Council; the Metropolitan Transportation Commission; CalTrans; the California ocean Protection Council. the Environmental Protection Agency; and the regional Office of the San Francisco Bay water quality control. In addition, all nine Bay area counties have identified this scenario of flooding as significant potential risk in their general plans.

Meanwhile, the business community have been passive - ensure that nothing will happen. It may be because much of the discussion of the Bay on the flood risk area has been in the context long term resulting from climate change sea level rise.

However, all flood studies have shown that the risk is now high. The sea-level rise will only get worse.

Bay area business leaders must map storm whopper this week in the Northeast on its own coastal territory. As California by Sandy version rolls and overwhelms the lean of the Bay area flood defences, such as Oracle, Cisco, Intuit, Lockheed Martin, Google and Facebook will be found incapable of doing business, perhaps for a long time.

It makes sense to bargain for companies to move aggressively to manage their risk of coastal flooding.

Further reading

Association of area Governments Bay flood interactive maps.

Adapting to the rising tide, a collaborative effort for the storms and rise from the waters, led by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Cloern, J.E., n. Knowles, R.S. Brown, d. Cayan, M.D. Dettinger, T.L. Morgan, D.H. Schoellhamer, M.T. Stacey, Mr van der Wegen, R.W. Wagner, and A.D. Jassby, 2011, should change evolution system Bay of San Francisco-Delta-River of California in a century of climate, PLoS ONE, 6

Mount Hanak, e., j. Lund, the Dinar a., b. Gray, r. Howitt, j., P. Moyle, b. Thompson, 2011, management California water: from conflict to reconciliation. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco. 482 p.

Heberger, M., h. Cooley, P. Herrera, P.H. Gleick and e. Moore, 2009, Rise of the impact of the sea level on the coast of California, California Climate Change Center, CEC-500-2009-024-F Sacramento (CA), 101 p.

Knowles, n. 2010, potential flooding due to rising waters in the San Francisco Bay area. The estuary of San Francisco and the Science of the watershed.

NRC (National Research Council), 2012, raising the level of the sea to the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington: past, present and future. Committee on sea level rise in California, Oregon and Washington. National Academies Press.

How engineers see the water glass in California

AppId is over the quota AppId is over the quota  Engineering a water glass at 50 percent. Source: xkcd.com

By Jay R. Lund

Depending on your outlook, the proverbial glass of water is either half full or half empty. Not so for engineers in California.

Civil engineer: The glass is too big.

Flood control engineer: The glass should be 50 percent bigger.

Army Corps levee engineer: The glass should be 50 percent thicker.

Mexicali Valley water engineer: If your glass leaks, don’t fix it.

Delta levee engineer: Why is water rising on the outside of my glass?

Dutch levee engineer: The water should be kept in a pitcher.

Southern California water engineer: Can we get another pitcher?

Northern California water engineer: Who took half my water?

Consulting engineer: How much water would you like?

Delta environmental engineer: Don’t drink the water.

Water reuse engineer: Someone else drank from this glass.

Academic engineer: I don’t have a glass or any water, but I’ll tell you what to do with yours.

Jay Lund is the Ray B. Krone Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Davis, and director of the university’s Center for Watershed Sciences.

Further reading

Munroe, Randall. Glass Half Empty. xkcd.com

Getting through the dry times

AppId is over the quota AppId is over the quota California’s extensive network of reservoirs, canals and aqueducts facilitates water marketing. Source: Managing California’s Water, From Conflict to Reconciliation, PPIC, 2011

By Ellen Hanak and Elizabeth Stryjewski

This week, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released a new report that provides a checkup on California’s progress with two innovative water management tools:  water marketing and groundwater banking.  These tools are part of a modern approach that will enable California to manage its scarce water resources more flexibly and sustainably.

Water marketing involves the temporary, long-term, or permanent transfer of water rights in exchange for compensation. Such transfers can lessen the economic and environmental costs of drought and also help accommodate longer-term shifts in the patterns of water demand.  Groundwater banking is another cost-effective tool:  it involves the deliberate storage of surface water in aquifers during relatively wet years, for retrieval in dry years.

During the late 2000s, California experienced a multiyear drought—the perfect opportunity to see whether the past few decades of state and federal encouragement of these tools have paid off.  We find some progress—but also some backsliding since the drought of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

That earlier drought jump-started California’s water market, thanks in large part to direct state actions. In the late 1980s, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) began purchasing water from a few irrigation districts to make it available to wildlife refuges and State Water Project contractors.

