Author Archives: Tom Cannon

Delta Exports Reduced in Winter 2020 to Protect Salmon and Smelt

Posted on by

One of the ramifications of dry conditions in winter 2020 has been the need to cut Delta exports to protect salmon and smelt listed under the state and federal endangered species acts. Lack of rain has led to reduced Delta inflow and outflow (Figure 1), which in turn has required reductions in south Delta exports (Figure 1), per the state’s 2009 incidental take permit and the 2019 federal biological opinions.1

The state permit requirement is prescribed to protect longfin smelt, which need protection under the present circumstances (Figures 2 and 3). The permit’s mitigation prescription (Figure 4) is to limit exports by limiting how negative flows in Old and Middle River (OMR) in the central Delta can get. Under the permit, negative OMR flows have generally been limited as early in the year as February in dry years like 2020; this limits exports and maintains Delta outflow. OMR flows were limited this winter (Figure 5). The mid-February survey (Figure 6) indicated a continuing risk that smelt larvae would be drawn into the central Delta if exports were increased. Exports have in fact increased (Figure 1) and OMR flow has become more negative (Figure 5) in March, increasing the risk to smelt despite being within limits set (Figure 4). March surveys should portray the effect of the increased risk factors.

The new federal take permits (BOs) are supposed to protect listed winter-run and spring-run salmon, Delta smelt, and steelhead, as well as the essential habitat of all the salmon, whose young are found in large numbers in the Delta in winter (Figure 7). Protections for these fish under the new BOs are vague at best.

Meanwhile, the state is in the process of developing a new incidental take permit that will cover winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon and Delta smelt as well as longfin smelt. The risks to Delta fish are real. To be effective, the new ITP at minimum should not let spring outflow from the Delta fall below 10,000 cfs, and it should require maintaining February OMR levels during periods of low Delta inflow at the levels they were in February 2020 (Figure 5). This greater level of export restrictions should be required in each year with low Delta inflows until such time as the longfin smelt have grown out of the larval stage and moved downstream into the Bay. Even this level of protection may not protect the population from significant losses.

Figure 1. Delta outflow and exports in winter 2020. TRP=federal exports , HRO=state exports, DTO=outflow, FPT=Freeport Sacramento River inflow.

Figure 2. The catch density distribution of longfin smelt larvae in early February 2020 Smelt Larva Survey. Red arrow denotes direction of net flow in central and south Delta toward south Delta export pumping plants during survey period.

Figure 3. The catch density distribution of longfin smelt larvae in early February 2012 Smelt Larva Survey. Red arrow denotes direction of net flow in central and south Delta toward south Delta export pumping plants during survey period.

Figure 4. Permit Condition #5.2 from 2009 state longfin smelt incidental take permit.

Figure 5. Combined Old and Middle River flows in winter 2020.

Figure 6. The catch density distribution of longfin smelt larvae in mid-February 2020.
Source: Smelt Larva Survey.

Figure 7. Daily Catch of juvenile salmon upstream of Delta at Knight’s Landing fall-winter of water year 2020.

 

How Protective is the State’s Plan for Delta Fishes?

Posted on by

California’s Attorney General has sued the federal government over the new federal biological opinions for the operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP). But in fact, the State’s plan for operating the Central Valley operations of the State Water Project is not much better than the Bureau of Reclamation’s federal plan in terms of protecting Delta fish. The State’s plan is built on the same theory that the water projects can divert more water by monitoring fish presence and backing off on diversions when monitoring detects fish. This so-called “real-time operation” was also the foundation of the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) proposal to protect fish in the 2016-2019 hearings on DWR’s proposed Delta tunnels (“WaterFix”).

The major difference between the new state and federal plans for Delta operations is that the State plan retains a requirement for increased flow in the summer and fall of wetter water years to protect smelt. The State’s draft EIR for the Long Term Operation of the State Water Project (LTO EIR) describes the proposed Summer-Fall X2 Action for Delta outflow (Figures 1 and 2). The action/criteria proposed is to maintain “X2” (the location in the Bay-Delta where salinity measures ~2 ppt chloride, or 3800 EC) under prescribed limits in summer and fall months by water-year type.

