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.

Shasta River Fall Run Chinook Salmon – Status and Future

Posted on by

In an April 10, 2017 post, I described a sharp decline in the Klamath River salmon runs after the 2012-2015 drought. In that post, I also noted the high relative contribution of the Shasta River run to the overall Klamath run, especially in the past six years. The recent upturn in the Shasta River run and its greater contribution to the overall Klamath run is likely a consequence of efforts by the Nature Conservancy and others to restore the Big Springs Complex of the upper river near Weed, Ca.

The Shasta run has increased measurably since 2010 (Figure 1). Cattle were excluded from Big Springs Creek in 2009, and flows, water temperature and juvenile Chinook densities were markedly improved in and below Big Springs Creek.1 The improved juvenile salmon production likely contributed to greater runs from 2011-2015 and to a higher than expected 2016 run given the 2013-2014 drought (Figure 2). The improvement in the Shasta run bodes well for the Shasta and Klamath runs (Figures 3 and 4). The Shasta run recovery is key to sustaining and restoring the Klamath run and coastal Oregon and California fisheries that depend on the Klamath’s contribution. The Shasta River’s spring-fed water supply comes from the Mt. Shasta volcanic complex. This water supply is resilient to drought and climate-change. The reliability of the Shasta River’s water supply makes the Shasta River’s contribution to Klamath salmon runs particularly important.

Restoration of the Shasta River and recovery of its salmon and steelhead populations has only just begun. Further improvements to the Big Springs Complex, especially to its spring-fed water supply (Figure 5) and to its spawning and rearing habitat, are planned. There is also much potential to improve habitat above the outlet of Big Springs Creek, both in the Shasta River and Parks Creek. There is further potential for habitat restoration in downstream tributaries (e.g., Yreka Creek and Little Shasta River). Reconnection of the upper Shasta River above Dwinnell Reservoir to the lower river would restore many miles of historic salmon and steelhead producing habitat.2 These improvements could make it is possible for the Shasta River to once again produce over half the “wild” (non-hatchery) salmon of the Klamath River.

Figure 1. Fall-run Chinook salmon escapement (spawning run) estimates for the Shasta River from 1978 to 2016. Data Source: CDFW GrandTab.

Figure 2. Mean annual Shasta River streamflow (cfs) as measured at Yreka, CA. Source: USGS. Designated water-year types in this figure are the author’s estimates.

Figure 3. Spawner-recruit relationship for Shasta River. Escapement estimates (log10X – 2 transformed) are plotted for recruits by escapement (spawners) three years earlier. Year shown is recruit (escapement) year. The number is the year that fish returned to the Shasta River to spawn. The color of the number depicts the water-year type in the Shasta River during the year the recruits reared. The color of the circle depicts the water-year type in the Klamath River during the year the recruits reared. Blue is for Wet water-year types. Green is for Normal water-year types. Red is for Dry water-year types. Example: 90 depicts fish that returned to the Shasta River as adult spawners in 1990. These fish were spawned in 1987 and reared in winter-spring 1988. The red number shows that the 1988 rearing year was a Dry water year in the Shasta River; the red circle shows that the 1988 rearing year was a Dry water year in the Klamath River. Note very poor recruits per spawner in 1990-1993 drought period, compared with relatively high recruits per spawner from 2011-2016, even though the latter period included the 2012-2015 drought.

Figure 4. Estimates of fall-run Chinook salmon escapement for the Klamath River, 1978-2016. Data Source: CDFW GrandTab.

Figure 5. Examples of Shasta River monthly average flows as measured at the lower end of Shasta Valley. Streamflow is low from late spring through summer because of surface and groundwater irrigation demands. October flows are higher because the irrigation season (and season of diversion under some water rights) ends on September 30. Data source: USGS Yreka gage.

Scott River Fall-Run Chinook Salmon

Posted on by

In an April 10 post on the Klamath Chinook salmon run, I discussed an expected record low run in 2017.  The Klamath run has six subcomponent runs, including the Scott River.  Improving the Scott River run is one means of improving the Klamath run.

Like the adjacent Shasta and Salmon Rivers, the Scott is a unique ecological gem, sitting high in the Marble and Trinity mountains before plunging north down the volcanic escarpment into the Klamath River canyon (Figure 1).  Like the Shasta River, the Scott flows through a mountain rimmed glacial valley not unlike those in the North American Rockies or European Alps.  Scott Valley is one of those “beautiful places.”  It is also one of the last great places for salmon and steelhead in California.  Unlike the Shasta River whose flow is supported by large volcanic springs from Mt. Shasta, the Scott depends on snowmelt from the Marbles and Trinities, as well as on springs from its alluvial valley.