By 1991, when faced with the prospect of draconian across-the-board rationing, DWR launched the state’s first drought water bank, a large-scale brokering program that acquired water from numerous willing sellers and resold it to those facing high costs from shortages.  When the rains returned, the water market continued to grow, as many local districts got comfortable trading with each other (Figure 1).

Figure 1.  The graph shows the evolution of California’s water market. Currently, about 2 million acre-feet of water trades are committed annually, with around 1.4 million acre-feet actually exchanging hands. Source: California’s Water Market, By the Numbers: Update 2012, PPIC

Today, market trades account for roughly 5 percent of all water used annually by the state’s businesses and residents. Water agencies in most counties now participate in this market. Farmers—the largest water-using sector—continue to be the primary providers. Recipients include other farmers, cities, and environmental programs supporting wildlife reserves and river flows for fish. Long-term and permanent trades—especially valuable for supporting shifts in patterns of water demand—now make up well over half of the market.

However, the market did not perform so well during the latest drought, as the graph above shows. To mitigate the drought, overall sales would have been expected to increase considerably relative to the preceding non-drought years. But our study estimates that transfers provided a total of only 500,000 to 600,000 acre-feet in drought-oriented supplies between 2007 and 2010, above and beyond transfers that would likely have occurred anyway (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The slowing market was unable to provide much drought relief from 2007 to 2010 — just 500,000 – 600,000 acre-feet. Source: PPIC, 2012

The market slowdown began in the early 2000s. This slowdown reflects a variety of infrastructure and institutional constraints, including more complicated approval procedures and pumping restrictions introduced in 2007 to protect endangered native fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a key water conveyance hub.

Groundwater banking did a better job mitigating the drought.  For some time now, water agencies in several parts of the state have been recharging aquifers with surface water for local users.  Our study focused on a new form of banking in which local groundwater managers store water for parties located elsewhere in the same county or in other regions.

From the mid-1990s to 2006, these water banks—located in Kern County and Southern California— had built up reserves of nearly 3.4 million acre-feet.  Between 2007 and 2010, they returned nearly 1.9 million acre-feet to their depositors, considerably more than the drought-related water market sales (Figure 3). Groundwater storage likely played an even greater role than these numbers suggest:  DWR estimates that nearly 90 local agencies have been storing water in their local aquifers.

Figure 3. New groundwater banks were useful in the 2007-2010 drought. Withdrawals totaled 1.9 million acre-feet — three times the volume that was traded in the same period. Source: PPIC

What lessons can be drawn from this experience?  Despite its good showing, groundwater banking still faces obstacles.  More comprehensive local basin management—a common practice in Southern California and Silicon Valley—would prevent unsustainable pumping and long-term declines in groundwater levels.  Outside pressure—with a credible threat that the state would step in if local agencies fail to do so—might be the best way to proceed, ideally accompanied by positive financial incentives.

To strengthen the water market, the state needs to clarify and simplify the institutional review process, while continuing to ensure that transfers do not harm the environment or other water users.

Both marketing and banking depend on addressing infrastructure weaknesses that restrict water conveyance through the Delta. Those constraints have already limited both the market’s ability to furnish water supplies in dry years and the availability of supplies to replenish groundwater banks in wet years. Because routinizing marketing and banking transactions will require risk-taking, high-level state and federal officials should be involved, perhaps through a coordinating committee to facilitate decisions.

Attending to these and other priorities described in the report will help ensure the success of two of the state’s most critical strategies for efficiently managing its water resources.

Ellen Hanak is a senior policy fellow and Elizabeth Stryjewski is a policy associate at the Public Policy Institute of California.

Further reading

Governor’s Commission to Review California Water Rights Law. 1978. Final Report. Sacramento, CA.

Hanak, E. 2003.  Who Should Be Allowed to Sell Water in California?  Third-Party Issues and the Water Market.  Public Policy Institute of California.

Hanak, E., J. Lund, A. Dinar, B. Gray, R. Howitt, J. Mount, P. Moyle, B. Thompson. 2011. Managing California’s Water:  From Conflict to Reconciliation.  Public Policy Institute of California.

Phelps, C.E., N.Y. Moore, M.H. Graubard. 1978. Efficient Water Use in California:  Water Rights, Water Districts, and Water Transfers.  R-2386-CSA/RF. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation (report to the California State Assembly).

