[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENTS OF DECLINING PELAGIC FISH POPULATIONS IN THE
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Monday, February 27, 2006, in Stockton, California
__________
Serial No. 109-40
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-462 WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Elton Gallegly, California Samoa
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Vice Chair Islands
George P. Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Grace F. Napolitano, California
Carolina Tom Udall, New Mexico
Chris Cannon, Utah Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Jim Costa, California
Greg Walden, Oregon Charlie Melancon, Louisiana
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Dan Boren, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Jeff Flake, Arizona Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Rick Renzi, Arizona Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Jay Inslee, Washington
Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina Mark Udall, Colorado
Thelma Drake, Virginia Dennis Cardoza, California
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
Cathy McMorris, Washington
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Vacancy
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Monday, February 27, 2006........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Cardoza, Hon. Dennis, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 5
Miller, Hon. George, W., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 3
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 4
Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Armor, Chuck, Operations Manager, Central Valley Bay-Delta
Branch, California Department of Fish and Game............. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Baxter, Randall D., Senior Biologist Supervisor, Long-Term
Monitoring, Central Valley Bay-Delta Branch, California
Department of Fish and Game................................ 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Breuer, Rich, Environmental Program Manager, Chief
Environmental Water Quality and Estuarine Studies,
California Department of Water Resources................... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Harlow, David L., Assistant Field Supervisor, Sacramento
Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service............... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Nobriga, Matt, Environmental Scientist, Aquatic Ecology
Sections, California Department of Water Resources......... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Sommer, Dr. Ted, Environmental Scientist Supervisor, Chief
Aquatic Ecology Section, California Department of Water
Resources.................................................. 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Additional materials supplied:
American Sportfishing Association, Statement submitted for
the record................................................. 51
Miller, William (BJ), Consulting Engineer, Berkeley,
California, Letter and report submitted for the record..... 53
Nelson, Daniel G., Executive Director, San Luis & Delta-
Mendota Water Authority, Letter submitted for the record... 64
Rosekrans, Spreck, Senior Analyst, Environmental Defense,
Letter submitted for the record............................ 66
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON ``SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENTS OF DECLINING
PELAGIC FISH POPULATIONS IN THE CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA''
----------
Monday, February 27, 2006
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Resources
Stockton, California
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 8:00 a.m. at the
Port of Stockton, Rough and Ready Island, 315 Fyffe Avenue,
Stockton, California, Hon. Richard W. Pombo [Chairman of the
Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Pombo, Radanovich, Miller,
Napolitano and Cardoza.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The Chairman. The Committee on Resources will come to
order.
Welcome to today's proceedings and I thank you for coming
and being part of this very timely and important congressional
hearing.
I would like to welcome everyone to the Port of Stockton
and first I want to thank the Port Staff for all of their help
in setting up the hearing.
I am pleased to see that so many of my colleagues from
neighboring congressional districts and throughout California
could make it this morning.
I would also like to thank some of my constituents from
Stockton and Lodi, who presented the invocation, the
Presentation of the Colors, the Pledge of Allegiance and
singing of ``God Bless America.''
I'd like to welcome Fred Bentley, the chaplain of the
American Legion, Karl Ross Post No. 60 in Stockton, who gave
the invocation; the Lincoln High School Color Guard commanded
by Lt. Commander Jasmine Mercer, who presented our Colors; and
Dino Adame, the Post Commander of American Legion Karl Ross
Post No. 16 who led the Pledge of Allegiance; also Brendan
Kender, a 7th grader from Mokelumne River School in Lodi
singing ``God Bless America.''
I thank all of our presenters and performers for coming
today and your participation is truly important to me. As a
token of my appreciation, I'll present an American flag which
has been flown over the U.S. Capitol to all of our presenters
this morning. Thank you.
We gather here today in Stockton to focus on the Delta. As
we all know, the Delta has a multi-purpose value to our State.
It's not only the largest estuary on the West Coast and the
home of hundreds of animal and plant species, but it's also a
vital source of drinking and irrigation water for two-thirds of
California. We depend on the Delta--but the future of the Delta
also depends on us and our actions.
There are many issues surrounding the Delta. Last week, I
surveyed the Delta with Senator Feinstein, our Governor and
others to assess the need for levee improvements. It's clear:
we are one earthquake or massive flood away from another
Hurricane Katrina-like economic, environmental and social
disaster. The time to act is now. Senator Feinstein and I are
leaving no stone unturned to avoid a massive Delta levee
failure and to have our governments be fully prepared if that
ever happens.
The Delta may be facing its own environmental nightmare as
we speak though--and that's what the topic of today is. Some
Delta fish species are at an all-time low but no one can
responsibly say why. The easy way out is to finger-point to
some policy or infrastructure hated by some groups. Throwing
money at the cause-of-the-month will not get us anywhere
either.
As public servants, we owe it to everyone to ask the hard
questions. We owe it to the American public to find scientific
facts and not to invent fiction that has political appeal.
Science, not politics, must be the basis of our environmental
policies and responses.
Today's hearing is about finding the scientific answers to
why our Delta fish species are declining. We have some of the
best and brightest biologists here who are tackling the issue
before us. They are the ones with the on-the-ground credentials
who will tell us what they've learned, continue to learn and
where they're going. I'm especially glad to have worked
cooperatively with my colleague, George Miller, on this witness
list. The panel before us today represents our mutual belief
that the need for science is truly bipartisan.
We may not get all the answers today, but it will be a
major step on the long road to resolution. In this year alone,
this hearing will be the first of many to focus on the Delta's
and California's many water problems. I look forward to working
with my colleagues on this endeavor and thank the witnesses for
being here today.
I now would like to recognize Mr. Miller for his opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Pombo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman,
Committee on Resources
Welcome to today's important hearing.
We gather here today in Stockton to focus on the Delta. As we all
know, the Delta has a multi-purpose value to our State. It's not only
the largest estuary on the West Coast and the home of hundreds of
animal and plant species, but it's also a vital source of drinking and
irrigation water for two-thirds of California. We depend on the Delta--
but the future of the Delta also depends on us and our actions.
There are many issues surrounding the Delta. Last week, I surveyed
the Delta with Senator Feinstein, our Governor and others to assess the
need for levee improvements. It's clear: we are one earthquake or
massive flood away from another Hurricane Katrina-like economic,
environmental and social catastrophe. The time to act is now. Senator
Feinstein and I are leaving no stone unturned to avoid a massive Delta
levee failure and to have our governments be fully prepared if that
happens.
The Delta may be facing its own environmental nightmare as we speak
though--and that's what the topic for today is. Some Delta fish species
are at an all-time low but no one can responsibly say why. The easy way
out is to finger-point to some policy or infrastructure hated by some
groups. Throwing money at the cause-of-the-month will not get us
anywhere either. As public servants, we owe it to everyone to ask the
hard questions. We owe to the American public to find scientific facts
and not to invent fiction that has political appeal. Science, not
politics, must be the basis of our environmental policies and
responses.
Today's hearing is about finding the scientific answers to why our
Delta fish species are declining. We have some of the best and
brightest biologists here who are tackling this issue before us. They
are the ones with the on-the-ground credentials who will tell us what
they've learned, continue to learn and where they're going. I'm
especially glad to have worked cooperatively with my colleague, George
Miller, on this witness list. The panel before us today represents our
mutual belief that the need for science is truly bipartisan.
We may not get all the answers today, but it will be a major step
on the long road to resolution. In this year alone, this hearing will
be the first of many to focus on the Delta's and California's many
water problems. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
endeavor and thank the witnesses for being here today.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
convening this hearing and to those presenters, thank you for
your time to appear before us.
When I requested this hearing on this topic last year, the
population of the Delta smelt--a tiny fish that was once
abundant here in the Bay-Delta--was at an all-time low after
declining for many years.
In the months since my request, the smelt population has
continued to decline, and they are now apparently on track for
the brink of extinction.
As today's witnesses know, the smelt is a leading indicator
of the Delta's overall health. When this fish is in trouble, it
means the whole estuary is in trouble. And when we
simultaneously see declines in the longfin smelt, the threadfin
shad, and the young striped bass, we should act as if the
future of the State depends on it, because as many of those in
the audience know, the future of the State does depend on the
Delta.
More than 20 million citizens of California drink water
from the Delta, from Contra Costa County to San Joaquin to Los
Angeles. With increasingly poor water quality in the Delta, it
is increasingly difficult, and expensive, for these communities
to meet water quality standards.
The State's commercial and sport fishing industries depend
upon the Delta, as to hundreds of thousands of recreational
fishermen. Between the Delta ecosystem crash and the ongoing
threats to California's salmon and steelhead populations, our
State's fisheries are in serious trouble, as are the businesses
that count on them for their activities.
Local farmers, not just the major irrigators further south,
draw their water from the Delta, and Delta farmlands are harmed
by poor water quality. The policy of the last 15 years, since
the Central Valley Improvement Act and CALFED, has been to
place the health of the Bay-Delta on equal footing with
agricultural diversions. One of the questions today is whether
or not that is, in fact, being carried out in reality. But if
the Delta is in a tailspin, we need to determine if we can
continue to increase diversions.
A failing Bay-Delta estuary is not just an environmental
problem. The Delta is the heart of California's river systems,
its fisheries and when the Delta's vital signs are plummeting,
it is a statewide crisis and we need to act accordingly.