Figure 1. The Scott River Valley in northern California west of Yreka, CA (Yreka is located in the Shasta River Valley). The Scott and Shasta Rivers flow north into the Klamath River, which runs west to the ocean. The Salmon River watershed is immediately west of the Scott River watershed. The upper Trinity River watershed is immediately to the south of the Scott River watershed.

The Scott River is home to wild runs of Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, and steelhead trout that make up significant components of the Klamath River runs of these species. In this post I address the Scott River fall-run Chinook salmon. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has estimated the annual run size since 1978 (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Escapement of adult fall-run Chinook salmon to the Scott River from 1978 to 2016. Data source: CDFW GrandTab.

The run size, or “escapement” in fisheries science vernacular, is a consequence of the previous number of spawners; their success; survival of eggs, embryos, fry, and smolts in rivers; survival for up to several years in the ocean; and finally, the success of adults migrating back from the ocean to river spawning grounds. There is a lot that can happen at each of these life stages that may affect the ultimate escapement. I show the effect of several key factors in Figure 3, which starts from the escapement numbers in Figure 2 and shows the recruits-per-spawner relationship.

I hypothesized the following from the Figure 3 recruits-per-spawner relationship:

  1. Recruits-per-spawner is generally higher for wet (blue) rearing conditions – the winter/spring conditions of the year that followed the spawning or brood year. Note that smolts generally reach the ocean by their first summer, so conditions early in their rearing year likely affect survival prior to entering the ocean. Survival may be affected by the rearing conditions in the Scott River and/or those downstream in the Klamath River. Low late-winter and spring flows affect river rearing survival as well as the overall survival during emigration to the ocean. Ocean survival can be a consequence of success during river rearing or emigration: of the smolts that reach the ocean, larger healthier smolts generally survive better in the ocean.
  2. Recruits-per-spawner is generally lower as a consequence of dry conditions during the spawning run (red circle years have lower recruits-per-spawner). The lower Klamath River die-off of adult salmon in 2002 was an example of dry year mortality during the spawning migration.
  3. Recruits-per-spawner may be depressed in very wet rearing years when floods disturb spawning beds of salmon. An example is 1999. The number of recruits was depressed by the 1997 New Years flood, which affected the fall 1996 spawn. Similarly, floods in winter 1982, 1983, 1996, 1998, and 2006 may have reduced survival and run size in 1984, 1985, 1998, 2000, and 2008.
  4. The number of spawners three years earlier has little or no apparent effect on the number of recruits (at least at these levels of spawners). For example: recruits in 2007 and 2008 were relatively high despite low number of spawners three years earlier.

I derived the wet or dry water year designations using Figure 4. I derived the wet or dry August-September streamflow designations for the spawning run from the average monthly Scott River streamflow for those months and years (Figure 5 shows a sample range of years). Note that there is not a lot of difference among years in the August-October flows – they are all relatively low. That is because by August, the snow-melt season is over and base flows are occurring from springs and hay-field and pasture runoff or seepage.

There is also the negative effect on flows from wells and surface diversions, the predominate forms of irrigation in Scott Valley. In the drier years the late summer and early fall river flows exiting the Valley below Ft. Jones can be extremely low (less than 10 cfs – see Figure 5) because of extensive well use, driven by lower available surface water. Low late summer and early fall flows can block salmon from entering the river for several months (Figure 6). This results in loss of stored energy, lower egg viability, and high pre-spawn mortality. It also results in delayed spawning, increasing the likelihood that salmon will spawn in the lower sections of the Scott River, where there is poor spawning and rearing habitat. Low flows in the river upstream can further hinder migration and access to prime spawning tributaries (Figure 7).

It takes about 100 cfs or higher to provide full access to the upper river’s spawning areas. In most years, flows are too low to provide good access. The Scott River Water Trust purchases irrigation water in some years to help the salmon migration. In most years, the river’s baseflows increase soon after the irrigation draw on groundwater ends in late October, allowing unhindered migration.

Part of the solution to the problem of low flows during the spawning run is to cease irrigation earlier. Hay irrigators generally cease pumping water by October 1, and some say there is minimal benefit of irrigating after August. Ranchers often irrigate pastures into November, if only for stock watering. Because many wells are not operated after August, idle wells have sufficient total capacity to readily keep the river watered after September 1 to pump groundwater directly into the river (ranchers would consider this if the costs of pumping were covered). I believe the effect of the extra pumping on groundwater levels would be minimal, because the Valley aquifer recovers from well pumping over the winter-spring recharge season.

