Fall Pulsed Flow Protections for Winter Run Salmon Not in 2017 and 2018

Posted on December 23, 2018 by Tom Cannon

It is well known that juvenile winter-run salmon migrate downstream to the Delta from their upper Sacramento River rearing area near Redding/Red Bluff with the first fall-winter flow pulses.¹ Protection of this critical migration of winter-run has been recommended in recent Delta proceedings. In the WaterFix petitions process at the State Water Resources Control Board, such protection is referred to as “pulse protection.” So based on the importance of protecting winter-run during this key life-history stage, one would think such protection would have been applied in the fall of our most recent wet year 2017 and below-normal 2018. A quick check of the facts indicates otherwise.

In 2017, the initial pulse of juvenile winter-run salmon passed Red Bluff (rivermile 240) during September and October, prior to any flow pulses (Figure 1). The first major pulses of flow occurred in the latter half of November 2017. A migration spike of winter-run-sized smolts at Knights Landing screw traps (rivermile 90) did occur during the flow pulse (Figures 1 and 2). Instead of protecting these winter run as they were entering the Delta, south Delta exports were increased to take advantage of the available inflow (Figure 3). The increase occurred with the Delta Cross Channel partially open (Figure 4), increasing the risks of migrating salmon to south Delta exports. Other than a four-day pulse, Delta outflow generally declined before and after the flow pulse (Figure 5). Salinity in the lower Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta channel generally increased with the higher exports and lower outflows (Figures 6 and 7).

In 2018, the initial pulse of juvenile winter-run passed Red Bluff in September and October prior to flow pulses (Figure 7). The first major pulse of flow occurred at the end of November. A migration spike of winter-run-sized smolts at Knights Landing screw traps occurred during this flow pulse (Figures 7 and 8). Instead of protecting these juvenile winter run as they were entering the Delta, south Delta exports were increased to take advantage of the available inflow, with nearly two-thirds of the Delta inflow being exported (Figure 9).

The lack of protection is likely a consequence of the young salmon not showing up in salvage (Figure 2). For me, the high risk factors are clear.

The lack of salvage simply indicates that few of the migrating salmon survive upon entering the Delta under high exports. High late-November and early-December south Delta exports are a high risk to the juvenile winter-run survival. Traditional high December exports of up to 65% of Delta inflow allowed under D1641 water quality standards are a major risk factor for winter-run salmon that must be changed.
Declining flows below Keswick Dam (rivermile 300) during the fall, combined with the lack of flow pulses, are also a real concern. Juvenile salmon that pass Red Bluff (river mile 240) in September and October are sustained in low flow conditions for nearly 200 miles of modified river channel until the first rains in late November or early December. And the spawning reach directly downstream of Keswick gets no added flow even when it rains, because inflows to Shasta Reservoir are all captured.

For additional information, see agency discussions and data presentations in: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/Central_Valley/Water%20Operations/Delta%20Operations%20for%20Salmonids%20and%20Sturgeon/DOSS%20WY%202018/winter-run_juvenile_production_estimate__jpe__for_brood_year_2017_-_january_29__2018__1_.pdf

Figure 1. Juvenile winter-run salmon estimated passage and stream flow at Red Bluff (rivermile 240) from late summer 2017 to June 2018.

Figure 2. Lower Sacramento River screw trap collections at Knights Landing (rm 90) since August 2017 along with flow, turbidity, and water temperature. Note late November catch event during flow pulse.

Figure 3. South Delta exports in fall 2017. Note peak exports mid-November through early December – total 10,000-11,000 cfs (22,000 acre-ft per day). Chinook salvage is shown as zero.

Figure 4. Flow through Delta Cross Channel August through December 2017. Note sporadic opening late September through November 2017, and closure at end of November.

Figure 5. Delta outflow August through December 2017.

Figure 6. Salinity (EC) near Rio Vista on lower Sacramento River channel in the Delta, August through December 2017.

Figure 7. Salinity (EC) near Jersey Pt on lower San Joaquin River channel in the Delta, August through December 2017.

Figure 8. Juvenile winter-run salmon estimated passage and stream flow at Red Bluff (rm 240) from late summer 2017 to June 2018.

