{"id":3559,"date":"2021-03-18T07:16:49","date_gmt":"2021-03-18T14:16:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/?p=3559"},"modified":"2021-03-18T07:16:49","modified_gmt":"2021-03-18T14:16:49","slug":"lake-shasta-and-sacramento-river-operations-lessons-learned-1-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/?p=3559","title":{"rendered":"Lake Shasta and Sacramento River Operations: Lessons Learned – #1, Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

Following an introductory post, this is the second post in a <\/em>series<\/em><\/a> on the <\/em>lessons learned<\/em><\/a> by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) from the 2013-2015 drought that devastated Sacramento River salmon populations.\u00a0 The first post addressed Lesson #1 and its non-application in the first half of 2020.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

This post addresses how the non-application of Lesson #1 in 2020 evolved into a tug-of-war in the second half of 2020 and has cascaded into non-action so far in 2021. For more detail and links, see CSPA\u2019s March 15, 2021 letter<\/a> to the State Water Board urging immediate action to protect Sacramento River and Delta fisheries in 2021. \u00a0See also the State Water Board\u2019s Sacramento River Temperature web page, though some of the links are not live, at: <\/em>https:\/\/www.waterboards.ca.gov\/waterrights\/water_issues\/programs\/drought\/sacramento_river\/index.html<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Water and fisheries managers have known for many years that both the Lake Shasta storage level on April 1 and spring releases from Shasta determine how much cold water will be available in the lower Sacramento River through the summer.\u00a0 However, in 2020, as discussed in Part 1 of this series, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) refused to decide on water temperature management options for Shasta Reservoir and the lower Sacramento River before April 1.\u00a0 Reclamation submitted a draft temperature management plan (TMP) to the State Water Board on April 23 and a final TMP on May 20, neither of which evaluated reduced delivery options whose analysis the State Water Board had requested.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Reclamation was operating in 2020 in the first year of the new Trump-era Biological Opinions for the long-term operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP).1<\/a><\/sup> The stated purpose of these Opinions was to \u201cmaximize deliveries\u201d of water to contractors, and did they ever deliver.\u00a0 See<\/em> part of the results in Figure 4 of the previous post<\/a>: very high deliveries to Sacramento River CVP contractors in April and May, so that water in Lake Shasta was committed before the plan to operate Shasta was complete.<\/p>\n

By June 1, 2020, the State Water Board had rejected Reclamation\u2019s TMP.\u00a0 In its June 1, 2020 letter<\/a> refusing Reclamation\u2019s May 20 TMP, the State Water Board wrote:<\/p>\n

Reclamation has declined to evaluate additional operational scenarios. Reclamation\u2019s position is that scenarios with different operational assumptions would be inconsistent with its contractual obligations, and are therefore beyond Reclamation\u2019s reasonable control. The State Water Board disagrees. To the extent that Reclamation delivers water under its own water rights, Reclamation\u2019s obligation to deliver water to its contractors does not take precedence over its permit obligations.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

On July 17, 2020, CSPA and its partners reached a settlement agreement<\/a>\u00a0with the State Water Board that dealt in substantial part with Sacramento River temperature management.\u00a0 The settlement agreement requires the State Board to conduct a transparent Sacramento River Temperature Management process.\u00a0 The process must address all controllable factors, including deliveries, and ensure adequate staffing, modeling and public review.\u00a0 The CSPA settlement became part of the dispute between Reclamation and the State Water Board in the following months.<\/p>\n

After exchanges of letters between Reclamation and the State Water Board in June and July, and an addendum to the TMP on July 31, the State Water Board gave up on 2020 and in an August 4 letter<\/a> \u00a0tentatively approved the TMP, subject to conditions, two of which stated:<\/p>\n