Survival during the late winter-early spring rearing and emigration period could be enhanced in drier years by limiting early spring irrigation use and using selected idle wells prior to the irrigation season to add water directly to the river.

In summary, the Scott Chinook fall-run is reduced in dry years when spawning and rearing success are compromised by low river flows in the Scott and Klamath Rivers. The Scott River Chinook salmon population would likely benefit from (1) improved late-summer and early-fall flows that would improve access of spawners to upriver and tributary spawning grounds, and (2) higher river flows in drier years during the late–winter and early-spring rearing and emigration period. A record low run is expected in fall 2017 because of low fall and spring flows in 2015, which limited the survival of the juveniles from the 2014 run.

Figure 3. The recruit-per-spawner relationship for the Scott River fall-run Chinook salmon from 1978 to 2016. Escapement by year (recruits) is plotted against escapement three years earlier (spawners). The escapement values plotted are transformed (Log10X-2). The number shown is the escapement year or recruit year – the year the run was tallied. Number color denotes rearing year water supply type – two years prior to recruit year. Red is dry. Green is average. Blue is wet. Circle represents escapement year water supply during the spawning run (August-September). For example: “04” is run size in fall 2004, which had an average winter-spring rearing year (water year 2002) and dry conditions during the late summer run in 2004 (red circle).

Figure 4. Water years (10/1-9/30) 1978-2016 average annual flow in Scott River measured at Ft. Jones gage. Source: USGS. I designated years above the blue line as wet years, years below the red line as dry years, and years between the lines as average years.

Figure 5. Scott River average monthly flow (cfs) below Ft. Jones for selected years. Source: USGS.

Figure 6. Adult fall-run Chinook salmon waiting at the mouth of the Scott River in the Klamath River in late summer for flows to improve before attempting to migrate up the Scott River to their spawning grounds.

Figure 7. Trickle of flow in the mainstem Scott River in Scott Valley during late summer below Young’s Dam irrigation diversion near Etna, CA. The dam can be seen in the distance at upper center of photo. The fish ladder at the dam is not functional at such low flows. The dam is located approximately 50 river-miles upstream from the river mouth. There is approximately 20 miles of additional Chinook salmon spawning habitat upstream of Young’s Dam.

Longfin Smelt Return from the Ocean

Posted on by

Back in December, I posted that longfin smelt may be gone.  Numbers were way down and early winter 2017 larvae surveys indicated a very poor spawn.  But suddenly in March, larval smelt began showing up in the CDFW 20-mm survey in San Pablo Bay and in the Napa River (Figure 1).  A bunch of adult longfin must have come in from the ocean and surrounding San Francisco Bay with this winter’s very high Delta outflows, and spawned in the Napa River.  While these larval densities are one or two orders of magnitude below previous wet year abundance (1999, 2006, and 2011), they are much higher than those observed in other years over the past decade.  Despite very low recruitment during the recent drought (2013-2015), they were able to muster enough 1-2 year-old adult spawners from around the Bay and nearby ocean to provide a decent spawn in the Napa River.  There appears to be some hope for longfin smelt after all.

Figure 1. Longfin smelt catch densities in March 2017 20-mm Survey. Source : CDFW 20-mm Survey.

Late-Fall-Run Salmon – Status

Posted on by

Late-fall-run Chinook salmon are unique to the Sacramento River. They migrate upstream to spawn below Shasta Reservoir in the Sacramento River in the late fall and early winter. Peak spawning is in the winter months. With emergence in the spring months, juveniles over-summer in the upper river above and below Red Bluff before commencing their smolt migration toward the ocean in the fall, when the lower river cools.

Numbers (escapement) of adults reaching the upper river spawning grounds have been estimated at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD) fish ladders, in redd surveys, and in carcass surveys. The counts were accurate until 1991. Beginning in 1992 the RBDD gates were lifted in fall and winter, and ladder counts ceased. Accurate counts were obtained through other methods (aerial surveys, redd counts, and carcass surveys) beginning in 1998. A plot of escapement from CDFW’s GrandTab file (Figure 1) also shows the contribution of the Coleman hatchery returns in the escapement total. The inaccurate escapement estimates from the 1992-1993 fall/winter to the 1996-1997 fall/winter show clearly in Figure 1.

