{"id":652,"date":"2016-01-11T06:30:56","date_gmt":"2016-01-11T14:30:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/?p=652"},"modified":"2016-01-09T19:52:53","modified_gmt":"2016-01-10T03:52:53","slug":"delta-fish-and-flows-listen-to-our-fish-scientists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/?p=652","title":{"rendered":"Delta Fish and Flows \u2013 Listen to our fish scientists"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Delta independent Science Board, made up mostly of non-Californians and non-fish biologists, waded into the fray on Delta issues again with their recent report:\u00a0 Flows and Fishes\u00a0<\/strong>in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta – Research Needs in Support of Adaptive Management<\/strong>\u00a01<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

After 50 years of extensive research and adaptive management, the Delta water managers still believe we need the insights of outsiders before the secrets of the Delta are exposed to improve water management for fish.\u00a0 Once the center of world-wide estuarine science beginning in the 60\u2019s and 70\u2019s, the San Francisco Bay Delta now has new advice sought from outside sources.\u00a0 I came to the Bay-Delta in the late 70\u2019s as an outsider to learn from and participate in comprehensive fish-ecosystem science going on in the Bay-Delta.\u00a0 I was honored to participate in and contribute to Bay-Delta science.\u00a0 Many of the young scientists who came with me then and since have contributed decades of their careers to Bay-Delta science.\u00a0 Yet there is this continuing quest for more outside input fraught with non-fish science.<\/p>\n

The Report<\/h1>\n

\"Delta<\/p>\n

\u201cThe economic, ecological, and social costs of scientific uncertainty in water management controversies are significant – and to some degree unavoidable.\u00a0 This report therefore recommends, first and foremost redoubling effects to identify causes and effects concerning fishes and flows in the Delta.\u201d \u00a0<\/em>(Page 5). \u00a0Uncertainty is not the cause of the failure in protecting the Bay-Delta ecosystem.\u00a0 It is a failure to use science with its uncertainties to protect the ecosystem. \u00a0After 40-plus years of study, the answers are obvious.\u00a0 Redoubling?\u00a0 Why not simply recognizing the obvious?\u00a0 There are no doubts that changes in flows are the cause of most of the Delta problems, and that changes designed to reduce entrainment of fish at the Delta export pumps (OMR, etc.) have proven ineffective.\u00a0 There is no need to redouble efforts to understand the relationship between flows and fish.\u00a0 We know why the Winter Run salmon were wiped out below Shasta in 2014 and 2015.\u00a0 We know why Delta and Longfin Smelt populations have been at record lows the past two years.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe habitat and flow needs of the native species are difficult to define in the transformed place and in a novel ecosystem.\u201d\u00a0 <\/em>(Page 5). \u00a0The habitat and flow needs are well known.\u00a0 The ecosystem, though \u201ctransformed,\u201d <\/em>is not novel.\u00a0 Anyone who has been here awhile and studied the fish knows.<\/p>\n

\u201cFocus on cause and effect – the mechanisms that enable flows to affect fishes.\u00a0 Deeper causal understanding is important for identifying and reducing risks to water supply and fish populations.\u201d \u00a0<\/em>(Page 5).\u00a0 We\u2019ve been through this time after time.\u00a0 Overwhelmingly, finding the political will to follow the science we already have is far more critical than fine-tuning the mechanistic understanding of how fish respond to flow.\u00a0 The problem in the Delta is systemic: water management has turned the hydrograph on its head and deprived the estuary of half of its flow (in dry year sequences, more than half).\u00a0 The State Water Board\u2019s 2010 Delta Flow Criteria Report\u00a0<\/b><\/em>2<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0<\/b><\/em>got this fundamentally right: on a mass and systemic basis, Delta inflow and outflow need to be radically increased to provide basic system functions, including variability.\u00a0\u00a0 Not every effect is a direct effect.\u00a0 Focusing only on direct effects \u2013 the \u201ccausal mechanisms\u201d \u2013 is overwhelmingly about \u201crisks to water supply.\u201d\u00a0 Beneath the surface of hunting for mechanisms is an engineering-style belief that one can surgically provide water to produce this or that benefit at the exact moment it\u2019s needed.\u00a0 Sure, better understanding is good, and different specific actions can help.\u00a0 But the need isn\u2019t met by adding up specific actions.\u00a0 We need to restore underlying ecosystem function that serves as a foundation for targeted improvements.\u00a0 Right now we aren\u2019t even close.<\/p>\n