After a year of silence, this is the first time Congress
has looked into what is currently happening in the Delta. But
this should only be the first of several steps. In addition to
talking to Federal and state agency scientists, we have a
responsibility to discuss and implement policy. In addition to
learning what has been done, we need to determine what should
be done to protect the health of the Delta.
For the benefit of all Californians who depend on the
health of the Delta, we have a responsibility to find out what
is killing the Bay-Delta and its fish, and we have an
obligation to design appropriate solutions. And I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses.
The Chairman. Thank you. Now I'd like to recognize the
Chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee, Mr. Radanovich,
for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
fact that you're holding this hearing to investigate the health
of the Bay-Delta and I will submit my statement for the record
in the interest of moving the hearing forward. I do appreciate
the fact that you're holding this hearing. Thank you.
The Chairman. I'd like to recognize Congresswoman
Napolitano for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
hosting the hearing in this District. It's always a pleasure to
come back and overview some of the work that is being done and
as we debate the water problems here in California and that's
really pretty much what we do is debate it. We always come back
to the Delta. We all take from the Delta. We enjoy its beauty.
We profit from it. We grow from its abundant water and we think
we know it very well. And we do take it for granted.
We always seem to be puzzled when things go wrong. Studies
of planning and promises to protect the Delta have been going
on for decades. And that's one of my major issues is where have
all those studies been in the last several decades and
especially as CALFED was supposed to be the answer to a lot of
these problems and the money that was put into it for this
research and being able to answer some of these questions. The
State Water Board, the DWR, the Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and
Game, Fish and Wildlife, everybody studies the Delta. And after
all this time being under the microscope, you'd think we would
know more than we do.
I hope our witnesses this morning will tell us that the
Delta is still keeping its secrets well hidden and how we are
going to be able to find what is actually ailing it and be able
to put our heads together and do the win-win instead of the
finger-pointing and being able to work together to get this
work continued.
We thank the witnesses for taking their time to appear
before the Committee and for their continued work for all of
California, especially Southern California. And I must point
out, I think I'm the only one here from Southern California. So
take your barbs and take your shots at me, if you will. It's
been going on before. I must remind you that a third of the
population in L.A. County alone, so we do benefit from
everything that you do up here and we certainly want to work
with those that want to continue to keep the health of the
Delta and the whole water delivery system.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, and I guess in response to your
statement, whether or not you're the only one from Southern
California, I think depends on your perspective. Many people in
the room consider Mr. Radanovich and Mr. Cardoza from Southern
California, too.
I'd like to recognize Congressman Cardoza for his opening
statement at this time.
Mr. Cardoza. Mr. Chairman, after that last insult, I'm not
sure I'm willing to talk.
Ms. Napolitano. Insult, wait a minute.
The Chairman. Actually, Congressman Cardoza shares San
Joaquin County with me, so he goes all the way from here all
the way to Southern California.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DENNIS A. CARDOZA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Cardoza. The folks in Fresno are going to have to start
lobbying the Chairman on that.
Mr. Chairman, Members, I want to thank you for calling this
hearing today to receive scientific assessments from some of
the key, state and Federal agencies regarding an issue that is
troubling and compounding to us all.
What is causing the decline in the California smelt and
other fish populations is truly perplexing to me. Many have
ideas about the cause and then quickly point a finger to an
alleged culprit, the pumps. It's the pumps. It's the toxins.
It's non-native species. It's the power plants. It's a decline
in the food upon which these populations feed. Is it all those
things put together?
The state and Federal governments and the water agencies
have spent valuable dollars and precious water and time
implementing solutions that have yet to address the problem and
result in healthy fish populations. Yet after years of
restricted operations of Delta pumps and plentiful water
supplies, instead of seeing improvements, the situation appears
to be worse than before the so-called fixes were imposed. What
we have to show for our efforts is a continued restricted water
supply, economic impacts and all-time low populations of Delta
fish.
These findings have confounded many and have caused the
experts to rethink some of their original theories. Looking
back, if we have one lesson to learn is that we cannot allow
notions or some popular belief to dictate our actions. Shutting
down the pumps has wasted money, water and time. Any action
that we take now or in the future to address these issues needs
to be based upon well-founded science. We need to bring in the
best scientists, many of them are here today, who really know
and understand the Delta, to gather the data and conduct
modeling and to ask the tough questions and answer those
questions.
Hopefully, we will have the benefit of some additional data
and modeling despite having implemented solutions that haven't
worked. I applaud the Chairman and Congressman Miller for
working cooperatively and putting together today's hearing and
for focusing today's hearing on science and not rhetoric. These
are complex issues and I realize that we will not get all the
answers today, but I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
and hope to gain a better understanding of the science and of
what additional information we may need in order to get on a
course that has a sound, scientific footing.
Thank you all for being here and sharing with us.
The Chairman. Thank you. I'd like to introduce our panel of
witnesses for today and then administer the oath.
We have Mr. Chuck Armor, Operations Manager, Central Valley
Bay-Delta Branch, California Department of Fish and Game; Mr.
Randall Baxter, Senior Biologist Supervisor, Long-Term
Monitoring, Central Valley Bay-Delta Branch, California
Department of Fish and Game; Mr. Matt Nobriga, Environmental
Scientist, Aquatic Ecology Section, California Department of
Water Resources; Mr. Rich Breuer, Environmental Program
Manager, Chief, Environmental Water Quality and Estuarine
Studies, California Department of Water Resources; Dr. Ted
Sommer, Environmental Scientist Supervisor, Chief Aquatic
Ecology Section, California Department of Water Resources; and
Mr. David Harlow, Assistant Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Harlow
is also accompanied by Dr. Mike Chotkowski, Fisheries
Biologist, Scientific Support Branch, Mid-Pacific Region, U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation.
If I could have you all stand and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm under the penalty of
perjury that the statements made and the responses given will
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
[The witnesses were sworn.]
Thank you, let the record show they all answered in the
affirmative. I'd now like to recognize Mr. Armor to testify and
just for the good of the witnesses, the timing lights that are
on the table in front of you, what we normally do under the
Committee process is your oral testimony is limited to five
minutes. Your entire written testimony will be included in the
record, but it helps to move the hearing along and so if you
could try to abide by the five-minute rule in terms of your
oral testimony. The yellow light will come on when you have a
minute left, so that will be an idea as to how much time you
have.
So I recognize Mr. Armor first for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF CHUCK ARMOR, OPERATIONS MANAGER, CENTRAL VALLEY
BAY-DELTA BRANCH, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Mr. Armor. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Committee
Members. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
present the collaborative work we've been doing on the decline
of pelagic species in the San Francisco estuary.
In late December 2005, a small group of us were reviewing
the data we had from our trawl surveys and we were very
concerned about the numbers we were seeing for Delta smelt and
young striped bass. And we asked the question is this problem
just here or larger? We looked at a lot of the other long-term
monitoring that IEP has been carrying out and then from that we
concluded that not just two species, but four species of
pelagic species numbers had shown severe declines and that this
was limited mainly to the upper part of the estuary.
By pelagic species, we're talking about fish that live in
the water column, not on the bottom or along the shore line. So
they're occupying kind of similar niches out there. We then
drafted a white paper that described this decline and we gave
some possible causes that could be leading to it. We then went
and briefed all of the directors of the IEP, individually or in
small groups, and they instructed us to develop a work plan and
a budget to address this issue.
We next formed a working group called the POD or Pelagic
Organism Decline Management Team of which we're all members
here. We set about developing this work plan and budget. The
draft was presented to the directors on April 7th and it was
also sent out to an independent peer review panel that was
arranged for by the CALFED Science Program.
We got the results back from the peer review. We modified
and made a number of changes to the work plan. It was approved
by the directors on June 2nd. We then instituted work at almost
break-neck speed during the summer and moved a lot of contracts
in record time to get this done. In October, the members of the
POD Management Group, along with a group of outside experts met
to synthesize all the information we learned into a report.
This is what's referred to as the 2005 Synthesis Report. At the
end of October this report was again submitted to an
independent peer review panel for review by the CALFED Science
Program.
November 14th, we held a public workshop where we presented
the results of our 2005 work. And this was held in Sacramento.
We then developed the 2006-2007 work plan that included many of
the peer-reviewer recommendations. We will be updating this
work plan as we go along and we'll be including more,
addressing more of the recommendations made by the Panel.
On January 12th, the IEP directors approved the work plan
and budget, so we're in full implementation mode right now. I
do want to note that this has been an unprecedented response by
the IEP agencies, especially at the director level to this
issue. There's been a rapid movement from problem
identification to reporting of results and this has included
independent reviews, numerous meetings, briefings, press
reports, etcetera and one public workshop and we'll have more
public workshops as we go along to get the findings out.
In 2005, our basic approach was a triage model. We had a
sick patient. We didn't know all the symptoms and we wanted to
know more about what was going on before we started putting
forth cures. We partitioned the possible causes into three
broad groups to help us conceptually. Those are toxins, flows
and exports and food web/exotic species. We developed a
conceptual model to help guide our work and we took a slightly
different approach than in the past, that this model was more
of an ecosystem approach, rather than a species centric
approach. You can't solve a problem for one species. You have
to solve the problem for the ecosystem.