Keeping the accuracy of the counts (escapement estimates) in mind, I plotted recruits vs spawners (escapement vs escapement three years earlier) using the GrandTab totals for all years except 1992-1999, the years affected by the inaccurate estimates from 1992 to 1996. Figure 2 depicts the spawner recruit relationship with year labelled being the first rearing year (freshwater phase) for the recruits. A positive relationship between spawners and recruits is depicted with higher recruits per spawner in wetter rearing years. Wetter years generally have the following survival attributes:

  1. Better spawning conditions – higher flows, more gravel spawning habitat.
  2. Better incubation conditions – less redd stranding, better redd survival.
  3. More floodplain rearing habitat for fry.
  4. Less predation on juveniles from spring through fall.
  5. Better water temperatures spring through fall in rearing reach.
  6. Improved fall emigration conditions (flows, water temperatures, less predation, improved passage in the lower river and Bay-Delta).

Recruitment has been consistently low in recent drought years, which lacked the positive benefits I listed above. Removal of the RBDD gates after 1992, screening of large diversions, and more protective habitat conditions (flows and water temperatures) likely contributed to the population resurgence in the wetter year periods from 1995-2006. However, the droughts years from 2007-2015 have driven the population to such a low level that the run is now primarily sustained by hatchery production.

A recent assessment by CDFW1 recognizes the roles of these stressors on the late–fall-run salmon population. I quote from the assessment and comment below.

The effects of RBDD were more subtle. This dam apparently delayed passage to upstream spawning areas and also concentrated predators, increasing mortality on out- migrating smolts. Kope and Botsford (1990) documented that the overall decline of Sacramento River salmon was closely tied to the construction of RBDD. Raising the dam’s gates for much of the year to allow salmon passage apparently alleviated much of this problem. The gates are now open year-round, allowing uninhibited passage of adult and juvenile late fall-run Chinook salmon.

Comment: Eliminating the RBDD migration blockage and predator hotspot was important, but it also allowed predator access to the upper river in the spring-fall rearing period. The numbers of river spawners has continued to decline while the proportion of hatchery returns increases.

“Fish from Coleman National Fish Hatchery on Battle Creek are contributing at a low rate to the spawning population in the mainstem Sacramento River.”

Comment: The rate is no longer considered low. The population’s viability is in question with the large contribution by the hatchery.

Large pumping stations in the southern Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers Delta (Delta) divert approximately 40% of the historic Delta flows, resulting in substantial modifications in flow direction (Nichols et al. 1986). Pumping also increases the likelihood of out-migrating smolts entering the interior delta, where longer migration routes, impaired water quality, increased predation, and entrainment result in higher mortality rates (Perry et al. 2010).

Comment: Wild and hatchery-released smolts move downstream toward the Delta with the first fall rains (Figure 3). Those that reach the Delta before the end of December are subject to an open Delta Cross Channel and high exports (Figure 4), and high rates of predation, which together likely contribute to the very low return rate of the late fall hatchery and wild smolts, especially from drier years.

Hatcheries. Late fall-run Chinook salmon have been reared at Coleman National Fish Hatchery on Battle Creek since the 1950s, even though the run was not formally recognized until 1973 (Williams 2006). The current production goal is one million smolts per year, which are released into Battle Creek from November through January (Williams 2006). Hatchery broodstock selection for late fall-run fish includes both fish returning to Coleman National Fish Hatchery and those trapped below Keswick Dam. Large numbers are needed because survival rates are low (0.78% at Coleman).

Comment: The return rate of late–fall-run smolts from Coleman as adults to sport and commercial fisheries is among the lowest from Central Valley salmon hatcheries (Figure 5), despite late–fall-run smolts being the largest hatchery smolts at release.

A wide array of actions have been prescribed for Central Valley listed winter-run and spring-run salmon and steelhead in recovery plans and biological opinions that will also benefit late fall salmon. Actions include improving spawning and rearing habitats, as well as river flows and water quality. Among these are a specific set of actions that would contribute most to the late-fall-run recovery:

  1. Do not release Coleman late fall hatchery smolts until after the first winter rains when the Delta Cross Channel is closed and Delta exports are limited by the NMFS OCAP biological opinion. (Present plans call for early January hatchery releases, whereas past releases were also made in November and December.)
  2. Provide a coincident flow pulse from Shasta Reservoir to the first downstream tributary rain pulse to stimulate wild late-fall-run smolt emigration from the Redding reach below Shasta/Keswick.
  3. In the event of significant natural fall flow pulses that stimulate emigration of wild late–fall-run smolts from the upper river, add releases of pulse flows from the Feather and American rivers, close the Delta Cross Channel, and reduce Delta exports to enhance passage to the Bay and Ocean.
  4. In drier years with minimal fall-winter rains, consider barging late–fall-run hatchery smolts from Knights Landing on the lower Sacramento River above the Feather River to the Bay. Straying problems identified for truck-transported late–fall-run hatchery smolts may be reduced with this approach, while markedly increasing smolt survival to the ocean. Maintaining the barge route to Sacramento water on the west side of the river may minimize imprinting (and subsequent straying) to the Feather and American rivers.