Tanaka, S.K., T. Zhu, J.R. Lund, R.E. Howitt, M.W. Jenkins, M. Pulido-Velazquez, M. Tauber, R.S. Ritzema, I.C. Ferreira. 2006. “Climate Warming and Water Management Adaptation for California.” Climatic Change 76(3-4): 361-387.x

Getting through the dry times

AppId is over the quota AppId is over the quota California’s extensive network of reservoirs, canals and aqueducts facilitates water marketing. Source: Managing California’s Water, From Conflict to Reconciliation, PPIC, 2011

By Ellen Hanak and Elizabeth Stryjewski

This week, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released a new report that provides a checkup on California’s progress with two innovative water management tools:  water marketing and groundwater banking.  These tools are part of a modern approach that will enable California to manage its scarce water resources more flexibly and sustainably.

Water marketing involves the temporary, long-term, or permanent transfer of water rights in exchange for compensation. Such transfers can lessen the economic and environmental costs of drought and also help accommodate longer-term shifts in the patterns of water demand.  Groundwater banking is another cost-effective tool:  it involves the deliberate storage of surface water in aquifers during relatively wet years, for retrieval in dry years.

During the late 2000s, California experienced a multiyear drought—the perfect opportunity to see whether the past few decades of state and federal encouragement of these tools have paid off.  We find some progress—but also some backsliding since the drought of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

That earlier drought jump-started California’s water market, thanks in large part to direct state actions. In the late 1980s, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) began purchasing water from a few irrigation districts to make it available to wildlife refuges and State Water Project contractors.

By 1991, when faced with the prospect of draconian across-the-board rationing, DWR launched the state’s first drought water bank, a large-scale brokering program that acquired water from numerous willing sellers and resold it to those facing high costs from shortages.  When the rains returned, the water market continued to grow, as many local districts got comfortable trading with each other (Figure 1).

Figure 1.  The graph shows the evolution of California’s water market. Currently, about 2 million acre-feet of water trades are committed annually, with around 1.4 million acre-feet actually exchanging hands. Source: California’s Water Market, By the Numbers: Update 2012, PPIC

Today, market trades account for roughly 5 percent of all water used annually by the state’s businesses and residents. Water agencies in most counties now participate in this market. Farmers—the largest water-using sector—continue to be the primary providers. Recipients include other farmers, cities, and environmental programs supporting wildlife reserves and river flows for fish. Long-term and permanent trades—especially valuable for supporting shifts in patterns of water demand—now make up well over half of the market.

However, the market did not perform so well during the latest drought, as the graph above shows. To mitigate the drought, overall sales would have been expected to increase considerably relative to the preceding non-drought years. But our study estimates that transfers provided a total of only 500,000 to 600,000 acre-feet in drought-oriented supplies between 2007 and 2010, above and beyond transfers that would likely have occurred anyway (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The slowing market was unable to provide much drought relief from 2007 to 2010 — just 500,000 – 600,000 acre-feet. Source: PPIC, 2012

The market slowdown began in the early 2000s. This slowdown reflects a variety of infrastructure and institutional constraints, including more complicated approval procedures and pumping restrictions introduced in 2007 to protect endangered native fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a key water conveyance hub.

Groundwater banking did a better job mitigating the drought.  For some time now, water agencies in several parts of the state have been recharging aquifers with surface water for local users.  Our study focused on a new form of banking in which local groundwater managers store water for parties located elsewhere in the same county or in other regions.

From the mid-1990s to 2006, these water banks—located in Kern County and Southern California— had built up reserves of nearly 3.4 million acre-feet.  Between 2007 and 2010, they returned nearly 1.9 million acre-feet to their depositors, considerably more than the drought-related water market sales (Figure 3). Groundwater storage likely played an even greater role than these numbers suggest:  DWR estimates that nearly 90 local agencies have been storing water in their local aquifers.

Figure 3. New groundwater banks were useful in the 2007-2010 drought. Withdrawals totaled 1.9 million acre-feet — three times the volume that was traded in the same period. Source: PPIC

What lessons can be drawn from this experience?  Despite its good showing, groundwater banking still faces obstacles.  More comprehensive local basin management—a common practice in Southern California and Silicon Valley—would prevent unsustainable pumping and long-term declines in groundwater levels.  Outside pressure—with a credible threat that the state would step in if local agencies fail to do so—might be the best way to proceed, ideally accompanied by positive financial incentives.

To strengthen the water market, the state needs to clarify and simplify the institutional review process, while continuing to ensure that transfers do not harm the environment or other water users.