The budget was $1.7 million, shared equally between the
state and Federal sources. Approximately $1 million of this
went to new work by our academic collaborators.
One thing I can tell you that we learned in 2005 is there's
no simple answers, smoking gun to this. Most likely, there will
be multiple causes that may vary by species and life stage.
This is a tough problem.
What we've learned is contained in the Synthesis Report
that is available on the web. We developed a matrix model that
tried to capture what we know and this is used to guide what
work we'll do in the future. This combines stressors with time
and location for each species. We also developed two narratives
that you'll hear more about today and these is where we tie
these very stressors to the observations. And also I want to
tell you that there will be several more narratives coming
along because they don't explain everything that we see going
on out there yet.
So in 2006, where are we headed? We're going to expand our
existing monitoring program. In fact, we already have. We've
already got that started. We're going to continue a lot of our
on-going work. We're going to institute 15 new elements and new
work for this year and there will probably be more as we go
through the year. This is an adaptive process. As we learn, we
modify what we're doing and where we're going and so we're not
locked into one pathway. As we learn, we move, we adjust.
The budget for this year, I'm over already, is $3.7
million, 50 percent state and Federal. Along with this is $2.3
million of CALFED grants that are for work that complements or
adds to the POD efforts, so CALFED is stepping up also.
I want to leave you with two quick points at the end here.
First, we're refining the process for moving from data to
information to synthesis to recommendations. And that there's
been a strong commitment to make data and findings available as
they arise. We're not going to wait until the end of the year.
As we learn stuff, it's going to come up and it's going to be
made public.
Last, our data, reports and peer reviews are available on
the internet. So with that I thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Armor follows:]
Statement of Chuck Armor, Operations Manager, Central Valley Bay-Delta
Branch, California Department of Fish and Game
Overview of Pelagic Organism Decline Work
I. History
A. How problem was identified
B. Actions taken
II. Basic strategy in 2005
A. Triage model
B. Possible causes
C. Developed conceptual model
D. Gathered and reviewed information
E. All suspected causes were on the table for review
F. Broad overview of work done
G. No simple answer
H. Workplan is a living document and is updated as new information
becomes available
III. What have we learned
A. Will be subject of next speakers
B. Developed a matrix model to combine stressors with time and
location for each species
C. Developed narratives that tied various stressors to
observations
IV. What is ahead 2006 +
A. Current and planned work
B. Budget
C. Process for data to information to synthesis to recommendations
D. Data, reports and peer reviews available on Internet
Trawl data--www.delta.dfg.ca.gov
Report--HTTP://Science.calwater.ca.gov/pdf/
workshops-
ftp://ftp.delta.dfg.ca.gov/ (2005 Synthesis Report and
Appendix A)
______
The Chairman. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Baxter for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF RANDALL BAXTER, SENIOR BIOLOGIST SUPERVISOR, LONG-
TERM MONITORING, CENTRAL VALLEY BAY-DELTA BRANCH, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Mr. Baxter. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Committee Members.
Thank you for having me.
My comments today will focus briefly on describing some of
our abundance indices. I'll present 2005 abundance results and
discuss some of the other measures of fish well-being that we
collected in 2005 or developed in that period.
The Interagency Ecological Program, or IEP, uses relative
abundance indices to monitor the status of young fishes and
zooplankton in the San Francisco Estuary. These aren't
estimates of absolute population size, but instead are relative
measures, meant to be compared against one another to depict
population trends and changes over time. To gather this
information we use the same sampling gear or sampling
techniques to collect the organisms at the same locations,
month to month and across years, so the data collected can be
compared.
IEP uses nets towed through the water column to capture the
young fishes and zooplankton, providing information on their
size and distribution as well as their abundance. Young fishes
are targeted in their first year of life as indicators of that
year's reproductive success and as early predictors of eventual
trends in the adult population size. Zooplankton species are
important diet components of these young fishes and are
targeted as a means to examine their role in the survival of
young fish during their first year of life.
Long-term monitoring information from the fall midwater
trawl is used primarily to monitor trends or has been used for
quite some time.
The Mysid-Zooplankton Survey captures zooplankton monthly
year-round. And the monthly indices are broken into spring,
summer and fall groupings and these seasonal indices track
trends in food resources available to pelagic fishes.
Our concern for pelagic fishes resulted from the
observation that four species, all with slightly different life
history traits, all exhibited low abundance in the 2002 to 2004
period. At the same time, several species of copepods were
observed in low abundance. This latter observation on
zooplankton was partly due to a calculation error which has
since been corrected.
Our expectations for 2005 were for modest improvement in
abundance for Delta smelt and striped bass based upon improved
spring outflows. And we expected threadfin shad and the
important copepods would do well in summer. We didn't expect
winter spawning longfin to do particularly well, due to
relatively low outflows in the winder and their abundance is
well related to the magnitude of winter outflow.
In the 2005 Fall Midwater Trawl Survey indices were below
expectations for striped bass and Delta smelt. Striped bass
improved, but remained at very low indices. Delta smelt were at
record lows. Longfin smelt were close to record low abundance
and although threadfin shad increased modestly, their abundance
remained low also.
The two copepod species, Eurytemora affinis and
Pseudodiaptomus forbesi are important early foods and their
contributions to these species, these fish species food
resources were low in spring of 2005, but were very high by
summer.
In 2005, we collected information on fish diet, fish
condition and growth. We wanted to know what fishes were
currently eating and how much, and whether the diet and ration
might be related to their condition, that is, the relative
fatness or skinniness of fish at a particular size.
Field collections for diet began in June, so only part of
the year was sampled. Diets were determined for young striped
bass, Delta smelt, threadfin shad and a species we used in
comparison to the others, inland silverside which is still
doing well in the estuary. Most individuals of all species had
food in their stomach during the summer. Delta smelt were
reliant on copepods for food, but ate a broad range of species.
Striped bass were less reliant on these copepods and focused
more heavily on mysids, shrimp and amphipods. Inland
silversides, the species that's increasing in abundance, ate a
broad variety of items including a more abundant recently
introduced species called Limnoithona and terrestrial insects
that were not found in high fractions in other species' diets.
Fishes caught during the summer were in good shape weight-
wise. The condition of the four target species in 2005 tended
to be the same or ``fatter'' when compared to recent years 2001
to 2004.
Initial investigations of fish growth focused on whether
changes occurred coincident to the fish declines, between 2001
and 2002. What we found was that striped bass and Delta smelt
did not appear, their growth did not appear to decline after
2001.
That's the end of my testimony here. The last statement?
That the growth rates of striped bass and did not appear to
decline after 2001. So they're still growing well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baxter follows:]
Statement of Randall D. Baxter,
California Department of Fish and Game
1. My comments will focus on briefly describing some of our
abundance indices. I'll present 2005 abundance results and discuss some
of the other measures of fish well-being collected in 2005.
2. Interagency Ecological Program (IEP) uses relative abundance
indices to monitor the status of young fishes and zooplankton in the
San Francisco Estuary.
These are not estimates of absolute population size, but instead
are relative measures, meant to be compared against one-another to
depict population trends and changes over time.
To gather this information we use the same sampling gear and
sampling techniques to collect organisms at the same locations month to
month across years, the data collected can be compared across time to
examine the patterns of change.
3. IEP uses nets towed through the water column to capture the
young fishes and zooplankton, providing information on their size and
distribution as well as abundance. Young fishes are targeted in their
first year of life as indicators of that year's reproductive success
and as early predictors of eventual trends in the adult populations.
Zooplankton species are important diet components of young fishes and
are targeted as a means to examine their role in the survival of young
fishes.
4. Long-term monitoring fish information is from the Fall Midwater
Trawl Survey collects fishes from September through December.
5. The Mysid--Zooplankton Survey captures zooplankton monthly
year-round. The monthly information is combined into seasonal abundance
indices for spring (March-May), summer (June-August) and fall
(September-November), and these seasonal indices track trends in food
resources available to pelagic fishes.
6. Our concern for pelagic fishes resulted from the observation
that four fish species, all with slightly different life history
traits, all exhibited low abundance 2002-2004. At the same time,
several species of copepods, small zooplankton that form important
components of the fishes' diets, were observed to be in low abundance
also. This latter observation on zooplankton was in part due to a
calculation error that has been corrected.
7. Our expectations for 2005 were for modest improvement in
abundance for delta smelt and striped bass based upon improved spring
river outflows and we expected that threadfin shad and the important
copepods would do well in summer.
We didn't expect winter spawning longfin smelt to do particularly
well, due to relatively low winter outflows (their abundance is well
related to the magnitude of winter outflow).
8. Similarly, the 2005 Fall Midwater Trawl Survey species indices
were also below expectations for striped bass and delta smelt (see
Figure 1):
Striped bass improved but remained in very low
abundance.
Delta smelt were at record low abundance.
Longfin smelt were close to record low abundance.
Threadfin shad increased modestly, but remained in
low abundance.
9. Two copepod species, Eurytemora affinis and Pseudodiaptomus
forbesi, are important early foods for all upper Estuary fishes.
The contributions of theses two species to fish food resources were
low in spring 2005, but were very high by summer.
10. In 2005, we collected information on fish diet, condition and
conducted growth analyses based upon changes in length. We wanted to
know what fishes were currently eating and how much, and whether diet
and ration might relate to their condition (that is, their relative
fatness or skinniness).