Figure 1. Late-fall-run Chinook salmon escapement estimates to upper Sacramento River 1974-2014. “Wild” means counted in the river not at the hatchery. Wild spawners may include a high proportion of hatchery origin adult salmon. Source: CDFW GrandTab.

Figure 2. Spawner-recruitment relationship for late-fall-run Chinook salmon in the upper Sacramento River below Shasta Reservoir. Numbers are Log10 -2 transformed. Year numbers are for rearing year in freshwater. For example: 99 dot represents rearing year when spawners from 1998-1999 returned as recruits in 2002-2003. Red bold designates critical water year. Red non-bold designates dry water year. Green bold is above-normal water year. Green non-bold is below-normal water year. Blue number is wet water year. Relationship is significantly positive with higher recruitment per spawner in wet years.

Figure 3. Screw trap large salmon smolt catch at Knights Landing fall-winter 2000-2001 to 2002-2003. Also shown is lower Sacramento River flow at Wilkins Slough gage. Source: CDFW

Figure 4. Salvage of young salmon at Delta export facilities from August 2015 to March 2016. Also shown is Delta inflow and outflow, and export rate. Red circle highlights late-fall-run salvage period with green dots being late–fall-run hatchery smolts. (Source: CDFW)

Figure 5. Return rate in sport and commercial fisheries of tagged Central Valley hatchery salmon. CFHLh denotes late fall releases at Coleman hatchery. Other release locations are Feather River (FRH), American River (NMF), Mokelumne River (MOK), Merced River (MER), and Sacramento River (Sac). W denotes winter-run, S spring-run, and F fall-run. tib denotes Tiburon, t denotes trucked, and h denotes hatchery site release. Source: CDFW.

Discussion on Delta Smelt

Posted on by

This past November’s science conference on the Bay-Delta included a discussion on Delta smelt.1 Some of the discussion points are presented in this post, with my comments.

The Delta smelt is adapted to an ecosystem that no longer exists. “Looking at the Delta smelt’s life history, their adaptations, their tolerances to different environmental conditions, and looking at the landscape of the Delta, that the state that the estuary is in now basically does not favor the continued existence of the species. Looking at its physiology or biology, it’s no longer adapted to this particular ecosystem, as we’ve progressively changed things through time.”

Comment: Delta smelt remain highly adapted to the Bay-Delta Estuary. However the habitats are so disturbed, especially during droughts, that little recruitment is possible, resulting in a long term decline in the adult spawning population that may not be reversible. Wet years and improved water management could possibly reverse this pattern and bring population recoveries, similar to those in 2010 and 2011.

There is no smoking gun. The proximate causes of the decline are interactions among multiple factors that have altered their habitat, making it increasingly unsuitable. “Looking at all the drivers that are associated with their population status, it doesn’t really appear to be a single smoking gun,” said Dr. Hobbs. “In each particular year, that there could be a series of different drivers that creep up that could basically lop off the population at any given time, and every year it could be somewhat different at different spatial and temporal scales, so it makes it really difficult to really point the finger at one particular driver, at least as the way the data was presented and analyzed in different papers.”

Comment: In nearly every case the “smoke” emanates from poor water management in dry and average water years, when Delta inflows, outflows, and exports are manipulated in ways that disturb the ecosystem. The other factors are simply secondary reactions to the gun’s discharge.

The population exhibited some resilience when in 2011, environmental conditions were good and abundance was at near historic levels, but unfortunately the current drought may have eroded such resilience. “In 2011, we saw good flows and cold temperatures, particularly through the summer and fall, and we got a pretty large return in adult abundance that year, so up through that time period, it appears that even though the population abundance was declined, the population still had the capacity to return, so there was still some resilience left in the population,” he said. “With this ongoing drought, we may be getting to the point where the population resilience is now reaching a point where it may not be able to return to previous levels if we give it the right environmental conditions only over a single generation. What’s really important for the species being annual is that it has to have consistent conditions, not for a single year, but for many, many years.”