Figure 9. Juvenile winter-run salmon estimated passage at Knights Landing (rivermile 90) and stream flow at Wilkins Slough (rivermile 125) from late summer to fall 2018. Note early December pulse of fish, flow, and turbidity.

Figure 10. Export rates from two south Delta pumping plants (Tracy TRP and Banks HRO) summer and fall 2018.

Figure 11. Lower Sacramento River flow at Freeport (FPT, rm 55) and Delta outflow (DTO) summer and fall 2018.

http://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/?p=1522 ↩

Solving the Delta’s Invasive Aquatic Vegetation Problem

Posted on December 5, 2018 by Tom Cannon

A recent science paper reminded me about the benefits of aquatic vegetation to lake fish species like largemouth bass. It also reminded me that invasive aquatic vegetation has ruined lake-like salmon habitats of the west coast, such as Seattle’s Lake Washington and portions of the Columbia River and California’s Bay-Delta estuaries. Instead of rearing salmon and smelt, these waters now rear non-native bass and sunfish (centrarchids). These once-turbid waters conducive to rearing juvenile salmon and smelt are now best suited for sight-feeding centrarchids, competitors and predators of salmon that love clear water and abundant cover. The non-native aquatic vegetation (Egeria, hyacinth, and milfoils) in the Bay-Delta provides abundant cover, uses all the aquatic plant nutrients, and collects the suspended sediment – all bad for the Bay-Delta’s pelagic/planktonic habitat.

Other than gripe about the obvious problem over the past several decades, what has anyone done about it? Boating and Waterways has tried spraying herbicides, but that has been costly, ineffective, messy, and organically/chemically polluting. Flushing the Delta all year with more-and-more clear reservoir water to south-Delta export pumps has not helped. The proliferation of non-native clams has also contributed to the problem.

There are no easy solutions, but there are options that should be implemented. Though costly and with their own environmental problems, these options can potentially lead toward recovery of the most important Delta habitats. The best option is an aggressive (and expensive) long-term program of manual cutting and harvesting using boat‐mounted cutters, harvesting barges, and suction dredges to remove the rooted and floating aquatic plants. A longer-term option is to increase turbidity from inorganic and organic sources by adding silts or reducing silt “sinks;” this would help cut sunlight and nutrients to rooted aquatic plants. Direct application of aquatic fertilizers has recently been considered by resource agencies; this could also help. Finally, reducing exports from the south Delta could help because it would reduce the proportion of low-turbidity reservoir water in the Delta and lessen the direct loss of millions of tons of silt.

Shifting the Bay-Delta habitat away from centrarchids by increasing Delta turbidity will measurably improve salmon and smelt recovery.

Mokelumne River Salmon Update – Fall 2018

Posted on November 27, 2018 by Tom Cannon

Dan Bacher’s report on 2018 salmon returns to the Mokelumne River Hatchery provides continuing good news for the Mokelumne River salmon run.

When I last reported on the fall run of Mokelumne River salmon, I described strong runs from 2010-2016. The 2017 run was exceptionally strong (Figures 1 and 2), despite being the product of the 2013-2015 drought. This success story is in large part due to the management of the Mokelumne River Hatchery, as reported in the Bacher article. Trucking hatchery smolts to the lower San Joaquin in the western Delta near Jersey Point greatly improves survival over releases of salmon in the lower Mokelumne River.

Best returns from the spring 2015 releases were from smolts barged and released near the Golden Gate. That group of 101,000 smolts (tag code #060593) had a good return of 1.35 percent compared to 0.06-0.80 % from smolts released in the west Delta and 0.01 % released in the lower Mokelumne River. In early May 2015, soon after river and Delta smolt releases, water temperatures reached 68^oF in the west Delta and 72^oF in the lower Mokelumne in the central Delta, levels stressful to smolt salmon. Delta outflow in early May 2015 was critically low at ~5000 cfs. Net flow in the lower San Joaquin River in the west Delta, with the Delta Cross Channel closed, was near zero.

