Fremont Weir Overflows Again – Prepare for Salmon and Sturgeon Rescues

fish rescuesIt is one of those wet springs when the Sacramento River has spilled over the Fremont Weir at the upstream (north) entrance to the Yolo Bypass near Verona. In a January post I summarized the need to fix salmon and sturgeon passage at the weir. In early April 2011 adult sturgeon and salmon were rescued at Tisdale and Fremont weirs1 under nearly the same circumstances that have developed since mid-March this year. In the coming weeks, many adult sturgeon and Winter Run salmon attracted by the high Bypass flows will again show up and become stranded at the Fremont Weir as the weir ceases to overflow. River levels are expected to drop as much as eight feet in the coming week. As the Bypass slowly drains in the coming days more and more salmon and sturgeon will migrate up the Bypass via Cache Slough near Rio Vista. Many will become stranded in the upper Bypass as far up as the Fremont Weir concrete apron, where rescues occurred in the past.

map of flowsOthers will make their way to the west side of the upper Bypass to outlet of the Knights Landing Ridge Cut (KLRC), and migrate up into the Colusa Basin via the Colusa Basin Drain where they will be lost. In spring 2013, many Winter Run salmon were found stranded in the Colusa Basin under similar circumstances. The peak migration of Winter Run and sturgeon is in March and April. So I expect many salmon have or will be headed up the Ridge Cut, which is flowing 500-600 cfs.2 The CDFW trap is removed from the Ridge Cut outlet at such high flows.

Fixes for both problems are in the works, as they are required in the Central Valley Salmon Biological Opinion for operating the state and federal water projects. Reclamation District 108 is working on the outlet solution for the KLRC. DWR, DFW, and others are working on Fremont Weir passage. 3

In the meantime, trapping and rescues are the only measures to save fish again this year. These efforts should start soon. Note similar problems occur at the Moulton, Colusa, and Tisdale weirs (see map and last photo).

Above Photo: Fremont Weir on March 13, 2016. Overflow to Yolo Bypass was 30,000-40,000 cfs. Overflow peaked at 65,000 cfs two days later, as river stage rose to 36 ft, two feet above that in photo. For video of overflow event and Bypass flooding see http://youtu.be/9hrn2bSgg8A .

Above Photo: Fremont Weir on March 13, 2016. Overflow to Yolo Bypass was 30,000-40,000 cfs. Overflow peaked at 65,000 cfs two days later, as river stage rose to 36 ft, two feet above that in photo. For video of overflow event and Bypass flooding see http://youtu.be/9hrn2bSgg8A .

Above Photo: Fremont Weir on March 20, 2016 when overflow temporarily ceased at river stage dropped to 33.5 ft. Insert: 2011 rescue photo.

Above Photo: Fremont Weir on March 20, 2016 when overflow temporarily ceased at river stage dropped to 33.5 ft. Insert: 2011 rescue photo.

Above photo: Moulton Weir in January 1997.

Above photo: Moulton Weir in January 1997.

FISHBIO Strikes Again – Predation Is the Problem, Not Water Diversions – Right or Wrong?

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016, the Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee held a one-panel oversight hearing on “The Costly Impacts of Predation and Conflicting Federal Statutes on Native and Endangered Fish Species.” FISHBIO President Doug Demko was invited to provide testimony on the issue in reference to California’s Central Valley.

FishBio photo

FishBio photo

FishBio’s testimony begins: “California resource agencies sink tens of millions of dollars every year into a failing effort to protect native and endangered fish species, while also bolstering introduced top-level predators that are decimating the very fish they are required to maintain.”