The LTO EIR describes two alternatives: the Proposed Project and Alternative 4.1 Both would limit monthly average or 14-day average X2 at river kilometer 80 (near the CDEC Collinsville gage). The Proposed Project includes only September and October X2 objectives, while Alternative 4 also covers June-August for wet years. Under both alternatives, criteria also include opening the Suisun Marsh Salinity Control Gates (SMSCG), an action to reduce EC at Collinsville gage and in Suisun Marsh and Montezuma Slough, which would raise salinity in eastern Suisun Bay.

I discussed the ramifications of the federal Biological Opinions in a September 2019 post. The only major beneficial change that the LTO EIR proposes is adding summer X2 criteria in Alt 4 to extend outflow protection from June 20 to August 31. The new Fall X2 requirement (September-October) in the LTO EIR would be less protective than existing Fall X2 objectives, because the new state requirement would move the compliance point upstream from km74 to km80.

In order to understand how the state’s proposed new Summer-Fall X2 requirement would work, I examine below how the action might have applied in recent water years 2016-2019, two below normal water years and two wet water years..

Below Normal Water Years 2016 and 2018

Under the LTO EIR criteria (both the Proposed Project and Alt 4 alternatives), the X2 location and low salinity zone would be similar to historical 2016 conditions (Figure 3), except that outflow could be lower and salinity higher in June, when there would be higher exports, less outflow, and a warmer more upstream low salinity zone (Figure 4). The main benefit of the X2 Action under Alt 4 would be that it would extend the D1641 agricultural salinity standards past June 20 by making them also apply from June 20 through August. Both the D1641 and Alt 4 criteria allow significant daily variation in X2: 14-day and monthly averages.

In 2018 (Figure 5) there would be a similar potential negative effect in June and a positive benefit in August under Alt 4.

Wet Water Years 2017 and 2019

Under the proposed LTO EIR criteria for wet years, Fall X2 criteria (September-October) would be the same as described above for below normal years. This would weaken protection in comparison with the previous Fall X2 requirements in the 2008-09 biological opinions (Figures 6 and 7). Summer (June-August) criteria would be generally less protective than existing D1641 salinity standards for wet years. If the State were to adopt the LTO EIR summer criteria, salinities would be higher and the low salinity zone further upstream and warmer than occurred in June-August of wet years 2017 and 2019. This would allow higher exports.

Summary and Conclusion

Under both the Proposed Project and Alternative 4, the LTO EIR’s Summer-Fall Proposed Plan for Delta outflow (Figures 1 and 2), Delta outflows would be lower, south Delta exports would be greater, and the low salinity zone further upstream and warmer in the fall (Sep-Oct) of wet years. Such changes would be highly detrimental to salmon and smelt. In below normal years, outflows may be higher from June 20 through August under Alt 4. Such changes would be beneficial to salmon and smelt.

Operation of the SMSCG would lower EC at Collinsville and in Montezuma Slough and increased EC in eastern Suisun Bay. This would be detrimental to smelt rearing in Suisun Bay. For more detail on this issue, see http://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/?p=2813.

Overall, the State’s plan would weaken existing X2 compliance criteria and result in higher exports of water from the south Delta in September and October in wet years. Alternative 4 would potentially provide more summer outflow in below normal years, which currently have no summer ag-salinity standard.

Figure 1. Comparison of Summer-Fall actions for the Proposed Project and Alternative 4.

Figure 2. Proposed Summer-Fall Actions in LTO EIR Alternative 4 (Table 5, p I-2 in EIR).

Figure 3. Collinsville EC in below-normal water year 2016. Salinity (EC) at Collinsville (~km 80) June-Dec 2016, a below normal water year. Red line shows proposed monthly-average EC objective in Alt 4.