11. Field collections for diet and condition began in June, so
only a part of a year was sampled. Diets were determined for young
striped bass, delta smelt, threadfin shad and inland silverside.
Most individuals of all species had food in their
stomach
Delta smelt were very reliant on copepods for food,
but ate a broad variety of species.
Striped bass were less reliant on copepods and
focused more heavily on larger ``shrimp-like'' mysids and
amphipods.
Inland silversides, a species increasing in
abundance, ate a broad variety of items including more
Limnoithona than others and terrestrial insects not found in
other diets.
The copepod Pseudodiaptomus was important to all.
12. Fishes caught during the summer were in good shape weight-
wise. The condition of the four target fishes (delta smelt, striped
bass, threadfin shad, inland silverside) in 2005 tended to be the same
as or ``fatter'' when compared to data from recent years 2001-2004.
We did have some data from 2003 and 2004 indicating regional
differences in striped bass condition. These will be discussed in
conjunction with an upcoming presentation about 2006 hypotheses.
13. Initial investigations of fish growth focused on whether
changes occurred coincident with fish declines; that is we compared
growth rates from 2001 and prior year with those of 2002-2004.
Growth rate of striped bass and delta smelt did not
appear to decline after 2001.
[Figure 1 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
The Chairman. I'd like to recognize Mr. Nobriga for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF MATT NOBRIGA, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST, AQUATIC
ECOLOGY SECTIONS, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Nobriga. Thank you Chairman Pombo and thank you to the
rest of the Committee as well.
The focus of my comments will be on briefly describing what
we're calling the ``Bad Suisun Bay hypothesis'' which is our
conceptual model of how the Suisun Bay region which on the map
is depicted in green and sits in between San Francisco Bay
proper and the Delta, has potentially become a less suitable
nursery habitat for fish.
Suisun Bay was historically an important fish nursery for
the estuary. And just meaning that a lot of fish used it to
feed and grow. Species introductions have changed the Suisun
Bay food web. A clam has had the largest known effect, greatly
reducing the overall productivity for the pelagic environment,
basically by stealing it for itself. Introductions of various
small shrimp-like animals that are eaten by young fishes have
further changed the pathways from primary algae productivity to
fishes.
So the hypothesis itself is due to these known changes and
possibly others. Suisun Bay is a less suitable nursery habitat
than it used to be.
The written testimony includes some examples from our
synthesis report this past year, showing trends in algae, mysid
shrimp which is a food of young striped bass and young striped
bass themselves and you can see the abundance of all of them
went down considerably and has stayed down every since in the
late 1980s when the clam basically carpeted Suisun Bay's
substrate.
The investigation or the POD investigation is largely
designed to understand this better and to understand it
quantitatively. We know the clam has an effect on fish and fish
food abundance and we see some fish responses. Randy mentioned
condition factor which is a relative robustness versus thinness
of fish.
We've seen signs of disease or malnourishment in fishes
collected there. Abundances are down. The sizes of certain
species in the fall are down. Those are presumed effects of the
clam and possibly other things operating in the nursery
habitat, but both of these effects need to be quantified and
put into the big picture context in terms of synthetic analyses
and mathematical models, basically to allow us a predictive
ability to weight costs and benefits of alternative management
strategies and we haven't developed that yet, but that is in
the plan to do.
In addition, there are other facts besides the clam and
other introduced species in the food web that may also be
contributing to a reduced nursery value and we will investigate
these as well. Toxic insults, changes in habitat area, effects
of power plants that are along the shoreline in Suisun Bay, the
relevance of these latter factors we don't really know. It
needs to be determined before we would know whether we even
need to factor them into mathematical models to predict, to
accurately predict Suisun Bay fish production.
Once again, the hypothesis is pretty straight forward and
simple and is a major part of our efforts and that is due to
the known changes in the nursery area and possibly others.
Suisun Bay is a less suitable nursery habitat than it used to
be. And once again, thank you for the opportunity to speak
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nobriga follows:]
Statement of Matt Nobriga,
California Department of Water Resources
The focus of my comments will be on briefly describing the ``Bad
Suisun Bay hypothesis'' which is our conceptual model of how this
region may have become a less suitable fish nursery.
Background
Suisun Bay was historically an important fish nursery
meaning a lot of young fish used it to feed and grow
Species introductions have changed the Suisun Bay
foodweb; a clam has had the largest known effect, greatly reducing
productivity. Introductions of various small shrimp-like animals eaten
by young fishes have further changed the pathways from primary
productivity to fish.
The hypothesis: Due to these known changes, and possibly
others, Suisun Bay is a less suitable nursery than it used to be.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The investigation
The clam has a known effect on fish and fish food
abundance
The fish responses (condition factor, histopath, relative
abundance, lower fall sizes, etc.) are presumed effects
Both of these effects need to be quantified and put into
the context of synthetic analyses and mathematical models to provide a
predictive ability for weighing the costs and benefits of alternative
management strategies.
There are other factors besides clams and introduced
species that may also contribute to reduced nursery value. We will
investigate these as well: toxins, changes in habitat area, and power
plant effects. The relevance of these latter factors needs to be
determined before we know whether they need to factor into synthetic
analyses and models to accurately predict Suisun Bay fish production.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Breuer.
STATEMENT OF RICH BREUER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MANAGER, CHIEF
ENVIRONMENTAL WATER QUALITY AND ESTUARINE STUDIES, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Breuer. My thanks to the Panel for allowing me to speak
today. I'll be discussing the potential role contaminants play
in the pelagic fish decline.
First, I'd like to make several points. As mentioned in the
other talks, contaminants, if they do play a role in the
declined, it's believed that several other stressors are
working in concert to create the decline. In other words, it
would not be the sole causal agent.
For the first phase of the POD investigations, the
contaminant studies were the most difficult to execute due to
the complexities of toxicity and tissue testing. Therefore,
most of the results are preliminary or testing is still going
on.
For 2005, we focused on looking at the health of the fish
themselves. So we looked at the tissue analysis, specifically,
histopathology which is evaluating the livers of Delta smelt
and striped bass. We also performed aquatic toxicity testing,
where we exposed test organisms to Delta waters. We also did
literature searches on pyrethroids, an insecticide and we also
on the aquatic herbicide use in the Delta. We also investigated
microcystis which is an invasive blue-green algae which is
known to have toxicity in certain locations. We conducted
testing and also there was a white paper.
For our findings for 2005, on the fish tissue analysis, we
looked at the health of the livers of captured Delta smelt as
well as historical archival samples. Analysis is still ongoing,
but preliminary results showed significant liver lesions
indicative of an ecosystem stressor. The problem is you can't
distinguish between contaminates or food limitation.
The toxicity tests, this was six months of testing at
limited sites. We saw reduced growth and survival for the
indicator species, hyalella azteca, but not for the water flea
which is seradaphnia dubai, nor did we see effects on Delta
smelt or striped bass.
Pyrethroids investigation, the use is growing in
California. It's replacing the traditional organophosphates
insecticides. The challenge with the pyrethroids is that
they're not easily found in the water column. They bind tightly
to suspended particles such that testing the water is not
adequate. So the route of exposure is more challenging to
understand and we'll be working on that in additional studies.
For the aquatic herbicides, our investigation showed that
they are not suspected based on our preliminary investigations.
There is some concerns over the additive used when aquatic
herbicides are used such as surfactants. And last, microcystis,
the studies are still in progress. We're waiting on a chemical
analysis and tissue analysis. The consensus is no, at this
point it's not a primary reason for the decline.
For 2006, 2007, we'll be focusing on a fish up approach.
That means we're focusing on the toxicity tests for the fish
and the indicator species. We'll be looking at hyalella. We'll
be studying it over 12 months, plus more sites than we did in
2005. We'll also be looking at Delta smelt and striped bass in
these aquatic tests.
If toxicity is observed, we move into what's called TIE,
toxicity identification evaluation. That's a process through
which we identify the contaminant or contaminants that are
causing the effect.
If toxicity is observed we'll combine this effort with what
we call the watershed down approach where information from
Department of Pesticide Regulations, State Water Resources
Control Board, Regional Boards and other researchers, help
determine what contaminants could be present and what time and
place.
We'll also continue the histopathology work as well as work
with CALFED Science to assemble an expert panel on the use of
these biomarkers such as histopathology to determine the
population effects from the presence of such biomarkers.
And last, microcystis work will also continue to evaluate
the spread of the algae and its possible toxicity.
That concludes my testimony. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Breuer follows:]
Statement of Rich Breuer, California Department of Water Resources, and
Chief, Environmental Water Quality and Estuarine Studies
Contaminants And the Pelagic Organism Decline
2005 Studies
Pelagic Fish Tissue Analysis (Fish Health)
Aquatic Toxicity Testing
Pyrethroids (Insecticide) White Paper
Aquatic Herbicide Use and Toxicity White Paper
Microcystis (Algae) Toxicity Testing and White Paper
2005 Results
Fish Tissue Analyses
Showed liver damage
Toxicity Tests
Reduced Growth and Survival for Indicator Crustacean
Not for Water Flea, Smelt, or Bass
Pyrethroids Class of Insecticides--Use Growing
Aquatic Herbicides--
Not Suspected
Concern over Additives--such as Surfactants
Microcystis--Studies in Progress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Sommer?