  1. Failure to protect native and endangered fish species in the Central Valley has far more to do with water management within the federal Central Valley Project and State Water Project and lack of protections from water quality standards and biological opinions, especially during four multi-year droughts beginning in the late-1970’s. Over a billion dollars have been spent by federal and state agencies on fish recovery, with strongly positive results between droughts.
  2. In no way have the recovery efforts bolstered introduced top-level predators such as the striped bass. As noted in the testimony, stocking of striped bass ceased nearly two decades ago. Striped bass production had declined dramatically over the past three decades along with the native fish. Summer water quality standards that once protected striped bass were removed twenty years ago.
  3. The increases in stocking of hatchery salmon smolts to over 30 million annually in the Central Valley have encouraged and sustained the remaining striped bass, which now focus more on young salmon. Adult striped bass now concentrate in spring below all the Central Valley salmon hatcheries and dams. Remnants of the once prolific striped bass population await the fat hatchery smolts in all 300 miles to the Golden Gate. A shift in prey and location of prey has forced more Striped Bass into the rivers and tributaries for prey.
  4. Yearly Hatchery Steelhead Photo

    Photo: yearling hatchery steelhead smolt fed on wild salmon fry in American River. (Photo by author)

    The stocking of millions of large yearling salmon and steelhead smolts also contributes directly to predation on wild salmon and steelhead fry. (see photo at right)

  5. Research has shown that habitat changes have had more to do with increased predator populations like largemouth bass in the Delta. Controlling habitat change is the proven way to limit predators, rather than direct control of predators, which does not work (logistically impossible and very costly and inefficient).

“However, only recently has the existing body of science on predation been recognized among fisheries managers as a major source of juvenile salmon mortality.” This statement is simply not true. Hatchery salmon smolts have been trucked to the Bay for three decades to avoid the hundreds of miles of predator gauntlet. Predation studies at specific locations such as the Red Bluff Diversion Dam have long indicated predation problems. The dam was removed because it was a recognized predator “hot spot”.

There is no doubt that predation by non-native fish like Striped Bass and Largemouth Bass is a major factor in Chinook Salmon and Steelhead mortality in the Central Valley. However singling them out as the primary cause of native fish declines misses the key factor: water management. Salmon, smelt, and bass got along well until the State Water Project came on line in the 1970s and increased Delta exports from 2 million to 6 million acre-feet per year. There is no doubt that droughts and climate change have added to or sped up changes; however the underlying problem remains water diversions.

“It has now become clear that predation may significantly limit the success of salmon recovery efforts (NMFS 2009b; Dauble et al., 2010).” While this statement may be true under existing conditions where salmon production is limited by water management and habitat degradation (with predation exacerbated by these factors), the solution should be a broader range of risk factor management, not just a focus on predation. For example, spring reservoir releases can reduce predation risk by speeding emigration, increasing turbidity, and reducing water temperature.

“The survival estimate of 7% in 2012 was much lower than the 40-60% previously estimated by mark-recapture studies conducted by CDFW.” In drought years like 2012, reservoirs capture and retain nearly all winter-spring flows. No doubt this creates better conditions for Striped Bass (and resident Rainbow Trout and Pikeminnow) predation on young salmon that are programmed to emigrate when Mother Nature provides appropriate freshets. So is the problem predation or lack of natural flows? (This problem could be partly mitigated through a more comprehensive approach in the worst case drought years by capturing young salmon in migrants traps and transporting them to the Bay, thus avoiding the predators in the river (and Delta). In such dry years adult Striped Bass could also be effectively captured in upstream migrant traps and transported to the Bay where other types of prey are far more abundant.)

“[N]o changes in sportfishing regulations, and, to date, no meaningful actions of any kind have been taken to accept or address the problem.” Changing sport fishing regulations would be a drop in the bucket and alienate most sport fishermen. Why doesn’t CDFW take the hundreds of thousands of young striped bass salvaged each summer at the Delta export pumps (and returned to the west Delta) and stock them in a southern California reservoir? Because that would cripple the Bay-Delta striper fishery – an angler’s Catch-22. Why doesn’t CDFW take the catch from hundreds of bass tournaments each year in the Delta somewhere other than nice spots in the Delta? Because that would cripple the world-renowned bass fishery – another Catch-22. FishBio describes the bounty fishery on Columbia River predators that are less desired as gamefish. It is altogether different to put a bounty on Striped Bass and Largemouth Bass.

