Sustainable Water and Environmental Management in the California Bay-Delta (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix A: Summary of A Scientific Assessment of Alternatives for Reducing Water Management Effect on Threatened and Endangered Fishes in California's Bay-Delta
Appendix A: Summary of A Scientific Assessment of Alternatives for Reducing Water Management Effect on Threatened and Endangered Fishes in California's Bay-Delta
Pages 207-216
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 207... ...
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued biological opinions under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)
|
From page 208... ...
In addition, many anthropogenic and other factors, including pollutants; introduced species; and engineered structures such as dams, canals, levees, gates, and pumps adversely affect the fishes in the region, but they are not under the direct control of the CVP or the SWP, and thus are not subjects of the biological opinions. The complexity of the problem of the decline of the listed species and the difficulty of identifying viable solutions have led to disagreements, including concerns that some of the actions in the RPAs might be ineffective and might cause harm and economic disruptions to water users, and that some of the actions specified in the RPAs to help one or more of the listed species might harm others.
|
From page 209... ...
that, based on the best available scientific data and analysis, would provide equal or greater protection for the listed species and their habitat while having lesser impacts to other water uses than those adopted in the biological opinions? Second, are there provisions in the biological opinions to resolve the potential for actions that would benefit one listed species while causing negative impacts on another?
|
From page 210... ...
Although there are scientifically based arguments that raise legitimate questions about this action, the committee concludes that until better monitoring data and comprehensive life-cycle models are available, it is scientifically reasonable to conclude that high negative OMR flows in winter probably adversely affect smelt populations. Thus, the concept of reducing OMR negative flows to reduce mortality of smelt at the SWP and CVP facilities is scientifically justified.
|
From page 211... ...
As a result, the committee concludes that how specific X2 targets were chosen and their likely beneficial effects need further clarification. It also is critical that the adaptive-management requirements included in the RPA be implemented in
|
From page 212... ...
The NMFS Biological Opinion and RPA The NMFS RPA for salmon, steelhead, and green sturgeon is a broad complex of diverse actions spanning three habitat realms: tributary watersheds, the mainstem Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, and the delta. On balance, the committee concludes that the actions, which are primarily crafted to improve life-stage-specific survival rates for salmon and steelhead, with the recognition that the benefits also will accrue to sturgeon, are scientifically justified.
|
From page 213... ...
The committee recommends some kind of quantitative assessment framework for assessing survival be developed and implemented. The management of OMR flows to reduce entrainment mortality of salmon smolts is similar in concept to the smelt OMR action, and like that action, the committee concludes that its conceptual basis is scientifically justified, but the scientific support for specific flow targets is less certain.
|
From page 214... ...
Thus the committee concluded that improving the models by making them more realistic and by better matching the scale of their outputs to the scale of the actions, and by extending the modeling framework to be more comprehensive and to include features such as fish life cycles would improve the agencies' abilities to assess risks to the fishes, to fine-tune various actions, and to predict the effects of the actions. Potential Conflicts Between RPAs and Integration of RPAs The committee concludes that the RPAs lack an integrated quantitative analytical framework that ties the various actions together within species, between smelt and salmonid species, and across the watershed.
|
From page 215... ...
Credible documentation of the water needed to implement each action and the combined actions, would enable an even clearer and more logical formulation of how the suite of actions might be coordinated to simultaneously benefit the species and ensure water efficiency. This recommendation for integration of models and across species responds to the committee's broad charge of advising on how to most effectively incorporate scientific and adaptive-management concepts into holistic programs for managing the delta, and likely goes beyond the agencies' bare legal obligations under the ESA, and will be addressed more thoroughly in the committee's second report.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.