Category Archives: Smelt

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.

 

NEW FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS IN ACTION

Posted on by

New federal biological opinions (BO’s) for the long-term operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project in the Delta have been “protecting” salmon and smelt for several months. The record in practice is not good.

The ostensible purpose of the new BO’s is to protect native fishes, including ESA-listed salmon and smelt. A key focus in the new BO’s (as in prior BO’s) is on regulating reverse flows in Old and Middle River channels of the central Delta (Figure 1). Reverse or negative net upstream flows are caused by south Delta federal and state exports. Rules limiting negative OMR flows limit south Delta exports.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service summarizes OMR operation, in part, as follows:1

Old and Middle River Flows

The new BO’s make a commitment to stay within the Delta pumping-related loss experienced under the 2008-09 BO RPA’s. Old and Middle River Reverse flows are to be limited based on timing (no greater than -5,000 cfs Jan-Jun); water quality conditions (short term protections for first flush events); storm event flexibility (can increase beyond -5,000 cfs if there is not a risk to the species); observed annual salvage and loss (specific triggers for loss values similar to those seen under the 2009 RPA); cumulative loss and outcomes from independent review panels.

 

Controlled OMR Flows

The action is consistent with Action 1 of the 2008 RPA by providing for integrated early winter pulse protection which requires reducing exports for 14 consecutive days so that the 14-day averaged OMR index for the period shall not be more negative than -2,000 cfs, in response to “First Flush” conditions in the Delta. In addition, once OMR management begins, Reclamation and DWR will operate to an OMR index no more negative than a 14-day moving average of -5000 cfs, unless a storm event occurs, until that point in which OMR management ends in a season (when temperatures in south Delta become lethal or June 30, whichever is earlier). The Integrated Early Winter Pulse Protection action may occur more frequently than Action 1 in the 2008 RPA, providing equal or greater protection.

To evaluate whether the new BO’s met these new commitments in December 2019 and January 2020, the reader should review Figures 2, 3, and 4 below, and also https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/OMR_Jan2020.pdf.

My own review indicates that what looked like, walked like, and quacked like a “first flush” occurred in mid-December. The lack of OMR limit protections and the allowance of maximum exports during and after the first flow pulse under the new BO’s in December 2019 led to what appear to have been grave risks to endangered salmon and smelt.2 The highly negative OMR flows in December were highly unusual and were not the norm under the prior BO’s (Figures 5 and 6). Regardless of the purported commitment to protect Delta native fishes in the new BO’s, Figure 4 shows the real effect of the new BO’s: the export of more water to southern California.

Figure 1. Old and Middle River and direction of negative net OMR flows.

Figure 2. Net daily-average OMR flows in the south Delta 11/11/19-1/17/20. Note the extremely negative flows during December that occurred because high south Delta exports are permitted under the new BO’s. Flow remained highly negative even during the period of higher outflow in early December shown in Figure 3. Source: CDEC.

Figure 3. Net Delta outflow 11/11/19-1/17/20. Note pulse of outflow from spate of storms in first half of December. Source: CDEC.

Figure 4. Export rates (cfs) at the federal Tracy (TRP) and state Harvey Banks (HRP) pumping plants in November-December 2019. Rates were near maximum throughout December.

Figure 5. Middle River flow 11/15/2019-1/20/2020 with average for prior 21 years.

Figure 6. Old River flow 11/15/2019-1/20/2020 with average for prior 22 years.

  1. Biological Opinions for the Reinitiation of Consultation on the Long Term Coordinated Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project – Summary (USFWS 10/1/2019).  https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/cvp-swp/documents/ROC_on_LTO_Summary_FINAL.pdf ↩
  2. http://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/?p=2981, http://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/?p=2991, http://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/?p=3006 ↩

Downward Trend in San Francisco Bay Longfin Smelt

Posted on by

In my last posts on longfin smelt, I expressed some optimism about their recovery from the 2013-2015 drought based on 2017 and 2018 population data (Figure 1).1 I have changed my mind. In this wet water year 2019, the longfin have again crashed.

The long-term trend over four wet-year November adult trawl surveys, including this year (2019), continues downward (Figures 2-5). The trend portrays the underlying strong spawner-recruit relationship: the number of spawners (eggs) is the key factor that determines recruits. On top of that, poor recruitment in drier years (Figure 6) is driving recruitment-per-spawner down. There is 10-100 times higher recruitment from wetter years.

What is it about both dry years and wetter years like 2019 that is so bad? It is low Delta outflow and high exports in the November-December period.