FishBio noted that harvest restrictions on non-native sport fish have recently been removed on the Columbia River to protect native salmonids. “A similar policy change in California, coupled with focused removal and suppression efforts, could lead to improved survival conditions for native species as has been demonstrated on the Columbia River.” Columbia River salmonid fisheries are far more valuable and popular than bass and walleye fisheries. Furthermore, there is little else managers can do on the Columbia to benefit salmon. Water diversions in the Columbia are far less of a problem, and managers on the Columbia have already severely limited hydropower production to provide spring spills for salmon. These actions have brought record or near record salmon and steelhead runs.

In conclusion, Striped Bass and Largemouth Bass are two of the top sportfish in the Central Valley. Destroying their populations and sport fisheries, and associated socio-economic benefits, without addressing water management, the real culprit, will not solve or defuse the problem.

Winter Run Salmon have taken the Brunt of Punishment from Reclamation’s Shasta-Trinity Drought Operations – what about 2016?

In the last two summers, Winter Run salmon production was greatly reduced by Reclamation’s operations of the Shasta-Trinity Division of the Central Valley Project. While the drought brought on the problem and the specific damaging project operations, the damage done was in large part unnecessary. Furthermore, not all the blame should go to Reclamation – the State Water Board and resource agencies who condoned the damaging operations also deserve some of the dis-credit.

I wrote on the subject in some detail in November.1 Resource and management agencies who were responsible for the failure of two year classes of Winter Run continue to blame the drought or demands of water contractors on Shasta-Trinity storage (Figure 1). Soon they will prepare a plan for the coming irrigation season. The plan will depend greatly on present and coming late-winter weather and hydrology. Given that Shasta Reservoir likely will fill this spring, the plan will likely revert to operations similar to those of 2011 and 2012, the last two years when the reservoir filled.

NMFS graphic

Figure 1. NMFS blames the drought.

State Board’s Thoughts

The State Board has been thinking carefully about what to do this summer for Winter Run salmon. 2

  • “With the loss of two out of three cohorts of endangered wild winter-run Chinook salmon (2014 and 2015), it is critical that we develop cold water pool resources in the winter and spring to support temperature management needed later in the year for this third wild winter run Chinook salmon year class.” Comment: irrigation deliveries to Sacramento River Settlement Contractors in April and May of the last two years were a major cause of the loss of the cold-water pool in Shasta. This in turn led to high egg mortality in the upper Sacramento River just below Shasta. While cutting the April and May deliveries would have alleviated the greater part of the problem in both years, it is not all of the problem or solution. Operational changes in the Shasta-Trinity Division could have eliminated many of the problems with little impact to irrigation deliveries, at least in 2015.
  • “These data reflect a 97.9% mortality of winter-run Chinook salmon eggs and fry on the upper Sacramento River in 2015.” Comment: Yes, the excessive water temperatures allowed by the State Board by relaxing their water quality standards caused the nearly complete loss of 2015 Winter Run production.
  • “Shasta operations: Implementation and Exception Procedures for End of September (EOS) Storage of 1.9 MAF or below – As per RPA Action I.2.2.C, if the EOS storage is at or below 1.9 MAF, then Keswick releases shall be managed to improve storage and maintained at 3,250 cfs unless hydrology improves.” Comment: Hydrology in the Central Valley has greatly improved with El Niño, yet releases were kept at 3250 cfs all winter, to the further detriment of the Winter Run, and were only increased well after Shasta exceeded the reservoir level at which Reclamation is supposed to release water to protect against floods. Young salmon need flow pulses to successfully migrate downstream from spawning and rearing areas.
  • “Given the substantial mortality of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook during the egg incubation and emergence periods in BYs 2014 and 2015, there is a need to conservatively manage for protection of the third of three winter-run Chinook cohorts, which will return to spawn upper Sacramento River beginning in summer of 2016. In the coming months, Reclamation and NMFS will be evaluating different actions to balance fishery needs, water supply, and water quality to develop a greater likelihood of protecting juvenile winter-run from BY 2016. As mentioned previously, any proposed action will require the cooperation of senior water rights holders on the Sacramento River and a system-wide operational approach to prioritize cold-water storage and operations at Shasta Lake.” Comment: After the failures in 2014 and 2015, we await the final plan for 2016.
  • Under any hydrologic exceedence scenarios, there is a need to maximize water storage in Lake Shasta to comply with the December 15, 2015 adopted Order and also increase the likelihood of successfully implementing a water temperature management plan to benefit winter run Chinook salmon. The NMFS has prepared some initial concepts to achieve storage and temperature goals (Attachment 4) (Figure 2). In general, the proposed concept involves flow release as low as 2750 and 3250 until late May or initiation of a water temperature management plan.” Comment: The suggested NMFS improvements (“2016 adjustment”) would be a great benefit, particularly the 53°F DAT (daily average temperature) at Clear Creek in Redding (CCR). Obviously, 53°F would be a substantial improvement over last year’s allowed 58°F. The change is reasonably conservative given the present state of the population. The 55°F 7-day average daily maximum option leaves too much room for error, such as a day of lethal temperatures. Given the circumstances, we can only hope that NMFS recommends the more conservative approach, as it will also greatly help downstream habitat conditions at Balls Ferry and Jellys Ferry, which would further benefit Winter Run.
NMFS temp criteria...