Both marketing and banking depend on addressing infrastructure weaknesses that restrict water conveyance through the Delta. Those constraints have already limited both the market’s ability to furnish water supplies in dry years and the availability of supplies to replenish groundwater banks in wet years. Because routinizing marketing and banking transactions will require risk-taking, high-level state and federal officials should be involved, perhaps through a coordinating committee to facilitate decisions.

Attending to these and other priorities described in the report will help ensure the success of two of the state’s most critical strategies for efficiently managing its water resources.

Ellen Hanak is a senior policy fellow and Elizabeth Stryjewski is a policy associate at the Public Policy Institute of California.

Further reading

Governor’s Commission to Review California Water Rights Law. 1978. Final Report. Sacramento, CA.

Hanak, E. 2003.  Who Should Be Allowed to Sell Water in California?  Third-Party Issues and the Water Market.  Public Policy Institute of California.

Hanak, E., J. Lund, A. Dinar, B. Gray, R. Howitt, J. Mount, P. Moyle, B. Thompson. 2011. Managing California’s Water:  From Conflict to Reconciliation.  Public Policy Institute of California.

Phelps, C.E., N.Y. Moore, M.H. Graubard. 1978. Efficient Water Use in California:  Water Rights, Water Districts, and Water Transfers.  R-2386-CSA/RF. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation (report to the California State Assembly).

Tanaka, S.K., T. Zhu, J.R. Lund, R.E. Howitt, M.W. Jenkins, M. Pulido-Velazquez, M. Tauber, R.S. Ritzema, I.C. Ferreira. 2006. “Climate Warming and Water Management Adaptation for California.” Climatic Change 76(3-4): 361-387.x

Fish and Game’s name change reflects broader mission

AppId is over the quota AppId is over the quota  Joshua Viers is an avid hunter of wild pigs, as shown here in Mendocino County in January 2012. Photo by Dan Schroeder

Jacob Katz lands a lunker steelhead on the Trinity River in November 2011. Photo by Carson Jeffres

By Joshua Viers and Jacob Katz, UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences

The California Department of Fish and Game is one of the few state agencies with an inherently likable name. Bent fishing rods come to mind. Fishing and hunting permits are tickets to outdoor adventure and family bonding, and a license to literally bring home the bacon.

It’s no surprise then that Gov. Jerry Brown set the fur flying earlier this fall when he signed a bill replacing “Game” with “Wildlife” in the agency’s time-honored name. The California Association for Recreational Fishing, among other sporting groups, say the governor and Legislature threw hunters and anglers under the pickup. They view the name change as a capitulation to urban environmental and animal-rights activists, bent on supplanting the department’s traditional focus on hunting and fishing.

Some environmentalists say the name change, which takes effect Jan. 1, will help the department move away from practices that favor “hook-and-bullet” interests at the expense of non-game species – those not hunted for sport or food.

In truth, the department’s logo makeover is neither victory nor defeat for either side. Rather, it reflects a long-term and ongoing expansion in the department’s stewardship responsibilities for California’s natural resources.

The broadening mission has multiple causes. They range from California’s growing urbanization to increasing complexity and controversy in its ecosystems, advances in environmental science, court environmental rulings, and climate change. For more than 20 years, these and other factors have steadily nudged state fish and game managers toward an “ecosystem” approach that benefits a wider range of species and resource users, from license-paying hunters to birdwatchers.

Ecosystem-based management recognizes a broad array of interactions within biological communities, including hunting, fishing and other human activities. The approach is consistent with the department’s mission statement: “To manage California’s diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public.”

In addition to issuing licenses and enforcing hunting and fishing regulations, the department rears trout in hatcheries, stocks fish in lakes and streams, fights poaching, manages state preserves and oversees habitat preservation efforts, among other duties. The new law does not change the name of the California Fish and Game Commission, which adopts hunting and sport fishing regulations and sets license fees.

Some department policies are at odds with best science and more holistic stewardship. For example, the use of lead shot – the traditional favorite load for many hunters – is still allowed for some game species such as doves and rabbits, but not other game as it poisons other wildlife. Also, the department’s 80-year-old practice of planting hatchery trout in historically fishless alpine lakes has contributed to the decline of native frogs and other wildlife. Money spent on the expensive aerial drops of fingerlings could instead go toward increasing fishing opportunities in more accessible, lower-altitude lakes and streams.