Figure 4. Summer water temperature at Rio Vista in northwest Delta in 2016. Note in early summer water temperatures tend to be higher in the lower range of net river flow and high seasonal tides.

Figure 5. Salinity (EC) at Collinsville (~km 80) June-Dec 2018, a below normal water year. Red line shows proposed monthly-average EC objective proposed only in Alt 4.

Figure 6. Salinity (EC) at Collinsville (~km 80) June-Dec 2017, a wet water year. Red line shows proposed monthly-average or 14-day EC objectives in the Proposed Project and Alt 4.

Figure 7. Salinity (EC) at Collinsville (~km 80) June-Dec 2019, a wet water year. Red line shows proposed monthly-average or 14-day EC objectives in the Proposed Project and Alt 4.

 

  1. According to the description in the EIR, Alternative 4 is a more smelt-friendly alternative than the Proposed Project. ↩

Longfin Smelt – January 2020

Posted on by

The fall midwater trawl index of spawning adult longfin smelt in 2019 was below expectations for a wet year (Figure 1). In a January 8, 2020 post, I foreshadowed the reduced fall spawner index for 2019, and suggested a grim outlook for the future of the population. In addition, high December 2019 Delta exports forced more spawning upstream into the Delta, increasing the likelihood of larval entrainment into the south Delta export pumps.

January 2020 larval smelt surveys (Figures 2 and 3) indicate that the production of longfin smelt larvae was indeed low. However, modest improvement occurred in both 2018 and 2020 compared to recent drought years (2015 and 2016). Application of the Fall X2 Delta outflow prescriptions in wet years 2017 and 2019 (higher outflow in Figure 4) likely contributed to the higher numbers of longfin larvae in the Bay in January 2018 and January 2020.

The numbers of larvae in 2018 and 2020 were still well below those in January 2012 (Figure 2), when the spawning population (2011) was much higher. Also, December exports in 2011 were much lower than in 2019 (Figures 5 and 6).

In summary, the benefit of the Fall X2 Bay Delta water quality standard has shown up again in the Larval Smelt Survey in January 2020. High December south Delta exports continue to hinder recovery of the longfin smelt population.

Figure 1. Longfin Recruits (Fall Midwater Trawl Index) vs Spawners (Index from two years prior) in Log10 scale. The relationship is very strong and highly statistically significant. Adding Delta outflow in winter-spring as a factor makes the relationship even stronger. The 2019 brood year index was lower than expected given the potential number of spawners (from the relatively high 2017 index) and 2019 having been a wet year.

Figure 2. Average catch of larval longfin smelt in late January Smelt Larva Survey 2012, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019, and 2020.

Figure 3. Catch distribution in late January over five years of larval longfin smelt from Smelt Larva Survey.

Figure 4. Fall Delta outflow in years 2016-2019. Note Fall X2 prescription (higher outflows in September and October) was applied in 2017 and 2019.

Figure 5. State exports from Harvey Banks pumping plant in December 2011, 2016-2019.

Figure 6. Federal exports from Tracy pumping plant in December 2011, 2016-2019.

 

Winter 2020 – Salmon need winter flow pulses

Posted on by

In a February 2019 post, I discussed the importance of winter flows for fall-run salmon in the Central Valley. The peak fry emergence from gravel spawning beds is in winter. Millions of fry move to river margins to await flow pulses to carry them from upper main river and tributary spawning grounds to lower river floodplain, Delta, and Bay nurseries. Without such pulses, the fry stay in the cold rivers competing for limited food and habitat, which leads to poor overall survival and fewer smolts reaching the ocean.

Two January storms in 2020 show the importance of flow pulses for the emigration of fall-run salmon fry (Figures 1-3). Figure 1 shows fry moving downstream from spawning grounds above Red Bluff. Figure 2 shows fry reaching the lower river 100+ miles downstream of Red Bluff. Figure 3 shows fry reaching the north Delta near Sacramento.