Figure 2. NMFS considerations for the coming summer water temperature standard in the Sacramento River near Redding.

Present Prognosis

Nearly half way through the water year it is safe to say there is a very reasonable chance there will be adequate water resources to save the Winter Run salmon this year. Shasta storage is sharply rising (Figure 3). The reservoir will likely fill this spring for the first time since 2012. The snow pack is also above average.

Graph of Shasta Storage 2010-16

Figure 3. Shasta Reservoir storage water years 2011-2015. (Data source: CDEC)

Recommendations

Reasonable water temperature criteria for 2016 are:

  1. Maximum daily average water temperature in Keswick Reservoir release – 53F.
  2. Maximum daily average water temperature at Red Bluff – 58F.

Both these criteria were achieved in 2011 and 2012 (Figures 4 and 5), the last two years when Shasta Reservoir filled.

Graph of Red Bluff Temps 2011-13

Figure 4. Water temperature (daily average) in Sacramento River at Red Bluff – April 2011 to November 2013.

Graph of Keswick Temps 2011-13

Figure 5. Daily average water temperature of Keswick Reservoir release – April 2011 to March 2013.

More Information

For more information on saving the Winter Run Chinook Salmon in the Sacramento River and Delta see the following sources:

http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/2015-long-term-operations-biological-opinions-annual-science-review-review-materials-supplemental

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/stories/2015/23_12232015_winter_chinook_math.html

http://mavensnotebook.com/2015/12/15/conserving-chinook-salmon-at-the-southern-end-of-their-range-challenges-and-opportunities/

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/Central_Valley/Water%20Operations/ Delta%20Operations%20for%20Salmonids%20and%20Sturgeon/ DOSS%20WY2016/2016.02.09_final_doss_notes.pdf

Largemouth Bass Production in the Delta

I had the unique opportunity to study fish use of shallow inshore waters of the western Delta in 1978-79 and again in 2004-05. One of the biggest differences I noticed after 25 years was the increase in Largemouth Bass production. Mitigation areas where levees were breached allowing tides to enter-and-leave tidal ponds without flow-through were virtual Largemouth breeding factories. Areas where channel entrances had filled in and circulation reduced also were prone to aquatic plant proliferation and an abundance of non-native lake/pond fish including Largemouth, sunfish, and shiner minnows. Flow-through areas and tidal channels with two ends had lower Largemouth production (and more native fishes). Limited tidal circulation also caused prolific amounts of aquatic vegetation including water hyacinth, Egeria, milfoil, Parrots Feather, and Potamogeton. Dense beds of aquatic vegetation also occurred in bays, dead-end sloughs, breached islands, and protected shorelines.