The legislation that triggers the name change, AB 2402 by Assemblyman Jared Huffman, also strengthens the department’s use of science in developing policies that protect entire ecosystems, instead of individual species.

The department’s involvement in the restoration of the Cosumnes River near Sacramento is a clear and successful example of broad benefits from science-based ecosystem management.

Since 1997, state fish and game officials have collaborated with neighboring landowners to re-establish seasonal floodplain habitat for threatened salmon and other species. The department, the Nature Conservancy and some ranchers stitched together various land parcels to form the Cosumnes River Preserve. The arrangement paved the way for UC Davis researchers to show how ecological restoration can achieve multiple wins for native fish and wildlife, for water management and for agriculture.

The research has shown that opening sections of river levees for seasonal flooding yields multiple benefits: recharging local aquifers for irrigation and drinking water, reducing flood risk to downstream landowners, and providing superb rearing habitat for young salmon.

Most of California’s floodplains have been isolated behind levees, which were built to protect homes and crops from inundation. Before levees were built, winter and spring floods in the Central Valley swept young, ocean-bound salmon onto floodplains, where they found plentiful food, slow water, and few predators. As the floodplains drained, the fish would return to the river, well nourished and fit for their strenuous migration to the Pacific Ocean.

Fish and Game’s involvement in the Cosumnes River research has given its managers, and other resource agencies, practical, science-based tools need to create habitat in floodplains elsewhere in the Central Valley and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Already, department managers are using the research to support ecosystem restoration efforts in the Yolo Bypass and the San Joaquin River.

Such efforts will give the department more than new uniform patches and letterheads to show next year when the agency officially becomes the “California Department of Fish and Wildlife.”

Further reading

California Assembly Bill 2402

Cosumnes Research Group

Jeffres CA, Opperman JJ, Moyle P. 2008. Ephemeral floodplain habitats provide best growth conditions for juvenile Chinook salmon in a California river. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 83(4)

Moyle P, Crain PK, Whitener K. 2007. Patterns In The Use Of A Restored California Floodplain By Native And Alien Fishes. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 5(3)

Climate change and California water - past, present and future

Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 2, position 8505. Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9135. Folsom Lake, 1976. California Department of Water Resources

Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.
– Charles Dudley Warner, 1897

By Jay R. Lund

Talk of climate change and water in California is fraught with handwringing and delusions. Much discussion borders on alarmist or seems to presume magical abilities to precisely plan and prepare for a future climate.

Here are some observations – based on climate statistics and the physics, economics and history of water in California – that may put some concerns in perspective:

1. Californians have experienced abrupt climate change before. Most immigrants to California in the 1850s experienced abrupt climate change, because they came mostly from humid parts of the United States and Europe with wet summers. It took more than 70 years for this society to develop laws, institutions and infrastructure suited to California’s climate (Pisani, 1982; Kelley 1986). Many newcomers adapted to the foreign climate and prospered, as with the development of irrigated agriculture. Still, the process of climate adaptation has been politically intense and lengthy – and continues to this day.

2. Climate change is not the only game-changer. In the past 100 years, California water management has changed tremendously, driven by changes in population, economic structure, technology, and social and environmental objectives (Hanak et al . 2011). Climate change is just one more big driver – and may not be the biggest one (Vörösmarty 2000).

3. We will not know the extent of climate change until long after the change has occurred. Even in an unchanging climate, it takes several hundred years of data to firmly answer such questions as, “How large is the ‘100-year flood?’” With a changing climate it will take decades to make good statistical estimates, even of changes in annual average precipitation and streamflow (Klemes 2000). And there is no reason to expect the climate to stop changing.

4. Climate change is now. In the last 50 years, California has seen a shifting share of runoff from the spring to the winter (Aguado et al. 1992).  Also, sea level has risen about 1 foot in the last 100 years. Both trends are consistent with climate warming.

5. California is prone to massive climate change. In medieval times, parts of California experienced extreme droughts lasting more than 100 years (Stine 1994).

6. Expanding reservoirs is not necessarily useful for climate change. In a much drier climate, such as California experienced in medieval times, existing reservoirs would never fill and expanded storage capacity would be useless (Harou et al. 2010). Climate warming will reduce seasonal snowpack, but with some changes in reservoir management, existing large reservoirs on most of California’s rivers can largely accommodate seasonal shifts in runoff (Connell-Buck et al. 2011). Climate warming will be somewhat costly, but not catastrophic for most conventional water storage operations (Willis et al. 2010; Madani and Lund 2010). Change in total precipitation is more important than warming alone. The physical, economic and ecological instability of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta probably poses more risk to California’s water supply than climate warming (Lund et al. 2010).

