Category Archives: Restoration

It is time to save the Delta Smelt

Posted on by

Causes of the Decline of the Endangered Delta Smelt

There are multiple threats to the Delta Smelt population that contribute to its viability and risk of extinction. Chief among these threats are reductions in freshwater inflow to the estuary; loss of larval, juvenile and adult fish at the state and federal Delta export facilities and in urban, agricultural and industrial water diversions; direct and indirect impacts of the Delta Smelt’s planktonic food supply and habitat; and lethal and sub-lethal effects of warm water and toxic chemicals in Delta open-water habitats.

Temporary urgency change orders by the State Board have allowed reduced Delta outflow and increased Delta salinity. This has moved the Low Salinity Zone further upstream (eastward) into the Delta, thereby increasing the degree of each of these threats. During the past few drought summers, remnants of the population have been confined to a small area of the Low Salinity Zone where water temperatures barely remain below lethal levels. The change orders are an obvious and direct threat to the remnants living in the Low Salinity Zone. Further allowing these weakened standards to be violated is a direct disregard for the remnants of the population. It places them at extraordinary risk by bringing them further into the zone of water diversions, degrading their habitat into the lethal range of water temperature, further degrading their already depleted food supply, and increasing the concentrations of toxic chemicals being relentlessly discharged into the Delta.

Saving the Delta Smelt

The following are measures necessary to save the remnant Delta Smelt population:

  1. Keep the low salinity zone (LSZ) out of the Delta as prescribed in State water quality control plans over the last several decades. This can be readily accomplished by meeting already defined flow and salinity standards and restrictions on Delta exports. The LSZ on the Sacramento channel side should be in the wide open reach of eastern Suisun Bay between Collinsville and the west end of Sherman Island (location of Emmaton standard). It must be kept out of the Emmaton-to-Rio Vista reach just upstream in the west Delta, because this reach is confined and continually degraded by reservoir releases and warm water passing through the North Delta via Three Mile Slough to the interior of the Delta and south Delta water diversions. On the San Joaquin (south) side, the low salinity zone belongs in the wide Antioch–to-Jersey Point reach as prescribed in standards. This can be accomplished in spring and summer of dry years by maintaining prescribed flows, salinity standards at Jersey Point, installation of the False River and Dutch Slough Barriers, and opening the Delta Cross Channel (which results in positive net outflow from the mouth of Old River downstream to Jersey Point in the Central Delta). Maintaining the net positive flows in west Delta channels helps tremendously in getting salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, striped bass, and smelt from upstream freshwater spawning areas to their downstream rearing area target, the estuary’s LSZ. Keeping the LSZ in eastern Suisun Bay, as has always been an objective Delta Water Quality Plans, has huge indirect benefits as well, including greater plankton production, lower non-stressful water temperatures (conducive to growth and survival of all the Delta fish including smelt and salmonids), higher turbidity levels in the LSZ (reduced predation on and improved feeding for Delta smelt), lower invasive Asian clam concentrations in eastern Suisun Bay (which siphon off plankton and larval fish), and lower concentrations of toxins in the LSZ.
  2.  Improve the physical habitat of the LSZ. Habitat in eastern Suisun Bay, though far better than that of the west Delta, has been continuously degraded over the past century. Fortunately, there are few levees along the north shore of the Sacramento side. However, the wave-swept shores along Antioch Hills have lost all riparian vegetation except pockets of invasive Arundo. Hillside windfarm and shoreline erosion have filled in shoreline shoals, shallows, bays and alcoves that provided rearing habitat for smelt and salmon (salmon fry are the most abundant fish in these shallows through the winter). Miles of shoreline bays, inlets, and tidal marshes east of Collinsville have been lost. On the south side of the Sacramento channel are the remnants of historic Delta marshes and islands of West Sherman Island and Sherman Lake. Gradually the riparian shoreline and shallow waters are washing away as a consequence of wind as well as ship-wake erosion. Lack of interior marsh channel circulation has also led to grand infestations of invasive non-native submergent, emergent, and floating aquatic vegetation. Like the north shore, the south shoreline of West Suisun Bay on the San Joaquin side is not leveed. Likewise, shoreline and shallow water habitats are degraded, but from industrialization. Large areas east of Antioch to Big Break are degraded much as in the area of Sherman Lake. Both the north and south East Suisun Bay channels are degraded by dredging of the two deep-water ship channels, which has resulted in the loss of shallow shoal, bay, and mudflat habitats. Virtually none of the habitats mentioned above were addressed in the grand BDCP restoration plans for the Bay-Delta. Though some of the areas have been prescribed for restoration in various mitigation plans, virtually no progress has been made toward their restoration in the last several decades.
  3. Stock hatchery raised smelt in the LSZ. The agency-sponsored Delta Smelt conservation hatcheries could be upgraded to production status to provide juveniles to be stocked in the LSZ in late spring and summer. The population is so low now (zero 20-mm and Townet survey indices) that stocking would be helpful if not necessary.
  4. Provide a spring pulse flow into and through the Delta to help smelt fry transport from freshwater spawning areas downstream to the LSZ. This could include passing some Sacramento River flow through the blocked entrance to the Deepwater Ship Channel at the Port of West Sacramento. Delta inflow pulses could be provided by reservoir releases coordinated with infrequent natural flow pulses through the Delta.
  5. Manage tidal flows and Delta hydrodynamics, as well as water quality, on a real time basis to help maintain the LSZ in east Suisun Bay and to stimulate and sustain plankton blooms. Real time management is possible because of the many satellite-accessible data recorders in the Delta, as well as the many frequent biological monitoring surveys being conducted throughout the Bay and Delta. Active adaptive management is possible with the many flow controls available on diversions, reservoir releases, and flow splits (e.g., Delta Cross Channel).