Comment: It is not a matter of resilience. It is simply a matter of survival and recruitment, and maintenance of a viable spawning population. It is not the drought, but how the water management rules were weakened in the drought. In drought, the rules must be enhanced and enforced, not weakened, to protect the species.

The continued decline of the Delta smelt demonstrates the general failure to manage the Delta for the coequal goals of maintaining a healthy ecosystem while providing a reliable water supply for Californians. Dr. Hobbs noted that this was something that was debated amongst the authors. “When the idea of the coequal goals was brought up, it was a great idea, but if you think about it, it was being implemented at a time when we were already taking close to 90% of the freshwater out of the estuary, so the fish were already well behind the curve,” he said. “We basically came out and said, ‘we’re try to manage coequally,’ and we weren’t really at a 50/50 state at that point. We don’t seem to have the capacity to bring this back to a level where it could be a 50/50 share between water for people and water for fish.”

Comment: This is just simply confusing. Coequal protection of beneficial uses does not mean that fish get 50% of water and other uses get 50%. And someone would have to be a little more precise in defining 50% (or whatever percent) of what. Fish have basic needs that protect them from extinction. Water management must work around these needs. The problem is most acute in dry years and droughts. But better allocation of water is needed in all years so enough is available at least for triage of all uses in multi-year droughts.

“We sort of put it in the terms of the coequal goals, but it’s really a failure of all of us, I think, said Dr Hobbs. “I take a lot of personal responsibility for the failure because we have a lot of science that takes a long time to get out and communicate to the public and some of that information could really be implemented on a much more rapid scale. I know a lot of other folks I talk to feel sort of responsible too because it’s under their guise to try to manage and protect the species, and we’ve continued to fail. And honesty longfin smelt is right behind them.”

Comment: The responsibility for this grand failure does not lie with the scientists. It lies with the water managers and the agencies who compromised in negotiations on water rights, water quality standards, and biological opinions. Co-equal goals does not mean “cutting the baby in half.” It means equally maintaining the viability of the two beneficial uses, which obviously does not happen.

Moderator Randy Fiorini asks Paul Souza (USFWS): “What did you find usable in this report, which represents the best available science?” “I think it’s extraordinarily helpful in terms of a synthesis of where we stand with Delta smelt,” Mr. Souza answered. “Clearly we’re in the emergency room. This is a species that has had a precipitous decline, it’s on the brink of extinction, and in situations like this, it becomes extraordinarily challenging.”

Comment: Yes it is very difficult to revive half a baby. The important thing is to keep the next baby, if there is one (however small), alive and healthy. If there is, maybe we can make an extra effort in nurturing it to adulthood.

“One of the things that I learned from this work is that there is no silver bullet,” Mr. Souza continued. “There are a lot of different activities that must be accomplished, which makes it truthfully more difficult. The more standard situation for very imperiled species is that you have one significant driver that you can address – for example habitat loss for terrestrial species.”

Comment: There most certainly is a “silver bullet,” but it is made of H2O.

“The Delta smelt, clearly as described in that paper, is among the most imperiled species in the country,” Mr. Souza said. “I think it’s important to also understand that it has as much political attention as arguably any species in the country as well. The situation is truly an interesting one from a conservation perspective. We have a very small fish that’s had a dramatic decline that is in the heart of the water supply for the biggest state in the union, and also provides water obviously for agriculture which is among the most productive in the world. So with that, and all of the development pressures that we’ve seen, we have this unique complex situation to deal with.”

Comment: This is exactly why the Endangered Species Act was enacted. Are we going to protect the largest and most important estuary in California and the western United States or not?

“Going back to the real challenges that the paper describes, we have to figure out how to make incremental progress in the face of uncertainty, and the Delta smelt resiliency strategy is something I’m very excited about,” Mr. Souza said. “I want to give kudos to the State of California for the leadership they’ve provided. It outlines 13 different activities that we think could be helpful in that regard. So truthfully, I’d love to hear from you, Jim, among those 13 activities, which would you prioritize, and why, and which do you think are going to be most promising to help the species get in a better condition?”

Comment: If the Strategy outlined was so exciting, why wasn’t any of it implemented in 2016? The Strategy simply is cutting the baby into thirds.2 “Kudos” to the State for simply recognizing its long-held responsibility.

“I think the number one thing that we should do is to address the outflow issue,” responded Dr. Hobbs. “We need to think hard about what kind of outflow, when, where, and what kind of intensity. The work that was done by Ted Sommer this summer, collaborating with some of the ag folks and getting water down the Toe Drain of the Yolo Bypass was the lowest hanging fruit. Very little water was needed to necessarily get that productivity moving from the Toe Drain into the North Delta arc area. I think that’s the place we should start, considering the state of affairs with the amount of water we have.”