STATEMENT OF TED SOMMER, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST SUPERVISOR,
CHIEF AQUATIC ECOLOGY SECTION, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER
RESOURCES
Mr. Sommer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee Members. I'm
here to talk about the winter salvage hypothesis which focuses
on Delta operations and hydrology and first I want to remind
everyone how complex the Delta really is. We have fairly strong
seasonal and annual variation and flow. We also have pretty
strong tidal effects. A lot of people think of the Sacramento
River or San Joaquin as rivers in this region and they're not.
They're strongly influenced by the ocean's tides.
And in addition to that, we have strong operational
effects. We have upstream dam effects on Delta channels, water
diversions like the State Water Project and the CVP and South
Delta barriers.
In evaluating the effect of operations and hydrology, the
POD team first looked at some of the patterns in tributary
flows and one of the first things that we noticed was in the
period since 2000, there's been relatively high Sacramento
River flow and low San Joaquin River flow.
The other pattern that we noticed was that state water
project and CVP exports have generally increased since 2000.
They're not at levels that we haven't really seen in the past,
but again, there has been a general increase in recent years.
Perhaps more interesting, the seasonal pattern of exports
has changed substantially in recent years. For example, there's
increased winter exports, reduced spring exports and increased
summer exports. And all of these changes are consistent with
the 1994 Bay Delta Accord.
And finally, the South Delta barriers have been operated
for longer periods or longer duration.
So what does all this mean for fish species? It's difficult
to assess for fish. One of the ways we have of measuring this
is fish that are salvaged at the CVP and State Water Project
fish screens. The number of fish collected at these fish
screens is used as a crude measure of water project effects. We
call it technically fish entrainment.
The figure I provided in testimony provides evidence of the
patterns in Delta smelt salvage, particularly since 2000. And
since 2000 when we look at the winter salve of Delta smelt
which are the adult spawners, we see that there's been an
increase in salvage of these fish.
And the high salvage levels remain high even after we
correct for the higher pumping levels that I mentioned in
winter. And last, winter salvage was especially high
considering how low the Delta smelt population has been in the
Delta.
In addition to that, we looked at similar pattern for the
other pelagic species, striped bass, longfin smelt and
threadfin shad and each shows a similar pattern.
So this brings us to the winter salvage hypothesis. Have
increased winter exports adversely affected the pelagic fishes?
We will have a lot of questions that we need to answer over the
next coming couple of years. The first question is are the data
that we've been looking at a result of some sort of data error?
As Randy mentioned, occasionally, there are errors in our
data bases that do affect our interpretation. If this isn't an
effect of data error, we need to evaluate what the mechanisms
may be for increased winter salvage. Are there hydrodynamic
effects? Are these the result of problems with fish health? Or
has the habitat in the south or central Delta changed in some
way?
We also need to do some long-term comparisons. Are the
recent patterns similar to what occurred during the 1980s or
early 1990s.
And finally, and perhaps most importantly, could winter
fish losses at the pumps have population level effects on
pelagic fishes? In contrast to the information presented on the
bad Suisun hypothesis presented by my colleague, Matt Nobriga
where we see very clear effects of an invasive species and
previously, we've also seen clear effects with flow in the
system, assessing the effects of experts is a much more
difficult proposition.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sommer follows:]
Statement of Dr. Ted Sommer,
California Department of Water Resources
Delta Operations and Hydrology: The Winter Salvage Hypothesis
Background
Delta hydrology is complex
Inflow: Seasonal and annual variation
Tidal effects.
How operations affects hydrology.
Upstream dam operations.
Water diversions.
South Delta barriers.
Recent Changes in Delta Operations and Hydrology
The period since 2000 has had relatively high Sacramento
River flow and low San Joaquin River flow (Figure 1).
SWP and CVP exports have generally increased since 2000
(Figure 2).
The seasonal pattern of exports has changed in recent
years (Figure 3).
Increased winter exports.
Reduced spring exports.
More summer exports.
South Delta barriers have been operated for longer
periods.
Trends in Fish Salvage
Fish are salvaged at SWP and CVP fish screens.
The number of fish collected is used as a crude measure
of project effects (``entrainment'').
Patterns in delta smelt salvage since 2000 (Figure 4).
Winter salvage of adult delta smelt (the spawning stock)
has increased substantially.
Winter salvage was relatively high even after
``correcting'' for higher pumping rates.
Winter salvage was especially high considering the low
smelt population in the delta.
The other pelagic fishes (striped bass, longfin smelt,
threadfish shad) showed a similar pattern of increased winter salvage.
The Winter Salvage Hypothesis
Have increased winter exports adversely affected pelagic
fishes?
Follow-Up Studies
Are the salvage results a result of data error?
If not, what are the mechanisms responsible for increased
winter salvage?
Hydrodynamic effects?
Fish health?
Habitat changes?
Is the recent pattern similar to that occurring in the
late 1980s and early 1990s?
Could winter fish losses at the pumps have population
level effects on pelagic fishes?
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Harlow.
STATEMENT OF DAVID HARLOW, ASSISTANT FIELD SUPERVISOR,
SACRAMENTO FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY MIKE CHOTKOWSKI, FISHERIES BIOLOGIST,
SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT BRANCH, MID-PACIFIC REGION, U.S. BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION
Mr. Harlow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. My name is David Harlow. I'm the Assistant Field
Supervisor of the Fish and Wildlife Service, office in
Sacramento, under the supervision of the California-Nevada
Operations Office, which is headed up by Steve Thompson who
regrets that he could not be here today.
I'm joined by my colleague from the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Dr. Mike Chotkowski. He is the representative from
the Department of the Interior on the Pelagic Decline Work Team
and is the lead for that team looking at historical population
trends and fisheries.
My written testimony was submitted to the Committee so I
will not repeat it this morning. Instead, I'll draw your
attention to three key points I'd like to stress. First, as
you've heard, the current decline of numerous pelagic organisms
in the Delta is a very complex issue. Exhaustive studies are
being undertaken by the gentleman at the table and many others,
assisted by many knowledgeable experts from academia and the
private sector. All are working very hard to determine causes
and find solutions, but it is unlikely that there will be a
simple solution to the problems of such a complex ecosystem.
For this reason, my second point is the Fish and Wildlife
Service is revising its Delta Navy Fishes Recovery Plan, using
new information that has been developed since the approval of
that plan in 1996 and is continuing to be developed.
We'll be working with many of our partner agencies to
assemble a recovery team consisting of qualified, governmental
agency, academia and stakeholder representatives. The scope of
the revision will include at a minimum updating the biological
information in the plan, reviewing and possibly revising
recovery goals and identifying recovery implementation actions.
And third, I'd like to provide our perspective on the topic
of the south of Delta export pumping and the effects to Delta
smelt. Although the effects of entrainment losses at the pumps
have been implicated in the population decline of Delta smelt,
particularly in the South Delta, it is apparent that other
causes, such as non-native invasive species, environmental
contaminants and changes in food supply may also be a limiting
species recovery. Accordingly, it is unlikely that reduction of
export pumping alone would be sufficient to bring about
recovery.
The Service, along with the California Department of Fish
and Game, National Marine Fisheries Services, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources,
addressed pumping effects with an adaptive management program
included within the two projects' operations. When protective
actions for Delta smelt at the export pumps are undertaken by
the five agencies, the actions are based on the latest
hydrological conditions and fisheries status and distribution.
Results of investigations of these recent investigations
are provided to agency managers on a regular basis and
considered in decisionmaking. These five agencies confer at
least weekly, at several different levels before making
decisions. And we are in close communication with our senior
management within the agencies on a regular basis.
With that, I'll conclude my remarks and save any time for
Dr. Chotkowski, if you have any questions about the analyses
that he's performing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harlow follows:]
Statement of David L. Harlow, Assistant Field Supervisor for
Conservation, Restoration and Contaminants, Sacramento Field Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Harlow, and I am the
Assistant Field Supervisor for Conservation, Restoration and
Contaminants in the Sacramento field office of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service). I am pleased to be here today on behalf of
the Department of the Interior to discuss the status of declining
pelagic fish populations, in particular the delta smelt fish
population, of the California Bay-Delta.
I will focus my testimony on two areas--first, a brief overview of
the status of the delta smelt, and, second, how the Service and our
partner agencies are responding to the recent severe downward trend in
the delta smelt's population, using the results of new research into an
adaptive management approach to address delta smelt population limiting
factors.
Much of the focus of my testimony is on the delta smelt, but it is
important to note that while we cannot conclude definitively, we do
fear that the status of this species may be symptomatic of the
condition of the Bay-Delta ecosystem as a whole. The environmental
conditions of the Delta are extremely complex and, in light of this,
the cause and effect relationship between and among varying factors are
not well-understood at any level. As a result, the only thing we know
with certainty is that there will be no simple solutions to the
problems of such an important ecosystem.
Status Overview
The Service has been involved in the efforts to address the decline
of the delta smelt since its listing under the Endangered Species Act
as threatened in 1993. Subsequently, the delta smelt was listed as
threatened under California's State Endangered Species Act on December
9, 1993.
In 1996, the Service completed the Sacramento-San Joaquin Fisheries
Recovery Plan, which included recovery goals for the delta smelt. To
consider delisting the delta smelt, specific abundance and distribution
criteria must be met during a five year period.
