Welcome to the California Fisheries Blog

The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance is pleased to host the California Fisheries Blog. The focus will be on pelagic and anadromous fisheries. We will also cover environmental topics related to fisheries such as water supply, water quality, hatcheries, harvest, and habitats. Geographical coverage will be from the ocean to headwaters, including watersheds, streams, rivers, lakes, bays, ocean, and estuaries. Please note that posts on the blog represent the work and opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect CSPA positions or policy.

Adult Winter-Run Salmon Migration in Jeopardy under New Biological Opinion

Posted on by

As we enter May 2020, winter-run Chinook salmon are in the middle period of their near 300-mile adult migration up the Sacramento River to spawning grounds below Shasta Dam near Redding, CA. These adult salmon are in jeopardy this spring from low flows and high water temperatures in the lower Sacramento River. The new federal biological opinion on the long term operation (BO-LTO) of federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) that went into effect in October 2019 is not protecting these migrating adult winter-run.

State of California water right permits for the CVP/SWP and the Central Valley Basin Plan have prescribed standards (e.g., maximum allowed lower Sacramento River temperature of 68°F). However, federal and state agencies have largely ignored these standards.1

Figures 1-4 depict the basic problem: water temperatures in the lower 120 miles of the Sacramento River from Wilkins Slough downstream to Rio Vista are in excess of stressful or near-lethal levels, levels known to hinder or even block migrations, and levels known to reduce (1) survival, (2) successful spawning, and (3) subsequent egg viability of the adult salmon.

At a minimum, water temperature objectives in the Basin Plan and Water Right Order 90-05 should be met. It is simply unacceptable for water temperatures at Verona (RM 80) to be 70°F or higher. Maintaining lower river flows near 6000 cfs near Wilkins Slough (RM 120) and near 10,000 cfs near Verona (below the mouth of the Feather River) is necessary to meet temperature objectives. Such levels would also reduce water temperatures downstream in the Delta (Freeport and Rio Vista). The 68°F objective in the Basin Plan is a year-round standard and requirement of the water right permit for the state and federal water projects in the Sacramento River Basin.

The 68°F objective was met more frequently in recent below normal water years 2012, 2016, and 2018, at least well into the month of May (Figure 5). It was also met more frequently later into the spring in the 2008-2010 drought period (Figure 6).

In conclusion, there is a continuing eroding of the Sacramento River temperature standard, which appears to have accelerated under the new BO-LTO. Higher spring water temperatures are a serious risk to the winter-run salmon population.

Figure 1. April 2020 Sacramento River water temperatures near Red Bluff (RDB, RM 240), Wilkins Slough (WLK, RM 120), and Verona (VON, RM 80). Blue line is upper limit of optimal migration temperature. Green line is safe limit. Orange line is beginning of stressful level. Red line is beginning of lethal or avoidance/blockage level.

Figure 2. April 2020 Sacramento River water temperature and flow near Wilkins Slough (WLK, RM 120). 20°C is equivalent to 68°F.

Figure 3. April 2020 Sacramento River water temperatures and tidally filtered flow near Freeport in the Delta.

Figure 4. April 2020 Sacramento River water temperatures and tidally filtered flow near Rio Vista in the Delta.

Figure 5. Spring water temperatures in the lower Sacramento River at Wilkins Slough (WLK) and Verona (VON) in 2012, 2016, and 2018 below-normal water years. Red line is Basin Plan maximum objective.

Figure 6. Spring water temperatures in the lower Sacramento River at Verona (VON) in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Red line is Basin Plan maximum objective.

 

  1. The BO includes this statement on page 230: “The Spring pulses are also expected to benefit adult winter-run Chinook salmon migrating up the Sacramento River later in the spring. The spring pulses would provide improved water flows that in turn provide cooler temperatures (improved Water Temperature), and allow for better passage conditions”. However, the BO-LTO prescribes no spring flow pulses at all for drier years like 2020. ↩

Franks Tract – Smelt Trap

Posted on by

In a May 2019 post, I described the central Delta as a salmon trap for juvenile salmon. This post describes the “smelt trap.”  Franks Tract in the central Delta (Figure 1) is a longfin and Delta smelt trap.  Longfin smelt were vulnerable to the trap in March 2020 (Figures 2 and 3).  Flow was reversed in False River (Figure 4) because of south Delta exports.

It’s not just the net flow that makes Franks Tract a smelt trap.   It is also tidal pumping of 50,000 cfs in-and-out.  What goes into Franks Tract on the flood tide does not come back out the same (Figures 5-9).  It is different water, warmer, clearer, with less plankton, and probably less smelt larvae and juveniles.  Smelt are simply tidally-pumped into the central Delta where they are susceptible to warmer, less turbid, predator-laden waters of Franks Tract and the central and south Delta.  Most young smelt probably succumb before reaching the south Delta export pumps.