Comment: Yes, water is the silver bullet in the form of Delta outflow. Think of Delta outflow as the powder charge that delivers the silver bullet. However, a little bit of hot, dirty, ag water in summer from the Yolo Bypass is not3 much powder. Prejudging the amount of water available and needed is also not a way to start.

“We’re probably going to have a little bit of water to do summer flow pulses or fall flow pulses so we need to think really strategically about where we put that water, rather than just putting it down the middle of the Sacramento River where 200,000 acre-feet will hardly be even measurable,” said Dr. Hobbs. “If we put this in novel places, we might be able to create the habitat conditions that will be supportive of the species.”

Comment: Why just summer or fall? Why just pulses? 200 TAF of water down the Sacramento River or 1000 cfs for 100 days is a lot of water, which would provide measurable benefit to the river, Delta, and Bay particularly in a dry year. And why just 200 TAF, when ag takes more than 10,000 TAF?

“Coming back to the Yolo Bypass issue, some of the work we’ve been doing recently is that there are a large number of Delta smelt actually residing in the Toe Drain area for a long period of time, and some even staying over the summer and becoming full freshwater resident fish living in that habitat, so that region is clearly one of the most important areas for smelt right now,” said Dr. Hobbs. “We do have the capabilities of providing what water we can provide in that particular habitat, so that’s where I would start.”

Comment: There is no evidence that smelt survive the hot summers in the Yolo Bypass or in the Delta. The most important action is to keep the low salinity zone habitat of the smelt downstream of the Delta in Suisun Bay with more outflow in drier years. 250 TAF of water (see next quote) could help do this in many years.

“Of the 13 provisions in that Delta smelt resiliency strategy, the one that’s probably going to be the most challenging, the most costly, and the most controversial would be the outflow test of 250,000 acre-feet of water,” said Mr. Souza. “We know that water is a precious commodity; there is no free lunch. If that water is acquired for a test, it’s going to come with some tradeoffs.”

Comment: Why is water not available to maintain key beneficial uses protected by State laws, and why is it not free? Why is more of the natural flow being allocated to water rights each year? Why isn’t water used for human use not taxed like the State’s carbon tax to help purchase more water rights and restore more habitat lost to development? Why aren’t the co-equal goals to protect the environment being addressed?

“That really is the place that I find fascinating in the work that we do,” said Mr. Souza. “It really is the interface of science and policy. How do you make these choices, and similarly, how do you get meaningful results from these 13 different tests that are going to allow us to get better? That is really all that we can ask of ourselves is try to get a little better and to try to make some incremental progress in the face of these extraordinary challenges.”

Comments: A “little better” and “some incremental progress” are not going to cut it. The interface of science and policy is longstanding: it is the policy and management that have prioritized the water supply side of resource allocation.

“I’d love to get your thoughts, Jim, about how we actually measure success,” said Mr. Souza. “These 13 actions I think are all important and I’d love to see them all done as fast as possible. Clearly some are easier than others, some more costly than others, but one of the things that I’m already seeing as a significant challenge is how do we know if they are making a difference? When you have a species that is in such a precarious position that’s so hard to find, how can you craft goals and objectives at the population level that we can then implement these 13 provisions and actually measure whether there’s a biological response that is meaningful and a result of the actual test themselves?”

Comment: There are a dozen metrics that provide a measure of smelt performance. These metrics have been available for a decade or more. For each identified action, managers could apply one or more of these metrics to numerically assess the response in the smelt population.

“I think we have the tools to do that,” said Dr. Hobbs. “We have a strong scientific group of people here who have a diverse set of skills. We have really nice conceptual model and a good synthesis of Delta smelt biology. We could use that framework with those strategies in an adaptive management context and look at each of those things that we’re going to do, and with the scientific community come up with the measurable objectives.”

Comment: the tools and metrics are well developed, but objectives are lacking, as are measures that protect the smelt and their habitat.

“In some of those situations, we may not be able to measure the response in Delta smelt themselves, but we could look at the conceptual model and look at different parts of that system for positive results,” said Dr. Hobbs. “For instance, this summer we saw a decent phytoplankton bloom that was associated with water coming down the Toe Drain and some zooplankton production. We are going to have to rely on the fish being able to respond and if they are at such low abundances that we don’t see a population level response in our surveys, maybe we need to be including additional types of monitoring in adaptive scientific field experiments and searches for Delta smelt in these places so that we can do this. The Yolo Bypass is monitored by DWR, but we don’t really have a broader concerted resource to go after doing this on the real time scales that we actually need to do be doing it.”