Listen to the River

Posted on by

In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) was enacted by Congress and resulted in the development of an Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) to double the anadromous fish populations in the Central Valley by 2002. Astoundingly, after twenty-three years and more than $1,000,000,000 spent, extensive monitoring studies and the use of alleged “adaptive management”, the salmon runs have not only not doubled in size, but have declined. Most notably, there is no measureable progress toward delisting any of the threatened or endangered anadromous fish, and the fall-run Chinook, the most abundant among the four salmon runs, have now dropped even further from historical levels. Some individuals have even recently suggested that the fall run may warrant listing as an endangered species (Williams 2012) … not exactly a glowing success story for salmon restoration (or an efficient expenditure of money).

Because of this poor track record, an independent peer review (“Listen to the River”) of the CVPIA fisheries program was conducted in 2008 and was highly critical of the government agencies’ implementation of the anadromous fish restoration efforts. For example,

“Yet it is also far from clear that the agencies have done what is possible and necessary to improve freshwater conditions to help these species weather environmental variability, halt their decline and begin rebuilding in a sustainable way. A number of the most serious impediments to survival and recovery are not being effectively addressed, especially in terms of the overall design and operation of the Central Valley Project system.” (Cummins et al. 2008)

In particular, the review criticized the failures of implementing an effective, scientifically valid adaptive management program:

“The absence of a unified program organized around a conceptual framework is one of the reasons the program appears to be a compartmentalized effort that lacks strategic planning and decision-making. As a result the program is unable to address the larger system issues, has a disjointed M&E [monitoring and evaluation] program, exhibits little of the traits expected from effective adaptive management, and is unable to effectively coordinate with related programs in the region. An uncoordinated approach also creates boundaries to the free flow of useful information and program-wide prioritization. We observed that most researchers and technicians seemed unclear how or even whether their local efforts related to or contributed to the overall program.” (Cummins et al. 2008)

The “Listen to the River” report provided numerous recommendations to improve implementation of the CVPIA AFRP. Included among those suggestions was development and utilization of an effective adaptive management program. Surprisingly, it has now been seven years since the review panel’s report and all proposals put forth remain unimplemented by the involved agencies. When a newspaper reporter recently queried Bob Clarke, fisheries program supervisor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), concerning the lack of progress and excessive funds expended in the AFRP, the response was that officials are still working to change the way they prioritize restoration. Clarke said: “It’s a process, unfortunately it’s not a process that allows you to get your results immediately,”1 Seven years? … It should have been done in seven months. A subsequent Redding Record Searchlight Newspaper Editorial2 on the topic responded that “those responsible have offered excuses, not explanations” and maybe what the AFRP needs “are fewer administrators and more field work”. It’s hard to disagree with that opinion. In an astonishing example, an examination of a portion of the annual AFRP budget in 2014 revealed that a total of $2,794,625 was expended on state and federal staff. Most of those funds were spent on so-called “Habitat Restoration Coordinators”.

AFRP Org ChartIt’s difficult to comprehend how one individual could work 52 weeks a year “coordinating” very few, if any, actual restoration projects in such small regions. Furthermore, with redundancy in the AFRP, both USFWS and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife have “Habitat Restoration Coordinators” overlapping within the same watersheds. Frankly, some of these efforts could probably be handled by an experienced individual during Saturday afternoons and serve as a “facilitator” to expedite projects, instead of a “coordinator” impeding progress with an added layer of bureaucracy. A suggested alternative approach would be to reorganize the program as shown below. This one example would allow more than $2,000,000 to be reallocated to actual salmon habitat restoration projects every year. Many more examples exist.