The returns from tag group #060593 (shown in Figure 3), which represented only about 3% of the total smolts releases from the Mokelumne Hatchery in 2015, exemplifies the kind of return pattern that can be achieved by a progressive hatchery program. The majority of the adults returning from this tag group to the Central Valley were to the hatchery (192), although a significant number strayed to the neighboring American River (82) and San Joaquin River and its tributaries (40). In previous years, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife achieved similar success barging smolts from the Feather River Fish Hatchery.¹

Figure 1. Mokelumne River in-river fall Chinook returns (escapement) 1975-2017.

Figure 2. Mokelumne River hatchery fall Chinook returns (escapement) 1975-2017

Figure 3. Mokelumne River fall Chinook tag returns through 2017 from 101,000 Mokelumne River Hatchery smolts, tag group #060593, barged to and released near the Golden Gate Bridge.

http://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/?p=1703 ↩

Sacramento River Salmon Science

Posted on November 25, 2018 by Tom Cannon

A recent paper in the prestigious Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science discusses Central Valley salmon. The paper concludes: “Wild stocks in several California rivers are now dominated by hatchery fish (Barnett-Johnson et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 2012; Quiñones and Moyle 2014), potentially eroding the long-term resiliency of wild, locally adapted populations by disrupting selection for heritable traits that improve lifetime reproductive success in variable environments.”

First, wild or naturally spawning stocks or runs of fall-run Chinook salmon in Valley rivers are all dominated by hatchery salmon. Without hatcheries and straying of hatchery salmon to non-hatchery rivers (e.g., Yuba, Cosumnes, etc.), there would be almost no salmon runs of significance.

Second, there are hardly any significant locally adapted (wild) traits left to erode. River flows, water temperatures, gravel spawning beds, large woody debris, predators, and channel morphologies have become so limiting or compromising that wild salmon survival is nearly nonexistent.

Third, the “lifetime reproductive success” potential of wild fish is primarily compromised by water and fisheries management. Flows are too low, and fisheries continue harvesting much of the wild salmon production.

Fourth, the recent salmon population crashes of 2009 and 2016 are blamed by many salmon scientists on poor ocean conditions, with little regard for poor river habitat or water management as contributing factors, let alone hatcheries. By contrast, the federal Battle Creek hatchery managers knew they had to truck some of their smolt production to the Bay during the drought because of poor river conditions if they hoped for some survival and contribution to future runs.

The authors of the paper imply that hatcheries are the problem. No doubt the hatchery programs could be improved to lessen their negative effects and improve their contribution to salmon recovery. But for sure the fault is not with the hatcheries. Lack of support for hatcheries by scientists and resource agencies will dry up hatchery funding by water-user entities and make the problem worse.

The paper’s authors conclude: “There is a growing concern that salmon populations in the C[entral] V[alley] of California are becoming dependent upon hatchery supplementation, a conservation status recently identified as “mitigated extinction” Baumsteiger and Moyle 2017).” California salmon have been dependent on hatcheries for many decades. This is not a new development. Dams and diversions wiped out the wild salmon and their critical habitats, while hatcheries kept the dream going. Now scientists want to take the dream away.

Give the authors some credit for ending by saying: “Hatcheries can play a key role in the recovery of wild stocks, supplementing the fishery, and the reestablishment of natural areas, but only with cautious and appropriate management.” Despite the ambiguity, I had similar recommendations for improving hatchery programs in a recent post. ¹

http://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/?p=2345 ↩

Fall Run Salmon Spawn 2018

Posted on November 19, 2018 by Tom Cannon

In a past May 2018 post I described how fall-run salmon redd dewatering was a key factor in the poor wild salmon production in the Sacramento River during the two prominent salmon population crashes in the past decade. This problem is again occurring in fall 2018 (Figures 1-3). The close to 50% drop in flow releases from Shasta Dam since late October and the corresponding 2-to-3 foot drop in water level is causing redd stranding of spring-run and fall-run salmon in the spawning grounds of the Sacramento River below Shasta.¹

Despite nearly filling this past spring, Shasta Reservoir was drawn down over the summer and fall (Figures 4 and 5). The decline is unprecedented and is more typical of critical drought years. I recognize the concern for Shasta storage, but Reclamation’s decision to provide 100% water allocations under low snowpack conditions has again compromised Sacramento River salmon production.