\u201cUnderstanding the dependencies of fishes on water flows is central to understanding the Delta ecosystem.\u00a0 Relationships between fishes and flows drive state and federal policy and related regulatory and management decisions, and consequently have been central to legal arguments and decisions.\u201d \u00a0<\/em>(Page 9).\u00a0 Delta water quality control plans, and water rights orders since the 1960s (mainly D-1485 and D-1641), have recognized (and focused) on the relationship between flows and fishes.\u00a0 Earlier, the focus was on striped bass and flows (D-1485), but more recently the focus has been on smelt-salmon and flows (D-1641).\u00a0 There have been changes in summer standards that hurt striped bass while strengthening winter-spring standards have helped smelt and salmon.\u00a0 But after decades of management under the standards and an array of biological opinions, it is obvious to most that the level of protections has been inadequate.\u00a0 The problem is not a lack of science and understanding; it is a lack of commitment to them.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>\u201cA comprehensive, integrative, and well-planned scientific approach focused on processes, drivers, and predictions is needed to aid near-term and long-term adaptive management and to predict how future changes might affect fishes.\u201d\u00a0 <\/em>(Page 21). The Bay-Delta has had this for 50 years.\u00a0 The science, data, and adaptive management are well documented, as well as reflected in water rights, water quality standards, biological opinions, and management and recovery plans.\u00a0 But most important of all, they are carried in the minds of hundreds of Bay-Delta scientists who have dedicated their careers to this purpose.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>\u201cThe development of a generalized fish model portable for different fish species and for different water management decisions is needed to forecast\u00a0 expected consequences and timelines for adaptive\u00a0 management strategies.\u201d \u00a0<\/em>(Page 23). Such models already exist in many forms that reflect and carry the knowledge of what has been learned over the past 50 years.\u00a0 Models developed in the 60\u2019s for striped bass still work today.<\/p>\n

Follow-up Workshop<\/h1>\n

At the follow-up Delta Independent Science Board workshop in December, Dr. Lund, chairman of the Science Board, discussed the major findings of the report, the first being that connecting flows and fishes is central to achieving the state\u2019s coequal goals. \u201cThe modern Delta is not a native ecosystem but is dominated by non-native species with some natives, and that\u2019s a particular challenge for some of the ecosystem goals for the Delta,\u201d he said. \u00a0\u201cStatistical analyses show that flows do affect fish, but decisions need a little bit more causal understanding of how flows involve fishes, especially as we try to manage the Delta and make some larger changes over time. Where larger changes occur in the Delta that we have to respond to, we need a more causal understanding of how these relationships work.<\/em>\u201d3<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0 In my experience, when correlations that support science theory continue becoming more statistically significant with each added year of data, it is time to accept the theories and start doing something.\u00a0 Using the same excuses for inaction and continuing to promote more science will not save the Bay-Delta ecosystem.<\/p>\n

In Conclusion<\/h1>\n

What has been missing for decades is this:\u00a0 our locally grown fisheries scientists have no access to what are often called the \u201cknobs\u201d of management in the Delta.\u00a0 Instead of scientists, resource agency managers and water purveyors constrict the range of adaptation to protect water supply at the expense of fishes and their habitats.\u00a0 Adaptive management is driven by managers.\u00a0 Our Smelt and Salmon Working Groups are stymied by senior management and by political oversight and control.\u00a0 Adaptive management in the Delta has become a synonym for how far fisheries agency managers will agree to weaken resource protection.\u00a0 Examples include weakening water quality standards in droughts; allowing unrestricted water transfers through the Delta; and closing the Delta Cross Channel gates in summer.<\/p>\n

It is time to listen to our home-grown fish scientists and let them turn the knobs in the right direction.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
    \n
  1. \u00a0http:\/\/deltacouncil.ca.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/2015\/09\/2015-9-29-15-0929-Final-Fishes-and-Flows-in-the-Delta.pdf<\/a> ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  2. \u00a0http:\/\/www.swrcb.ca.gov\/waterrights\/water_issues\/programs\/bay_delta\/deltaflow\/docs\/final_rpt080310.pdf<\/a>\n

    The \u201cNote to Readers\u201d that now appears at the front of this report as linked above was not in the original document.\u00a0 This Note, which downplays the importance of the Report, is another example of managers devaluing science. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n

  3. \u00a0http:\/\/mavensnotebook.com\/2015\/12\/09\/delta-stewardship-council-discusses-flows-and-fishes-in-the-delta-adopts-delta-conveyance-principles-and-addresses-single-year-transfers\/<\/a> ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The Delta independent Science Board, made up mostly of non-Californians and non-fish biologists, waded into the fray on Delta issues again with their recent report:\u00a0 Flows and Fishes\u00a0in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta – Research Needs in Support of Adaptive Management\u00a01 … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-652","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bay-delta"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/652","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=652"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/652\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":655,"href":"https:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/652\/revisions\/655"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=652"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=652"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=652"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}