Proposed AFRP Org ChartDick Pool, President of Water4Fish and a long-time promoter for salmon restoration, recently summed up the problem: “The CVPIA program needs a major restructuring. For the last ten years, the salmon industry, Congress and many others have advocated the money be spent on ‘On the Ground’ projects in the river and in the Delta which deal with the real problems. So far there has been no change in the program.” After 23 years, it is time to listen to the river, implement a new approach, use true adaptive management, and place the needs of the salmon in front of building larger state and federal bureaucracies.

References

Arthur, D. 2015. “$1 Billon Later, Salmon are Still in Peril”. Redding Record Searchlight, May 17, 2015.

Redding Record Searchlight Editorial. 2015. “Agencies finally getting it – fish need cold water.” June 5, 2015.

Cummins, K., C. Furey, A. Giorgi, S. Lindley, J. Nestler, and J. Shurts. 2008. Listen to the River: An Independent Review of the CVPIA Fisheries Program. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 2008. 51 p. plus appendices.

Williams, J.G. 2012. Juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in and around the San Francisco estuary. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 10(3). October 2012.

  1. “$1 Billon Later, Salmon are Still in Peril”. Article by Damon Arthur, Redding Record Searchlight, May 17, 2015. ↩
  2. June 5, 2015 ↩

A New Paradigm for Sacramento River Basin Salmon Habitat Restoration

Posted on by

Nearly everyone supports the concept of restoring salmon and their habitats within the existing geographic range of the Central Valley.  But why is it so difficult to implement relatively low-cost, simple actions that would unquestionably benefit salmon?  The following is a recent example of the problem and its ultimate, surprising solution.

In 1986, a colleague (Dick Painter) with the Department of Fish and Game [now Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW)], through a lot of planning and hard work, created an excellent salmon habitat project in a side channel on the main stem Sacramento River in Redding, California.  Many years later, I named this area “Painter’s Riffle” in recognition of the dedicated biologist.  The modified channel worked well for many years but, inevitably, the habitat quality diminished due to lack of fresh gravel replenishment that would have been historically provided from upstream areas prior to construction of Shasta and Keswick dams.  Nevertheless, the area proved beneficial for 25 years by being hydraulically connected to the main river and provided habitats for the river’s four runs of salmon and steelhead.  This circumstance changed dramatically after the City of Redding widened the Highway 44/299 Bridge spanning the Sacramento River just upstream of Painter’s Riffle.  As is now usual and customary for such in-river projects, DFW required the bridge contractor to lay clean spawning gravels in the riverbed (amounting to 20,000 cubic yards) as a platform to commence work.  The concept being, after the bridge project was complete, high reservoir releases from Shasta Dam would eventually wash those gravels downstream and contribute to new salmon spawning areas.  The strategy worked … somewhat.  The gravel mobilized en masse during March of 2011 when Shasta Reservoir went into flood-control releases and 50,000 cubic feet per second surged into the river below Keswick Dam.  The gravels placed under the highway project flushed downstream, but left 8,000 cubic yards in the channel’s entrance, forever plugging Painter’s Riffle.

In early February 2013, while driving across the new Highway 44/299 Bridge, I looked downstream and could readily see what had happened — Painter’s Riffle had been hydraulically disconnected from the river.  I drove to the site (a City of Redding municipal park) to take some photographs and measurements.   That night, I wrote a Proposal to restore the site to its original ecological function and presented the concept to the City of Redding, obtaining its support.  However, when I met with DFW representatives (including a “Habitat Restoration Coordinator”) to garner the agency’s support, you would have thought I’d wacked a hornet’s nest!  My read on the less-than-enthusiastic response was that any “outsider” involvement and alternative scientific perspectives in their internal plans for salmon restoration were unwelcomed.  This was revealed months after my original Painter’s Riffle proposal when a radically different proposal for the site surfaced and was sanctioned by the fish agencies.  They recommended slicing a 10-foot wide trench through the same side channel and only allowing it to function at flows above 10,000 cfs, instead of my submittal which recommended the channel perform at 3,250 cfs, or the minimum reservoir releases.  In my written response to the agencies’ proposal, I explained that winter-run Chinook salmon redds would become stranded and eggs would perish in the side channel if the fish spawned during normal flows above 10,000 cfs (among many other problems).  After many months of valuable time lost, logical minds prevailed and the agencies’ proposal was quietly removed from consideration.