On August 2003, pursuant to court-approved settlement agreements
with the California Farm Bureau Federation, the San Luis & Delta
Mendota Water Authority, and other groups, the Service commenced a 5-
year review of the status of the delta smelt. When the Service
completed a 5-year review in March 2004, we concluded that delisting
was not warranted as the species continued to be threatened with
extinction. However, because of information obtained during this 5-year
review, the Service is undertaking a revision of the 1996 recovery
plan.
Response to Recent Decline in Delta Smelt
Most of the potential threats to the delta smelt and other Delta
pelagic organisms which have been identified will be addressed in
detail by other speakers today. I would like to mention that exhaustive
studies are being undertaken by the Interagency Ecological Program,
assisted by many knowledgeable volunteers from academia and the private
sector who share concerns about the status of the Bay-Delta ecosystem.
Included among them are my colleague, Mike Chotkowski, Fishery
Biologist with the Department's Bureau of Reclamation, who is here with
me to answer question related to work he has performed as part of the
2005 Pelagic Organism Decline investigation package.
Because of the changing situation in both the condition of the
delta smelt population and evolving research, the agencies responsible
for delta smelt management have developed an adaptive management
approach enabling us to rapidly address new information and apply it to
measures aimed at addressing the decline. Also, the Service and others
assisted the California Departments of Water Resources and Fish and
Game in preparing the Delta Smelt Action Plan which specifically
addresses actions that have been or could be taken by resource agencies
which are designed to further research needs and reduce population
decline. A few examples of actions to reduce population decline include
planning restoration actions for the Delta, Suisun Marsh, and San Pablo
Bay that are intended to improve habitat conditions for smelt and other
State and federally-listed and candidate species.
We are also actively involved in efforts to identify other
environmental risks and possible corrective actions. I would like to
provide the Service's perspective on one topic that generates a lot of
attention--water export pumping from the Delta. Although the effects of
entrainment losses at the pumps have been implicated in the population
decline of delta smelt, particularly in the south Delta, it is apparent
that other causes such as non-native species, contaminants, and changes
in food supply may also be limiting species recovery. Accordingly, it
is unlikely that reduction of export pumping is sufficient alone to
bring about recovery.
In 2005, the Service's biological opinion on the operations of the
Central Valley Project and State Water Project concluded that, with the
adaptive management program agreed to by the operating agencies, the
Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Water
Resources, California Department of Fish and Game, and National Marine
Fisheries Service have the ability to address pumping effects within
existing operational criteria and assets. The Operations Plan includes
the implementation of the Delta Smelt Risk Assessment Matrix (DSRAM).
This matrix guides the recommendations of the Delta Smelt Working
Group, which is composed of agency scientists who are actively involved
in the ongoing research and management of delta smelt. Three of the
panel members here today are members of the group.
The Working Group is specifically set up to review all available
information and advise the Service on implementation of actions that
can be taken to minimize effects of export pumping on the species. This
information, along with substantial other data and expert opinion, is
reviewed by the Water Operations Management Team (WOMT). This team is
composed of management level representatives from the Service, Bureau
of Reclamation, National Marine Fisheries Service, California
Department of Water Resources, and California Department of Fish and
Game. The team has several adaptive water management tools that can be
used to help protect delta smelt including, but not limited to, the
Environmental Water Account and water available from the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act, commonly known as B(2) water.
With the high level of concern for the delta smelt population, the
Working Group has recommended to the Service and the WOMT agencies that
water management actions to protect pre-spawning adults and larvae from
entrainment be given the highest priority. Export reductions taken to
protect adults are intended to avoid or minimize losses of adults
before they have the opportunity to spawn, typically in late winter.
After the fish have spawned, subsequent reductions to protect larvae
are intended to maximize recruitment by affording young fish the
opportunity to move out of the Delta where they were hatched and into
their rearing areas in Suisun Bay and Marsh.
Under the current adaptive management process for water project
operations, decisions regarding operations must consider many factors,
including public safety, water supply reliability, cost, as well as
regulatory and environmental requirements. The first step is data
collection, including the routine collection of hydrologic data by the
California Department of Water Resources, Bureau of Reclamation, and
U.S. Geological Survey. The Pelagic Organism Decline work team also
provides input to the water operations decision-making process through
regular updates. Using that data, the Data Assessment Team (DAT) and
the Delta Smelt Working Group (DSWG) can recommend a change in Project
operations, which is forwarded to the WOMT.
The decision-making agencies also try to inform and advise major
interests that may be affected when they are making a particularly
challenging decision about water operations. The WOMT considers the
recommendation and seeks consensus on potential actions. WOMT may adopt
or modify the recommendation and may direct that the Environmental
Water Account and water available under the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act be used to implement an export reduction. For
particularly controversial recommendations, state and federal agency
leaders engage in the decision-making process. Decisions regarding
changes to Project operations often must be made quickly if they are to
be effective. The Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of
Water Resources then implement the export reduction as prescribed.
Implementation can occur within a three-hour turn-around, if necessary.
Conclusion
Recovery of the delta smelt continues to be a high priority for the
Service. Our knowledge of this species and its needs continues to
increase almost daily. We are working closely with our partner agencies
to make real-time management decisions consistent with our adaptive
management approach to water operations. We intend to update our
recovery strategies as quickly as the science becomes available. In
particular, the Service plans to revise the delta smelt recovery plan
in the near future to incorporate new scientific information that is
the result of the extensive studies now underway and new information
developed since the approval of the current recovery plan in 1996.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today, and I will be happy to answer
any questions that the Committee may have on this important issue.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. I thank all of you for your
testimony.
I think to begin with, to Mr. Armor, you talked about the
steps that you're going to go through in the upcoming year and
one of the things you mentioned was a list of recommendations
or recommendations that would be coming out.
Do you have an approximate time as to when those
recommendations will be ready?
Mr. Armor. No, I don't. First, we have to, as you heard, we
need to build models. We need to get the data so we can build
models and actually suggest, if we do this, here's where we'll
end up. We're not there yet. I can't tell you when those
recommendations are going to be forthcoming.
I can tell you that our directors have impressed the need
to get information to them so that a decision can be made to
get recommendations to them as quickly as possible because
there are a number of very critical water decisions, water
development decisions that are in abeyance right now, waiting
for us to come with stuff. So we're very cognitive of the need
to move quickly. We are. But I can't say in November we're
going to have recommendations because I just don't know where
we're going to be with the science by then and especially with
the model development.
The Chairman. Those recommendations will be the result of
collaboration between all of the different agencies and
stakeholders. This is a broad-based study that everyone is
doing. Obviously, in a lot of different areas and whatever
recommendations come out of that will be a collaboration
between everybody.
Mr. Armor. Very much so.
The Chairman. Mr. Baxter, just so I understand what you
testified to, in terms of the correlation between food
availability in fish and numbers, you talked about the growth
rate of striped bass and smelt and how it had not changed since
2001. Is that accurate? Did I understand that correctly?
Mr. Baxter. It had not declined since prior to what we're
calling our pelagic organisms decline. So the growth rates were
as high or essentially a little bit higher in some cases.
The Chairman. So should I take from that that food
availability is not part of the issue in terms of what you were
looking at?
Mr. Baxter. The growth rates that we looked at were based
on survivors. So those that survived in the system, did well.
We haven't identified whether there are particular times or
places, for instance, in 2005, during the spring, the copepod
abundance was pretty low and that's important to striped bass
and Delta smelt, but we haven't determined whether that was
such a low level that it caused the mortality of those fish.
The fish that survived grew well. So there's a little bit of a
conundrum there.
The Chairman. When you talk about declining numbers or all-
time low numbers, in terms of the smelt or the striped bass,
what does that mean? Do we have 50 percent less than what we
had in 2000 or 10 percent less? What actually do your numbers
show?
Mr. Baxter. I think all we can say for certain is that
there's a decline from a relatively high level. We've done some
investigations to see whether our abundance indices, whether
we're able to discriminate among them, based on the variability
that we see. And these extremely low abundance levels are quite
a bit less than previous abundance levels, but we don't have
like a one-to-one population relationship established for these
indices. So all we know really is that the trend is down and we
don't know where the bottom is and we don't know whether if we
fail to collect any Delta smelt, whether that's a true zero.
Most likely, it's not. It's just that we've missed them. We
can't sample the whole estuary. The idea is not to catch and
kill every fish out there in order to track a population. So we
sample a fraction and make our estimates of trends from that.
The Chairman. When you look for fish, do you go back to the
same place every year and that's where you sample?
Mr. Baxter. Correct. We have a broader array of sampling
locations that are spread throughout the upper estuary and in
some cases throughout the estuary and each time we go out,
we're using the same gear at the same location, so our methods
should not be affecting our capture or not capture of the
fishes.
The Chairman. Is it possible that your numbers are skewed
based on climate or runoff? Some years we have greater runoff
through the Sacramento River. Other years we have greater
runoff through the San Joaquin River. Is it possible that that
is influencing your numbers, based on where the fish are going,
based on what temperature or water amount or water quality or
food sources that change, based on where we have a greater
water runoff?
Mr. Baxter. Yes, the water runoff changes the distribution
of the fish and that's going to change our ability to detect
them, depending upon how many sampling locations we have in the
vicinity of where they end up. So yes, it's all mixed in and
that's part of all our years of sampling include essentially
all the variety of water years that we've seen, certainly from
the runoff standpoint. There are new factors. Any increases in
pumping or increases to diversion will certainly change that,
potentially change fish distribution.