What is missing is reservoir releases through tailwater spawning grounds during the storms that create pulses from tributary inflow further downstream. The tributary inflow moves fry downstream from the tributaries. It also moves fry from the mainstem rivers downstream once fry reach the river reaches downstream of the tributaries. But reservoirs capture almost all the flow on the mainstem rivers upstream of the tributaries. During early winter storms, fry aren’t stimulated to move out of the spawning reaches directly downstream of dams.

Figure 4 shows the complete lack of such storage releases in 2020, even after a wet water year when storage was well above average. Pulse flows are needed below all the main storage reservoirs: Shasta, Whiskeytown, Oroville, Folsom, Bullards Bar, Camanche, New Melones, etc. Fry movement from these prime tailwater spawning grounds would then take advantage of the natural rainfall in the main rivers moving through the Delta and on to the Bay nurseries.

Neither of the recent National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) consultations and the associated biological opinion with Reclamation on the Central Valley Project promotes such winter flow pulses.1 NMFS mandates spring pulses to help smolts (juveniles that are larger and older than fry) reach the Bay. Spring pulses are important, but they are not enough. While individual smolts are more likely to reach the Bay than individual fry, fry vastly outnumber smolts and should contribute substantially to the adult salmon populations. Winter flow pulses are needed because they will improve the survival to adulthood of wild salmon fry.

For more on the importance of increasing the survival rate of wild salmon fry in the Central Valley, see a recent paper by Sturrock et al. 2019. 2

Figure 1. Catch of salmon fry in screw traps and river flow (cfs) in Sacramento River near Red Bluff, January 2020. Data source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/sacramento/data/juv_monitoring.html


Figure 2. Screw-trap catch rates for salmon fry and river conditions in lower Sacramento River near Colusa and Knights Landing winter 2020. Source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/sacramento/data/juv_monitoring.html

Figure 3. Trawl and seine catch rates of salmon fry and river conditions in lower Sacramento River in north Delta near Sacramento winter 2020. source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/sacramento/data/juv_monitoring.html

Figure 4. Winter 2020 flows in rivers and below dams in Central Valley. Lower Sacramento River: Red Bluff (BND), Wilkins Slough (WLK); Delta inflow at Verona (VON), Freeport (FPT). Dam releases to American River (AFO), Feather River (GRL), Stanislaus River (RIP), Sacramento River (KWK), San Joaquin River (VNS). source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/sacramento/data/

Preserving and Restoring Wild Salmon Populations while Sustaining Commercial and Sport Fisheries with Hatcheries

Posted on by

The Problem

Hatcheries bypass the high mortality life-history phases of wild salmon populations.  As a result, hatcheries contribute far greater salmon smolt production to the ocean per number of eggs than do wild populations.  Without hatcheries, the replacement rate of Central Valley salmon populations would be less than 1-to-1, and the populations would move toward extinction.  Without hatcheries, there would be no commercial or sport salmon fisheries in California today.

But hatcheries bring many real problems for wild salmon.  These problems include in-breeding/domestication, disease transmission, and over-harvest of, competition for, and direct and indirect predation on wild salmon populations.  In-breeding has already had dramatic effects on the salmon populations, leading to the loss or degradation of many important life-history traits and of subpopulations that carry these traits (the “Portfolio Effect”).

Having lost many traits that nature provided over millions of years of natural selection, hatchery salmon today are simply less able to cope with the new world they now face.  They mature younger and smaller.  They are less able to adapt to changes in their food supply.  They often can’t compete and are less able to avoid predators.  Many arrive on spawning grounds too early, and others can’t find their natal streams.  Their offspring are also far less capable of coping with the stress and adversities, including harvest, pollution, and habitat loss and degradation.

Over-harvest, competition, and straying of hatchery fish has led to the dominance of hatchery fish in the Central Valley salmon populations and homogenization among the populations.  Some populations now survive only in hatcheries or in captive breeding programs.