To gain momentum, the project needed an advocate and was proposed to the Golden Gate Salmon Association’s (GGSA Interview) Task Force which includes the three fish agencies:  DFW, USFWS, & the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).  DFW & NMFS representatives were contemplatively silent, but a USFWS representative asserted he had already looked at the site and the gravels appeared to be too large for suitable salmon spawning (paradoxically, in direct conflict with DFW’s in-river project gravel requirements).  The effort was rapidly dying on the vine and, without badly-needed support, GGSA was forced to put the proposal on the back burner.

Trying a different venue, the project was presented to northern California water districts.  Surprisingly, the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID), located nearly 100 river miles downstream of Painter’s Riffle said they would champion the cause (aka, do the on-the-ground work).  At this point, with the winds shifting once again in the salmon’s favor, GGSA went to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and requested their staff to take the task on as part of GGSA’s Salmon Plan.  They were successful.  Although it was still 2013, the reality of the extensive regulatory permitting hurdles forced USBR staff to eventually concede that it would be impossible to implement the project until the following year, even though low river flows (Shasta Reservoir releases) due to the severe drought would have provided perfect conditions for construction.  Regrettably, the salmon would have to wait until the fall of 2014.

As anticipated from long-range weather forecasts, the heavy rains never arrived during the winter of 2013-2014, but the meetings, conference calls, and draft environmental documents on the proposed Painter’s Riffle project came on like a deluge.  The scales were now tipping against restoration.  In fact, except for GCID, USBR, and GGSA, it seemed no fish entity would formally support the project.  For example, the USFWS suggested “pre-project monitoring” be conducted at the sealed-off side channel before any gravel was moved, perhaps for many years.  Undefined “concerns” were voiced about effects on threatened and endangered fish, but without remedial recommendations and recognition of the benefits.   With this much resistance, it seemed as though we were proposing to build a new waste-water treatment plant on the river that would spew raw sewage into the middle of prime salmon habitats.  The quagmires of state and federal bureaucracies were sucking the enthusiasm for the restoration effort down into the black hole of oblivion.  Nevertheless, after numerous speed bumps in the process and a seemingly endless series of meetings and conference calls, the log jam broke and key pragmatic agency individuals came on board with the project.

Now, at this late date, with renewed zeal, a Herculean effort was set in motion by USBR and GCID staff who worked overtime to update and finalize the numerous regulatory permits to implement the project in the fall of 2014.  But wait, not so fast!  This simple project almost came to a screeching halt when Endangered Species Act restrictions nearly imposed insurmountable obstacles to conduct the in-river work.  At the 11th hour, several knowledgeable, rational DFW biologists stepped up to the plate and delivered on all fronts with support, cooperation, and assistance resulting in NMFS allowing the work to proceed.

Once NMFS gave its blessing, the field implementation to restore Painter’s Riffle went into overdrive because of advanced planning and the due diligence of highly experienced GCID heavy equipment operators.  Two massive front-end loaders, a D-6 cat bulldozer, and an excavator simultaneously went into close-quarter action.  Their execution was well choreographed with all four earth-moving machines weaving up and down and across Painter’s Riffle.  Each operator knew the movements of others through radio communication, hand signals, or most often, years of experience in skilled operation of the machines.  It was mesmerizing to watch the quick transformation of the river channel:  Video of Equipment in Action

With everything going smoothly and swiftly, Mother Nature had another plan.  One of the largest storms to hit northern California in years (ironically, in a fourth-consecutive drought year) slammed into the area during the two weeks of construction.  With heavy rains and winds pummeling the equipment crew, they relentlessly proceeded nonstop during permitted hours.  And, to be sure, this was no ordinary storm.  The so-called “Atmospheric River” or “Pineapple Express” parked itself on top of Redding for an extended period and localized flooding was reported everywhere.  Caltrans even made an emergency stop at the job site to clear plugged culverts spewing heavy rain runoff in the municipal park.  Although Shasta Reservoir was extremely low due to the three prior years of drought, the downstream re-regulating Keswick Dam suddenly had to increase water releases due to localized flooding concerns in the vicinity of the dam.  River flows at the construction site increased dramatically, jeopardizing the work in progress … but the crew diligently kept on working and completed the project ahead of schedule and below budget.

Ultimately, all involved agencies, groups, and individuals praised the project and the unprecedented collaboration.  The finished product is anticipated to benefit the Sacramento River’s four runs of Chinook salmon and steelhead.  As a result, new salmon restoration projects are planned for implementation this and next year … using more-active stakeholder involvement and “outsiders” perspectives.  Perhaps there is hope for salmon after all:  Video of Completed Project

The completed Painter’s Riffle Project.

The completed Painter’s Riffle Project.