The Chairman. Finally, since my time is running out, I just
want to go back to the question I asked you in terms of is it
possible for you to say that the numbers are 50 percent less
than what they were five years ago or do you just not, at this
point you're not able to say that? And I just pulled 50 percent
out. It could be 50 percent. It could be 80 percent. I don't
know. I'm just trying to figure out.
We hear about how the numbers are at an all-time low and
I'm just trying to figure out what that is. Is it one percent
less than what it was and that's an all-time low or is it 80
percent less than what it was?
Mr. Baxter. Yes, I think the only way that I can answer you
is just to say we don't know what our index relationship is to
the whole population and I think that's what your meaning is,
is it 50 percent of the population? We don't know whether we
suddenly start catching fish more poorly when the numbers are
really low. It's possible that they're using other habitats
that we don't sample well when the numbers are really low. So I
can't answer the question.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I recognize Mr. Miller
for his questions.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Harlow, in your
statement on page 4, you talk about water export pumping from
the Delta and in the conclusion of your first paragraph you
stated ``accordingly, it's unlikely that the reduction of
export pumping is sufficient alone to bring about recovery.''
Certainly, I don't think any Members of this Panel suggested
that we would do that alone.
The question is and it's been amplified here this morning
that this is a very complex problem. You go on to state that--
you put together in place an adaptive management program with
the Bureau and with the Water Resources and Marine Fisheries
Service to have the ability to address pumping effects within
existing operational criteria and assets. And that the working
group is specifically set up to review all available
information to advise the Service on implementation actions. It
can minimize the effects of export pumping on the species. And
that is reviewed by what is called the Water Operations
Management Team, is that correct?
Mr. Harlow. Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Miller. And you later on, on page 5, you go on to say
``with a high level of concern for the Delta smelt populations,
the working group has recommended to the Service and to the
WOMT agencies, water management actions to protect pre-spawning
adults and larvae from entrainment, be given the highest
priority, export reductions taken'' and apparently you have
recommended or the working group has recommended export
reductions at various times. Is that correct?
Mr. Harlow. That's correct.
Mr. Miller. And that's the highest priority and to protect
the larvae and intended to maximize recruitment of young fish
and the opportunity to move out of the Delta where they are
hatched into the marine areas of the Suisun Bay and Marsh, Mr.
Nobriga's area.
I guess my question is it appears that we have a very
complex system here, but one of the constants that people are
recommending not be changed and this is at a policy level, is
exports. And in fact, we have a series of processes under way
to increase the exports from the Delta.
So one of my questions would be that you say that it's
sufficient reduction export alone would not bring about
recovery, what's the sense among the scientists about the
increase in exports at a time when you don't know the
ramifications of the clams, of pesticides, other factors?
Mr. Harlow. I believe you're asking a question about the
interrelationship between pumping and those other factors.
Mr. Miller. I'm asking when you look at what is described
as a very complex system, we have the impact of exotic species.
You have the impact of some forms of various pesticides,
herbicides, and we sort of have this three-legged stool here
and experts. You wouldn't introduce more clams at this time,
would you?
Mr. Harlow. Correct.
Mr. Miller. And you probably wouldn't introduce more
herbicides at this time, would you?
But apparently, there's an agreement somewhere between the
agencies that we will continue to place in motion those things
that would lead to additional exports of water from the Delta.
Mr. Harlow. Congressman Miller----
Mr. Miller. And whether it's a renewal of the contracts or
whether it's trying to suck every additional acre foot you
possibly can for the needs of California. And I recognize that.
Mr. Harlow. Congressman Miller, I'd like to point out that
we issued a preliminary biological opinion on increased pumping
and that is not final biological opinion or final agency
action. Beyond that, Congressman Miller, I've been advised by
legal counsel, because this is in litigation, I should not
speculate on the outcomes of the further analyses that will be
conducted and considered before we issue a final biological
opinion.
Mr. Miller. Let's go to that issue there and you either can
respond or you can't. You make that determination. I'm not here
to force you to respond if you're not comfortably legally.
But that biological opinion that you say you've come up
with an adaptive management program that's agreed by the
operating agencies that you can address the pumping effects
within the existing operational criterion assets. Has anybody
looked at whether or not the existing operational criterion
assets makes sense in today's environment within the Delta or
are we meeting operational criterion assets that may be
inconsistent with the recovery of and the sustainable health of
the Delta? Has that work been done in any of this?
Mr. Harlow. That's part of the on-going investigation
described by Dr. Sommer and others, yes.
Mr. Miller. So Dr. Sommer, you're going directly to that
operational criteria?
Because in all your testimony, everything has to fit within
that operation and I just want to know whether or not if we've
looked at whether the foundation is solid here.
Mr. Sommer. We're focusing on the current criteria, what
we've seen over the past five plus years.
Mr. Miller. And what do you--that's telling you what?
Mr. Sommer. That there has been an increase, we think, in
entrainment of several of these pelagic fishes during winter
and again, the big question is does that have a population
level effect.
Mr. Miller. How many of these fish do we entrain over a
year?
Mr. Sommer. The problem with entrainment is----
Mr. Miller. Is that the same as grinding up, lost in the
pumps or sending them to L.A.?
Mr. Sommer. No, we salvage fish at the fish screens, but
the challenge is the fish we salvage represents an unknown
portion of the total fish that are entrained. For example,
state water project has a floor bay or a reservoir before the
screens and so we think the actual losses are probably
substantially higher.
Mr. Miller. So again we go back to, we have a situation
where it's suggested the complexity of the problem almost
defies putting your thumb on any solution and I think that may
very well be justified at this point. I'm just trying to
determine what's the operating parameters here?
So you have the listed species or several listed species
here that are threatened, but we continue to send them through
the pumps. Do you get a permit to do this? Do you get a take?
Mr. Sommer. I'm the wrong person to ask about the----
Mr. Miller. Who would be the right person?
Mr. Sommer. We're here to present the science beside the
fish decline.
Mr. Miller. But I mean you've got a hole in the ship here
and the question is do you fix it or not? I mean I don't
understand. You have the threatened species. Does Fish and
Game, do you have to get a take to entrain them? That's a
delicate, wonderful word. There's two here from Fish and Game.
Mr. Armor. The facilities operate with a biological opinion
that sets their take points.
Mr. Miller. That biological opinion is currently being
challenged.
Mr. Armor. Correct. And I think David Harlow can speak more
to that because they issue one of the permits that they operate
under down there.
Mr. Harlow. That's correct. We do have a biological opinion
that covers the current operations and that is in litigation
currently.
Mr. Miller. I'll finish here, Mr. Chairman. This system
where we have this delicate complexity, we continue to allow
the threatened species to be chewed or entrained somewhere. I
guess they end up in Napolitano's District. It's not a great
game fish, this smelt.
Ms. Napolitano. They're salvage.
Mr. Miller. They're salvage. And we also, our policymakers
are deciding that they're going to export more water at a time
when we're told that the dynamics here are so complex, we can
get arrive at a conclusion. But some conclusions are already
being pre-ordained here. But perhaps above your all grades here
because these are policy considerations about renewal of
contracts and how much water and all of those things that are
very controversial at this dais here. But the fact of the
matter some things continue to go on winter, spring, summer or
fall, good year or bad year. And I'm just wondering at some
point whether or not you can really talk about dealing with the
complexities of the system, if you don't recognize that maybe
you've got to put that on the table too, to deal with the
complexities of this system.
I don't know if that clam showed up and made it
inhospitable or a failure of water to flush that area, made it
more hospitable, I don't know that yet. All I know is we keep
sending water out.
I'll stop for the moment, I hope we'll have a second round
of questions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now that I have
Microphone 101 down I'd like to ask a couple of questions. For
Mr. Chotkowski, a couple of questions. Some have called for
significant reductions in the export pumps until a smoking gun
can be found.
Does the science currently indicate whether pump stoppage
or reductions have any impact on fish populations?
Mr. Chotkowski. Well, Congressman, I can only respond by
describing the statistical research we did last year on this
subject. What we did was look at the relationship between time
averaged export volumes for several months of the year and the
number of smelt that were taken to the fall mid-water trawl
which is the index that's used for official purposes.
And what we discovered preliminarily is that exports are a
significant contributor or have a significant effect on the
fall mid-water trawl index, they don't have a large effect.
They have a small effect. So it looks like at this point if you
believe that analysis that time averaged exports are not a very
good predictor of fall mid-water trawl index, we don't consider
this part of the research to be done yet, so we're not certain
whether it's believable. We want to look and see whether it may
be the case that experts are very important under some
conditions that occur infrequently but not important under
other conditions.
Mr. Radanovich. They really don't have the science down yet
on it.
Mr. Chotkowski. Yes sir, that's right. We really don't know
yet. We're working on it and what I've just described is
there's sort of a middle step and an on-going analysis.
Mr. Radanovich. OK, thank you. At other hearings, we've
heard a lot about the Pacific cyclical oscillation, El Nino and
La Nina, climate events and their effects on some ocean
fisheries. How much of an effect has climate change had on
Delta fishes. Do we know that? For you, Mr. Chotkowski or
anybody else.
Mr. Chotkowski. No sir, we don't know. I don't know.