Longfin smelt spawn in November-December in fresh water.2 When their freshwater habitat is in the San Joaquin channel in the central Delta upstream of Jersey Point (See location in Figure 2, Figures 7 and 8), the newly hatched larvae are highly susceptible to unlimited November and December exports. Although 2019 was a wet year, these conditions were present in November and December (Figures 9 and 10).

The prognosis for longfin smelt under current and planned water operations in the Delta is grim. The state and federal water projects need to increase Delta outflow and reduce exports in November and December to reduce spawning of longfin smelt in the central and south Delta.

Figure 1. Fall Midwater Trawl Index for longfin smelt, 1967-2018. Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/data/fmwt/indices.asp

Figure 2. Catch distribution of longfin smelt adults in the November 1998 fall midwater trawl survey.

Figure 3. Catch distribution of longfin smelt adults in the November 2011 fall midwater trawl survey.

Figure 4. Catch distribution of longfin smelt adults in the November 2017 fall midwater trawl survey.

Figure 5. Catch distribution of longfin smelt adults in the November 2019 fall midwater trawl survey.

Figure 6. 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. Recruits per spawner are dramatically lower in drier, lower-outflow years (red years). Spawners in 2017 and 2018 were at record low levels. Recruits in 2011 and 2017 were relatively high because the Fall X2 provision in the 2008 Biological Opinion was implemented. Source: http://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/?p=2513.

Figure 7. Salinity (EC) in November and December 2017 at Jersey Point in the lower San Joaquin River channel of the west Delta. Spawning would occur in fresh water (below 500 EC).

Figure 8. Salinity (EC) in November and December 2018 at Jersey Point in the lower San Joaquin River channel of the west Delta. Spawning would occur in freshwater (below 500 EC), which occurred upstream of Jersey Point.

Figure 9. Salinity (EC) in November and December 2019 at Jersey Point in the lower San Joaquin River channel of the west Delta. Spawning would occur in freshwater (below 500 EC), which occurred upstream of Jersey Point.

Figure 10. Tidally filtered flow in two channels in the lower San Joaquin River upstream of Jersey Point, portraying net flows toward to the south Delta export pumps.

 

The Final Straw for Delta Smelt; Another Dagger for Longfin

Posted on by

Delta smelt and longfin smelt were not protected in the Delta in November-December 2019. High south Delta exports (Figure 1) and associated highly negative Old and Middle River (OMR) flows (Figure 2) pulled the spawning adult smelt toward the export pumps, likely significantly compromising what is left of the two populations. High exports and negative flows also pulled saltwater from the west Delta into the central Delta (Figures 3 and 4). This forced smelt to spawn further upstream in the fresher water of the central, east, and south Delta, sealing the fate of the numerous larval longfin smelt spawned there to the export pumps this winter. Young Chinook salmon, especially listed winter-run and spring-run entering the Delta in December, were also jeopardized.1

These circumstances were not allowed under the federal 2008 Delta smelt biological opinion (Figure 5) or the state’s longfin smelt incidental take permit (Figure 6). The new October 2019 Biological Opinion (BO) for the operation of the Central Valley Project (issued under the federal Endangered Species Act) does not preclude high exports or highly negative OMR flows. The pending new state Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for the operation of the State Water Project (to be issued under the California Endangered Species Act) follows the requirements of the federal BO for Delta smelt.

Given the December distribution of adult longfin smelt (Figure 7) and the likely distribution of the few remaining adult Delta smelt based on prior year surveys (Figure 8), the Smelt Working Group (SWG), Water Operations Management Team (WOMT), and the Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) should have limited south Delta exports in December. They did not.

The Trump administration’s new biological opinions simply do not protect these fish. The pending new state ITP for protection of these fish gives the Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife the last word in ordering changes to OMR flows. The CDFW Director’s non-decision in 2019 is a good indication of the level of protection that is likely under the new state ITP.

Figure 1. December 2019 state (HRO) and federal (TRP) south Delta exports. Note the maximum total rate of approximately 11,400 cfs was reached in the latter half of December.

Figure 2. December 2019 Old and Middle River (OMR) net daily flows.

Figure 3. Salinity (EC) in central Delta in December 2019.

Figure 4. Salinity (EC) in Old River in the south Delta in December 2019.

Figure 5. Page 281 of 2008 federal biological opinion for Delta smelt.

Figure 6. Page 10 of 2009 state Incidental Take Permit for longfin smelt.

Figure 7. Distribution of longfin smelt in December 2019 midwater trawl survey. These numbers are very low and show the present depressed level of the population.

Figure 8. Distribution of Delta smelt in December 2011 midwater trawl survey
showing likely distribution of remaining Delta smelt in 2019 (midwater trawl
survey found no Delta smelt in December 2019).