7. Handwringing is not adaptation. Climate change introduces uncertainties, but California water management has always involved immense uncertainties. Effective water management adaptations to climate change emerge from comprehensive analysis of water markets, conjunctive use of ground and surface waters, water conservation, and from re-operation of some reservoirs (Harou et al. 2010; Tanaka et al. 2006; Medellin et al. 2008; Hanak and Lund 2011; Ragatz 2012).

The key to water management adaptation for climate change is mostly good management. But, as always with California water, good management will involve controversy and require both political and technical leadership (Crawford and Herrick 2006)..

Jay Lund is the Ray B. Krone Professor of Environmental Engineering at UC Davis and director of the university’s Center for Watershed Sciences.

Sources and further reading
Aguado, E., D. Cayan, L. Riddle, and M. Roos (1992), “Climate fluctuations and the timing of West Coast streamflow,” Journal of Climate, Vol. 5, December, pp. 1468-1483.

Connell-Buck, C.R., J. Medellín-Azuara, J.R. Lund, and K. Madani, “Adapting California’s water system to warm vs. dry climates,” Climatic Change, Vol. 109 (Suppl 1), pp. S133–S149, 2011.

Crawford, J. and J. Herrick, “Intelligent Engineering: William Hammond Hall and the state engineering department,” Sacramento History, Journal of the Sacramento County Historical Society, Vol. VI , No. 1-4, 2006.

Hanak, E., J. Lund, A. Dinar, B. Gray, R. Howitt, J. Mount, P. Moyle, and B. Thompson, Managing California’s Water: From Conflict to Reconciliation, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA, 500 pp., February 2011.

Harou, J.J., J. Medellin-Azuara, T. Zhu, S.K. Tanaka, J.R. Lund, S. Stine, M.A. Olivares, and M.W. Jenkins, “Economic consequences of optimized water management for a prolonged, severe drought in California,” Water Resources Research, doi:10.1029/2008WR007681, Vol. 46, 2010

Kelley, R. 1998. Battling the Inland Sea. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Klemes V. 2000. “Design Implications of Climate Change.” In Common Sense and Other Heresies: Selected Papers on Hydrology and Water Resources Engineering, ed. V. Klemes (Cambridge, Ontario: Canadian Water Resources Association).

Lund, J., E. Hanak, W. Fleenor, W. Bennett, R. Howitt, J. Mount, and P. Moyle, Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, February 2010.

Madani, K. and J.R. Lund, “Estimated Impacts of Climate Warming on California’s High Elevation Hydropower,” Climatic Change, Vol. 102, No. 3-4, pp. 521–538, October 2010.

Medellin-Azuara, J., J.J. Harou, M.A. Olivares, K. Madani-Larijani, J.R. Lund, R.E. Howitt, S.K. Tanaka, M.W. Jenkins, and T. Zhu, “Adaptability and Adaptations of California’s Water Supply System to Dry Climate Warming,” Climatic Change, Vol. 87, Sup.1, March, pp. S75-S90, 2008.

Pisani, D. 1984. From the Family Farm to Agribusiness: The Irrigation Crusade in California, 1850–1931. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Roos, M. (2003), The Effects of Global Climate Change on California Water Resources, A report to the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER), Sacramento, September 2002.

Stine, S. 1994. “Extreme and Persistent Drought in California and Patagonia during Medieval Time.” Nature 369: 546–49.

Tanaka, S.K., T. Zhu, J.R. Lund, R.E. Howitt, M.W. Jenkins, M.A. Pulido, M. Tauber, R.S. Ritzema and I.C. Ferreira, “Climate Warming and Water Management Adaptation for California,” Climatic Change, Vol. 76, No. 3-4, pp. 361-387, June 2006.

Vörösmarty, C. J., P. Green, J. Salisbury, and R. B. Lammers. 2000. “Global Water Resources: Vulnerability from Climate Change and Population Growth.” Science 289(5477): 284–88.

Willis, A.D., J.R. Lund, E. S. Townsley, and Beth Faber, “Climate Change and Flood Operations in the Sacramento Basin, California,” San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, Vol. 9, No. 2, 18 pp., July, 2011.

Notice
This winter, the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences is presenting a weekly speaker series on California water policy. The public is welcome to attend.

Videos of talks available on iTunes and YouTube