State staff, CDFW and local groups outline next steps for permanent Scott and Shasta flow protections after AB 2 63

State Water Board staff on Nov. 4 laid out a multi‑year program of scientific and economic work intended to underpin permanent in‑stream flow protections for the Scott and Shasta River watersheds, while California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and local stakeholders described monitoring results, local studies and implementation lessons.

The board’s staff said it will draft scientific basis reports that analyze fish life‑stage responses to a range of flows, initiate an economic analysis using an agricultural production model, and finalize surface‑ and groundwater models, a water allocation (WEEP) tool and, for the Shasta watershed, a temperature model. The work is intended to inform possible future regulatory tools: permanent flow rules, water‑quality control plans, or other local actions. Staff noted AB 2 63 (effective Jan. 1) extends the emergency regulation until Jan. 1, 2031, or until long‑term rules are adopted, and requires annual public updates.

“Baseline minimum flows are the amount of water that is reasonably required for fish even in the driest years,” staff said, and they framed the reports to evaluate a range of lower‑end flows “that need to be met in all water years” as a starting point for later policy work. Dan Schultz, who leads the long‑term effort, emphasized the reports are informational: “The scientific basis reports use existing science and information to analyze the fishery benefits of a range of potential flows and document the science supporting the analysis,” he said.

CDFW presented fish monitoring data from implementation of the emergency flows, noting the 2025 brood year was the first to complete a full life cycle under the regulation and describing increases in observed juvenile and adult Chinook and the first documented juvenile coho in parts of the Shasta watershed during baseflows. “We currently have 2,757 Chinook salmon through the Scott,” Crystal Robinson (CDFW) told the board, and she added that the Shasta had about 5,823 Chinook to date, numbers CDFW described as comparable to long‑term medians in the Shasta.

CDFW also reported on an August Shasta flow‑trial in which flows were lowered briefly and then increased to evaluate effects. CDFW said visibility and logistic difficulties made quantitative comparison challenging but highlighted improved clarity after flows were lowered and again after ramping up, and encouraged better local coordination (for example, Watermaster‑led operations) for future trials.

Local stakeholders urged the board to extend the scope of analyses and implementation design. River scientists and conservation groups argued for multiple points of compliance and for flow regimes that scale with water‑year types or unimpaired hydrograph dynamics rather than single, static monthly numbers at the valley outlet. Tribal and fishing representatives pressed for clear biological goals — recovery, harvestable surplus, or metrics tied to populations (for example, smolts per spawner) — rather than bare‑minimum persistence thresholds. The Siskiyou County Farm Bureau urged a coordinated, watershed‑scale coalition to consolidate monitoring and funding and to implement watershed projects and local cooperative solutions.

Several commenters and staff stressed lessons learned during the emergency regulation years. In the Scott watershed, staff pointed to groundwater level recoveries and local groundwater cooperative solutions that added meters and incentivized reduced pumping; in the Shasta, both springs and dam releases and spring‑fed reaches were repeatedly flagged as critical for rearing and temperature management and were identified as candidate locations for additional gauges and compliance points.

Staff said next steps include selecting flow ranges to analyze, continuing development of the scientific basis reports and economic analysis, releasing draft reports for public comment, and submitting drafts to peer review. They told the board the modeling reports will be released for comment in 2026 and that staff will bring at least annual items back to the board, per AB 2 63. Several tribal and conservation groups urged accelerated timelines and clear policy direction that would let staff proceed toward adoption of permanent rules within the AB 2 63 window.

Ending note: the board’s work program now couples technical method and model development with a formal economic analysis and expanded public engagement; stakeholders asked the board to clarify goals (recovery vs. minimum persistence), consider multiple compliance points, and ensure the economic work quantifies fishery, tribal and community losses as well as agricultural impacts.