Comment: The bloom mentioned was minor and occurred where there were no smelt. At the same time, a larger independent bloom occurred downstream in the low salinity zone as a result of classic estuary dynamics (an unrelated pulse of outflow4), along with a recent high abundance of young smelt triggered by wet year Delta hydrodynamics.

“Specifically referring to the recovery plan, there were a series of actions that were discussed, and really none of them were really done,” said Dr. Hobbs. “That was probably because at the same time, the Bay Delta Accord was being put into place to manage flows and to keep the low salinity habitat in the right place in Suisun Bay for a certain amount of time, and that was part of that plan. It wasn’t specifically the main objective and it wasn’t the only thing that was being recommended, but because we were coming together and forming this California and federal coalition to address the issue, I think a lot of effort was put there on that particular issue.”

Comment: Much of the Recovery Plan was not adopted or updated over the past two decades based on performance. The key specified action in the plan was simply keeping the low salinity zone in Suisun Bay rather than upstream in the Delta. Instead, dry water year water allocations were almost entirely allotted to water supply, to the detriment of ecosystem.

“I’ll first make the point about recovery plans,” said Mr. Souza. “They do a wonderful job of bringing scientists together, and if they are really strong, they actually bring policy makers together and the regulated community together and identify a blueprint for going forward. What they don’t do is appropriate funding. And so there are lots of plans that have been put together that have never had the capacity to have full implementation; that’s just the reality of conservation wherever we are.”

Comment: I am not sure about this general statement. The problem really is the plans – they do not provide the protection the smelt need. The Recovery Plan and water quality standards are over 20 years old. The OCAP biological opinion in 2008 lacked adequate protections and is being revised.

“There is a real danger in threatened and endangered species conservation and ecosystem management more broadly speaking, when we focus too much on a single species,” he continued “We in the Fish and Wildlife Service have been criticized in the past for single species management to the detriment of other species. We’re at our best when we’re thinking about the ecosystem and multiple species and trying to find the optimization of habitat conditions for them, not the maximization for any one in particular.”

Comment: This is really a bad excuse for not protecting the Delta smelt, which was originally chosen as the “canary in the coal mine” for the Bay-Delta and all its species. I know of no species hurt by smelt protective actions, but many that benefit from them.

“We really need to focus on the tone of the conversation and how we talk about Delta smelt, and I would really love to recast this as a conversation about the Bay Delta and a shared vision,” said Mr. Souza. “The best most important conservation successes that I’ve seen in my career are grand compromises where we sit down with the affected community, we have a focused conversation about the needs of agriculture, and municipalities, and wildlife, and their habitats, and we again maximize none of those interests but do our best to optimize all of them.”

Comment: I have been involved in such sit-downs for the Delta for 40 years. I have seen many grand compromises that keep cutting each reboot of the Bay-Delta in half. One half to the tenth power is a tenth of one percent. There is no optimizing for all. Something has to give.

“We have to foster a community where we’re all in this together, because we all love the same resource, and it’s extraordinarily precious to all of us,” said Mr. Souza. “Only together are we going to be able to find a path forward where we’re doing the best that we can for this ecosystem, and it needs to move beyond a conversation where people are pitted against wildlife. That is a losing proposition for conservation and I challenge all of us to help be a part of that more positive dialog.”

Comment: We all do not share the love for “the little three inch fish”. I doubt the new Secretary of the Interior will share the love that Mr. Souza holds for Delta smelt.

Question from the audience: “I greatly appreciate your comment that single species management is almost certainly not going to be effective as multispecies ecosystem management, but I think one of the frustrations that we have all experienced in this particular system is that regardless of whether we’re using the science to inform single species management, or using the science to inform multispecies ecosystem management, is that the science is presented and recommendations are made but in fact actions are not taken. Many times the scientific advisory boards or councils or workgroups that advise specific actions and the agencies chose not to do it, so I’d like to you to respond to this relationship between the science and the decision making?”

Comment: Great question.

“My first reaction to it is that science is the foundation of decision making that’s strong for conservation,” responded Mr. Souza. “But in nearly every instance, there are ten policy legal choices that can be made with the same science, and so the real art for a policymaker is figuring out how to use that science in a way that not only is going to address the issue of the moment, but is going to be strategic in helping to facilitate the kind of relationships necessary to do something bigger together in the future than any of us could do alone.”

Comment: My, my. Enough from Mr. Souza.