The Solution

Many of elements of the problem have already occurred and are difficult to overcome.  While some elements are irreversible, it is not too late to limit or reduce some of the negative effects.  A comprehensive set of actions and strategies can avoid, minimize, mitigate, or even reverse these effects.  These actions and strategies should include:

1.      Reduce competition between hatchery and wild salmon in spawning, rearing, and migrating habitat.

  • Do not allow hatchery salmon to spawn in prime wild salmon spawning areas. Sorting at weirs can preclude passing hatchery spawners if hatchery fish are all marked.
  • Do not release hatchery juveniles into rearing and migrating habitats heavily used by remaining stocks of wild salmon. Programs throughout the range of Pacific coast salmon, including the Central Valley, now release hatchery smolts into net pens in rearing areas less frequented by wild salmon.  The best fishery returns to the Central Valley have been from smolts released from coastal net pens.

2.      Reduce straying of hatchery origin spawners into other spawning rivers.

  • Barge hatchery smolts to reduce competition and predation on wild juvenile salmon and decrease the straying of adults that results from trucking.  Barging can help imprint smolts on home rivers and hatcheries.
  • Monitor and sort adult salmon returns in rivers and hatcheries to further eliminate straying.
  • Focus more hatchery production on rivers and streams that do not support significant wild salmon.

3.      Increase harvest of hatchery salmon, while reducing harvest of wild salmon.

  • Focus harvest on hatchery stocks to help protect wild stocks. Release hatchery smolts into locations that focus harvest of adults in areas not frequented by wild salmon.  Adult hatchery salmon tend to stay in or return to areas where smolts were released.
  • Increase existing efforts to reduce the mixed-stock harvesting problem by reducing mixed-stock fishery exploitation rates to levels that are sustainable by wild stocks. Promote selective harvest of hatchery fish by permitting sport fishermen to retain only hatchery fish or to retain more hatchery fish than wild fish.  This would require marking most or all hatchery smolts.

4.      Improve disease control.

  • Hatchery fish experience greater susceptibility to infectious diseases due to higher rearing densities, higher levels of stress and poorer water quality. Diseases/infections can be spread to wild population elements, though research is needed to determine the extent of this threat.
  • Improve filtration systems at hatcheries to reduce the disease threat. This will also alleviate concerns about reintroducing salmon and steelhead upstream of hatcheries.

5.      Improve the genetic makeup of hatchery (and wild) salmon

  • Reverse engineer aspects of genetic diversity that has been selected out. Preferentially spawn 4-5 year-old adults at hatcheries.  Diversify timing of adult runs by breeding hatchery fish throughout the spawning run.  The Mokelumne Fish Hatchery is already implementing many such practices.  “Bad alleles can be purged.”
  • Use conservation hatchery actions to enhance the genetic diversity and fitness to help recover depleted wild populations.
  • Use more wild fish for hatchery broodstocks, particularly fish with more favorable traits.
  • Do not allow adult hatchery fish into spawning habitat used by wild fish.
  • Be more selective in choosing spawners for hatcheries.
  • Develop and support pure strains of wild salmon above dams through trap and haul programs.
  • Promote populations and subpopulations that protect or increase diversity (improve the Portfolio).
  • Develop captive stocks with desired natural traits – with less genetic drift, inbreeding and domestication,
  • Increase monitoring, research, experimentation, and adaptive management on the extent and consequences of domestication selection, as well as steps that may be taken to reduce its effects.
  • Evaluate and operate each hatchery program independently to address its program and its contribution to the overall problem.

Conclusion

Wild salmon populations in California’s Central Valley are already compromised to various degrees by hatchery salmon, over-harvest, and habitat degradation.  More can be done to protect wild salmon production and minimize the threat from hatcheries, while continuing to provide valuable commercial and sport fisheries supported by hatcheries.  We can save our salmon and eat them too.

For a more comprehensive scientific review of these subjects see Sturrock et al. 2019 and Nash et al. 2007.