A recent study1 relates higher Largemouth production to increases in aquatic plants, specifically relating the abundance of young Largemouth to Egeria. They also found young Largemouth more abundant in warmer waters, another feature of backwater areas. Aquatic plants slow currents, capture sediment, and absorb sunlight, which all contribute to warming of shallow waters.

One of the paper’s conclusions related to future habitat restoration:

“While these efforts will expand the largely missing shallow-water habitat in the Delta, a major concern is that increased shallow water area will expand the habitat for Brazilian waterweed and consequently increase the abundance of Largemouth Bass, creating a predation sink for target native fishes (Brown 2003).”

I have some points of disagreement with these conclusions. First, I do not believe the Delta lacks shallow water habitat. The problem, rather, is that too much of existing shallow water habitat is bad habitat more conducive to non-native warm water fish. Second, good shallow habitat along the edges of the bays and rivers has been and continues being lost to riprapping, ship-channel dredging, remnant soft-levee erosion, and filling with sediment.

I concur with the paper that much planned restoration will create more bad habitat. Instead we should be protecting good habitat and converting more of the bad habitat to good habitat.

For more on the subject of Delta habitat restoration see: http://calsport.org/news/cspas-assessment-of-historical-habitat-restoration-in-the-delta/ .

Feinstein Objects as State and Federal Regulators Hold Back on Delta Exports

The Sacramento Bee ran an article on March 11, 2016 that reported how state and federal water managers have limited Delta exports to protect endangered salmon and smelt. The article also reported that Senator Feinstein had called for increased exports, and quoted a representative from Westlands Water District lamenting the loss of stormwater to the ocean.1

The facts are that limiting exports to about 6,000 cfs (maximum is 11,400 cfs) under present rules is reasonable given the risks to endangered Winter Run salmon and Delta smelt. As stated in the article, most of remnant Winter Run salmon and Delta smelt are in the Delta.

It was not so long ago that high late winter exports contributed to the decline of both species. In 2001, late winter exports of 8,000-11,000 cfs resulted in high salvage counts of salmon (Figure 1 – up to several hundred per day of Winter Run) in contrast to several hundred for the entire winter in 2016. Delta smelt salvage at South Delta Fish collection facilities reached several hundred per day in 2001 (Figure 2), in contrast to only a total of 12 in winter 2016. Winter 2001 Delta outflows were also high (Figure 3), but exports rules were not as strict.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the multi-agency Smelt Working Group has been recommending even lower exports this winter2 because of the record low numbers of smelt and the high risks to smelt from exports.

Restrictions on exports are reasonable and necessary to protect smelt and salmon.

Chinook salmon salvage at South Delta fish facilities in 2001

Figure 1. Chinook salmon salvage at South Delta fish facilities in 2001. CVP is federal Tracy facility. SWP is state Clifton Court facility. Export rates are in acre-ft per day. Daily export rate in cubic feet per second (cfs) is approximately 50% of the rate in acre-ft. Winter 2016 salvage totals in contrast total only several hundred. (Source3)

Delta smelt salvage at South Delta fish facilities in 2001

Figure 2. Delta smelt salvage at South Delta fish facilities in 2001. CVP is federal Tracy facility. SWP is state Clifton Court facility. Export rates are in acre-ft per day. Daily export rate in cubic feet per second (cfs) is approximately 50% of the rate in acre-ft.

Delta outflow in winter 2001

Figure 3. Delta outflow in winter 2001. Winter 2016 outflow ranged from 10,000 to 66,000 cfs. (Source: CDEC)