This is another reason why winter Delta exports need restrictions and why the Franks Tract restoration project with its tide gate on False River needs to proceed as part of the state’s program to recover longfin and Delta smelt.  For more detail on the proposed project see: https://mavensnotebook.com/2019/02/07/bay-delta-science-conference-franks-tract-feasibility-study-applying-the-guidance-of-a-delta-renewed/ .

Figure 1. Franks Tract and False River gage location in west Delta.

Figure 1. Franks Tract and False River gage location in west Delta.

Figure 2. Longfin smelt distribution in March 2020 20-mm Survey #1.

Figure 2. Longfin smelt distribution in March 2020 20-mm Survey #1.

Figure 3. Longfin smelt distribution in March 2020 Larval Smelt Survey #6. Station 901 is in Franks Tract.

Figure 4. False River net daily tidally filtered flow (cfs) in March 2020.

Figure 5. Hourly flow at False River gage March 29 to April 5, 2020.

Figure 6. Hourly water temperature at False River gage March 29 to April 5, 2020.

Figure 7. Hourly turbidity at False River gage March 29 to April 5, 2020.

Figure 8. Hourly chloropyll at False River gage March 29 to April 5, 2020.

Figure 9. Hourly EC at False River gage March 29 to April 5, 2020. Note slightly brackish water (300-500 EC) moves upstream in False River on flood tides (Figure 5), but returns fresher on ebb tide from mixing in Franks Tract.

A Month of High Exports Pulls Salmon and Smelt to Delta Pumps

Posted on by

Increased Delta exports by the federal Bureau of Reclamation in early April resulted in increased salvage of salmon and longfin smelt at the Central Valley Project’s south Delta Tracy Pumping Plant. Salmon smolts salvaged were predominately from the San Joaquin spring-run salmon recovery program hatchery (Figures 1 and 2). Longfin smelt salvage increased in mid-April (Figure 3) as young longfin reached salvageable size (~25 mm).

Salvage at the State Water Project was much lower in April as the California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) reduced exports to try to offset the impacts of Reclamation’s increased pumping (Figures 2 and 3).

The state’s Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan requires that exports be reduced to be no higher than the San Joaquin River flow at Vernalis from April 15 through May 15. The Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) were allowed to move those dates up in 2020, so that the month-long reduction began on April 10 (Figure 4). The average Vernalis flow was about 1500 cfs in mid-April, which is why exports wound down as required (Figure 3).

High exports in early April drew migrating salmon and longfin smelt into the south Delta. Old and Middle River (OMR) flows reached their limit of -5000 cfs (Figure 4). Thus, even after Reclamation and DWR reduced exports on April 10, salvage of both salmon and smelt continued to be high for a week, tapering down to lower levels on April 20.

State and federal exports should not have been ramped up in late March and early April. Had they been given the opportunity, the joint state and federal smelt and salmon science working groups would have recommended a range of -1500 to -2500 cfs OMR limit given the risks to salmon and smelt. However, in the epoch of the 2020 federal Biological Opinions for Delta operations, Reclamation has chosen to export as much as allowed by its view of the letter of the law. California’s view of the law is different: on April 21, 2020, California sought an injunction as part of its ongoing lawsuit against Reclamation’s operations under the new BiOps. See https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Memorandum%20in%20support%20of%20Preliminary%20Injunction.pdf and https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/CNRA%20et%20al.%20v.%20Ross%20et%20al.%20FAC.pdf

If we want to save salmon and smelt, we simply must reduce exports in winter and spring, especially in drier years, as was generally standard procedure over the past decade under the 2008-09 federal Biological Opinions.

Figure 1. Salvage of salmon in water year 2020. The blue dots represent salvage of San Joaquin spring-run hatchery smolts.

Figure 2. Late March and April 2020 daily Delta export rates and salvage of young salmon.

Figure 3. April 2020 daily Delta export rates and salvage of young longfin smelt at south Delta export facilities

Figure 4. Old and Middle River (OMR) flow in the central Delta in 2020.

Phantom Predator – Striped Bass?

Posted on by

In a recent 2020 essay in SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY & WATERSHED SCIENCE, authors Nobriga and Smith describe striped bass as a “phantom predator” that for a century has been secretly driving down their “naïve prey,” the Delta smelt. The authors hypothesize that Delta smelt were much more abundant that the earliest regular monitoring data would indicate, and that striped bass did most of this damage to the Delta smelt population before there was widespread monitoring of either Delta smelt or striped bass.

The authors’ analyses, interpretations, and conclusions have a major omission. They fail to include the potential role of other native and non-native predatory fish in driving down the population of Delta smelt, regardless of the actual abundance of Delta smelt in the eighty years after stripers were introduced to the Bay-Delta in 1879 and 1882. Dozens of other predatory species also proliferated in the Delta over that past century, especially over the past several decades. Today, those other predatory species are far more abundant than the striped bass, and many are equal if not greater potential predators on young smelt than striped bass. In fact, striped bass are more likely to prey on juveniles and adults of other predator species than on smelt.

The authors are from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the federal agency bound to protect the Delta smelt under the Endangered Species Act. The authors used “California Department of Fish and Wildlife fish monitoring data to provide evidence for a ‘phantom predator’ hypothesis: that ephemeral but persistent predation by Striped Bass helped to marginalize Delta Smelt before the estuary was routinely biologically monitored.”, The authors argue against “a misinterpretation that Striped Bass had little contemporary effect on Delta Smelt,” and “contend that the Delta Smelt population has declined steadily since Striped Bass were introduced to the estuary, and that has masked a substantial predatory effect of Striped Bass on Delta Smelt.” The article describes and supports a hypothesis that striped bass remain a problem for Delta smelt, despite the precipitous decline in the production of juvenile striped bass over the past century or so.

To partially address the hypothesis myself, I analyzed some Interagency Environment Program (IEP) data1 collected over the decade of 2009-2018 from one of the remaining Delta smelt strongholds – the lower Yolo Bypass portion of the Cache Slough Complex of the north Delta (Figure 1). Delta smelt were a common seasonal resident of the area (Figure 2). Striped bass, as expected, were very abundant in all age groups over much of the survey periods (Figure 3). But so were many species of invasive non-native catfish, sunfish, crappie, gobies, minnows, tule perch, black bass, and shad, most of which have been present in the Delta as long as striped bass.

Black crappie alone make up an equivalent or greater predator force on Delta smelt (Figure 4). In addition, black crappie as well as many of the other abundant predators compete with Delta smelt for their common zooplankton food supply. Not one of these potential other sources of predation or competition is mentioned in the essay.

Nobriga and Smith do acknowledge: “A generalist predator like Striped Bass, however, could suppress Delta Smelt competitors in addition to Delta Smelt, leading to non-linear and counter-intuitive community dynamics” – a theory that once-abundant striped bass have been suppressing other non-native predators and competitors of Delta smelt. So how long has that dynamic been functioning? Was it functioning in the hypothesized epoch of “phantom” predation? Did striped bass accelerate the decline of Delta smelt or, by eating and consuming other predators, slow it down? And assuming that Delta smelt really were much more abundant than previously believed prior to widespread monitoring in the Delta, to what degree was predation a factor in that decline?

Figure 2. Lengths of Delta smelt collected in fish surveys in lower Yolo Bypass 2009-2018. Note that up to 70% of the smaller young 20-60 mm smelt were later genetically identified as Wakasagi.

Figure 3. Lengths of striped bass collected in fish surveys in lower Yolo Bypass 2009-2018.

Figure 3. Lengths of black crappie collected in fish surveys in lower Yolo Bypass 2009-2018.

Increasing Salmon Production in the Central Valley

Posted on by

The state of California has a comprehensive Water Plan to provide a guide for the state’s future water supply.  Why is there no state Salmon Plan?  California also has a plan to restore Bay-Delta habitat called California EcoRestore.  Why not a SalmonRestore, or at least a comprehensive salmon plan as a part of EcoRestore?

Much of the key to increasing salmon production in the Central Valley is to increase flows in rivers and Delta inflow and outflow.  Another key element is to improve reservoir management for water temperatures and the protection of spawning habitat downstream of dams.  Water in sufficient quantity and of sufficient quality is indispensable.

In addition to better water management, the state needs a plan to implement five basic physical approaches to increasing salmon production in the Central Valley.

  1. Restore River Rearing Habitat – Restore river corridor and side-channel rearing habitat in the mainstem rivers and tributaries
  2. Restore Floodplain Rearing Habitat – Increase volitional access of juvenile salmon to the Valley’s agricultural floodplain through gated weirs; enhance such rearing habitat, and implement strategies to reduce stranding of adult and juvenile salmon in that habitat.
  3. Restore Spawning Habitat – Restore salmon spawning habitat in the mainstem rivers and their tributaries by introducing spawning gravel and improving other physical aspects of channel habitat.
  4. Implement Upstream and Downstream Trap and Haul – Capture juvenile salmonids and transport them from existing spawning areas downstream in dry years when low flows and resulting high water temperatures are unsuitable for volitional downstream migration and survival. Capture and transport adult salmon to upper watersheds above impassable dams, and capture and transport their juvenile progeny back downstream of those dams to locations where high survival is likely.
  5. Increase Hatchery Contributions – Increase the number of hatchery smolts that reach the ocean, while minimizing negative effects of hatcheries on wild salmon populations.

Available options in each of the five categories are virtually limitless, as are the potential costs and benefits.

The National Marine Fisheries Service has a Recovery Plan for salmonid species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.  Such recovery is valuable and important.  But fisheries agencies also can and must do better in supporting the commercial and recreational fishing industries that depend largely on fall-run salmon that are not listed under the ESA.  A state Salmon Plan should be part of the strategy, and the sooner the better.