Mr. Radanovich. Wouldn't knowing that perhaps have a pretty
good idea about why the decline of fish populations in the
Delta? Do you have any idea whether you think that affects that
or not?
Mr. Sommer. We have been evaluating changes in salinity and
temperature which are a direct effect of climate-related
factors and how the habitat shifts with time.
Mr. Radanovich. That would be as to the amount of water
flowing into the Delta.
Mr. Sommer. That's right, and also air temperatures as
well.
Mr. Radanovich. OK.
Mr. Sommer. And there have been some long-term changes that
we've detected based on that. And that's consistent with
climate change, but also changes in flow patterns and exports.
Mr. Radanovich. In anybody's view here, is the decline in
the--could the decline in the fisheries in the Delta be
attributed to what might be going on out in the ocean?
Mr. Armor. We don't have a construct that would show us how
that ocean would affect these species which are found up in the
Delta. They don't connect to the ocean. They don't migrate
there. Their food isn't fixed there. And so we can't say what's
going on in the ocean that's affecting say Delta smelt, because
they don't go there. They're disconnected.
Now with a number of the species that we do monitor down in
the Bay, yes, we do see an impact of these ocean conditions and
ocean impacts, but that's separate from what we're talking
about here today.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Napolitano.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I find this
interesting, Mr. Armor, that you say that these long-term
weather changes in the ocean may not affect. We were on a
congressional delegation to the Amazon. Scientists there are
finding changes in the Amazon River due to global warming or at
least purportedly due to global warming that's affecting the
fish. Fishing villages are being wiped out.
So to me, there is some, something, some correlation to the
warming of the oceans to the warming of the rivers, to the
warming of the climate that may be affecting. Is anything being
done to study that possibility? I'm not saying it happens, but
the possibility. Because if it happened in another part of the
world, please.
Mr. Armor. One of the projects being funded by CALFED is a
project that's looking at long-term scenarios in the estuary
and the global warming is one of the scenarios that they're
looking at. And they're using a series of models that have been
developed and are being developed but they're bringing these
together to look at these large, long-term, large-scale events
like that.
Ms. Napolitano. Is the academia being involved? Because I
don't see anybody here representing that research portion.
Mr. Armor. Oh, very much so. And in fact, a number of
people in that proposal, actually not a proposal. They've got
the grant now, are from academia. Stanford University,
Louisiana State University. I'm trying to think where else. A
number of research--Robert Turran Center. There's a number of
folks involved there from academia.
We've involved a number of folks from academia in our work.
They're doing a lot of our toxicity testing, a lot of our more
state-of-the-art science is being done by academia right now.
Ms. Napolitano. Now the Delta smelt is now listed as a
threatened species and the declines you see, the abundance in
the Delta smelt, shouldn't it be reclassified as endangered,
anybody?
And we, of course--how do you make the determination and
how bad does it get before that action can be taken? As we all
know, we were advised and used to think that the pumping from
the Delta in the winter was fine, it was OK. And now it's
harmful to fish. Is there any time of year that has been
determined that it might possibly be OK? Or is it for the whole
year?
Anybody, please.
Mr. Harlow. Congresswoman Napolitano, I will respond to at
least part of that question. Certainly the status of the smelt
will be looked at when we update the recovery plan. And that
will be a key thing we'll look at is its status.
And then regarding your question about pumping, we, within
the management agencies that are called the WOMT, the Water
Operations Management Team agencies, clearly, we look at the
hydrology that is present in the winter time and fish
locations. And there are times when it is advantageous to pump
south and fill San Luis when there are no fish present and the
hydrology indicates there is no impact to those fish at the
time.
Ms. Napolitano. Well, in reading some of the testimony that
has been some submitted, I find that much reference is done to
small, immature fish. But the larger fish is getting fatter.
What is the correlation and has there anything been done to
further clarify why that is happening? Are they being--besides
the pumping, entrainment, the clams and everything else, why is
the issue of the nongrowth of the fingerlings of the small
versus the mature getting fatter?
Anybody? Hello.
Mr. Baxter. We're currently investigating, some of the
academic researchers are currently investigating growth of
larval fish, Delta smelt, in particular, in a manner that's
going to be a little more specific than the measures that I
presented today. And we're hoping that over time that we'll be
able to--in order to do that, you need to look at the ear bones
and look at growth and survival that way. And it's a very time
consuming process. And we're just not there with the answers
yet.
Ms. Napolitano. We've been funding studies now for a number
of years. Nothing of this sort has ever been indicated there
was a need for?
Mr. Baxter. The striped bass data that I'm aware of, I
don't know whether it identified a break point in growth or
survival with any of the conditions that we're looking at right
now.
Ms. Napolitano. And just to add to that, you talk about
pesticides, but you don't indicate anything that is connected
to the use of fertilizers which also can be toxic.
Anybody?
Mr. Breuer. Where fertilizers play a role is they
contribute nutrients that can add to the growth of algae and
nutrients in an estuary aren't necessarily good or bad. It
depends on what's benefiting from their application.
But at this point, there's no toxicity directly from
fertilizers that's a concern.
Mr. Sommer. I might add, one of the issues though that
we're looking at is what's going on at the base of the food
graph and one of the disturbing patterns is the increase in
toxic alga blooms that have occurred over the past seven or
eight years.
Ms. Napolitano. Explain, please.
Mr. Sommer. There's a blue-green alga called microcystis
that has started appearing with disturbing frequency in the
central Delta. It's a known toxin to fish, to invertebrates and
to humans. It's fairly prevalent during summer time in key
parts of the Delta.
Ms. Napolitano. Is that part of the study I hope, to be
able to determine whether----
Mr. Sommer. It's a key part of the study. And it may also
be related to nutrient land-use pattern and flow patterns.
Ms. Napolitano. Flow patterns from ag. use, possibly?
Mr. Sommer. Perhaps.
Ms. Napolitano. All of it. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll
wait for the next round.
The Chairman. Mr. Cardoza.
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
panel being here and the interest in this topic. I lived on the
Sacramento River for three years when I was on the legislature
in Sacramento and I can tell you in that period of time I saw a
wide variety of conditions affect the river temperature, high
and low times, and I know how difficult it must be to try and
judge all these different factors that go into play.
I remember boats capsizing and God knows what were on
those, the batteries and the acid and the lead could very well
affect different conditions and different places. And so my
question to you, Mr. Baxter, is how many years have you all
been conducting these samples upon which we're trying to base
the science?
When did the testing start?
Mr. Baxter. It started for different things at different
times. The fishes are back to 1959.
Mr. Cardoza. Just counting the fish?
Mr. Baxter. Yes, looking at censussing the population.
Mr. Cardoza. My question also deals with methodology. Have
you changed methodology and could that affect the counts?
Mr. Baxter. We haven't changed methodology in our long-term
monitoring as far as capture goes. So no.
Mr. Cardoza. So you feel pretty good about----
Mr. Baxter. We feel confident with the fishes. We feel
pretty confident with the zooplankton. We've lost some
resolution with them, but we've got other surveys that are
making up for that.
Mr. Cardoza. Right, that makes me feel better. After the
'97 floods and the huge flows that we had, I recall testimony
when I was in the legislature that we had an over abundance of
smelt that particular year, that they just--there were just
huge numbers in the Delta. Does anyone else recall that? It was
so.
And then I was thinking that after this last year, we saw
pretty large flows again and we saw just the opposite happen.
We saw a rapid decline of the smelt.
Can anyone say why one year, large flows result in large
numbers of smelt; the next year when we have large flows, we
don't? Has anyone been looking into that?
Mr. Sommer. At specifically why the alarm bells went off
for quite a few of us within the past couple of years, because
the pelagic species don't seem to be following their historical
relationships with flow. So for each of these species we've got
much less fish for a given amount of flow than we had in the
past.
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you, Mr. Sommer. I have a question back
to you. Are you familiar with Mr. Brian Manley's--was a world-
class statistician, with his work that was directed by the POD
team to analyze the river flows and exports on Delta smelt?
It's my understanding that his September report concluded
export effects were not important to the changes in Delta smelt
abundance.
Is that your understanding as well?
Mr. Sommer. I think Mr. Chotkowski would be a better person
to answer that.
Mr. Chotkowski. I'm sorry, that's the research I was
referring to earlier in response to a previous question. I'm
Dr. Manley's co-author on that study.
Mr. Cardoza. I see.
Mr. Chotkowski. And as I said what we found was that
exports are--they are statistically significant as a predictor
of fall mid-water trawl numbers, but they are a small
contributor. They have a small effect. That's what we found so
far. But we're not done with--I have to emphasize that this is
work in progress, that we were using time averaged export
volumes for that study and there are a lot of scenarios that
we've considered where exports might be important under certain
conditions, certain hydrologic conditions, but they may be
unimportant under other circumstances and when you use time
averages, the way we did, you tend to underestimate the
importance during the important times and over-estimate the
importance during the unimportant times. And so this work
hasn't reached the level of sophistication where I can tell you
really what the answer is.
Mr. Cardoza. I thank you for that and we thank you for your
work.
I also want to submit into the record, if I may, Mr.
Chairman, a document authored by William Miller who a
consultant engineer from Berkeley's who responded to some
questions that Mr. Radanovich and I have been working with. So
without objection, I'd like to submit this for the record and
thank the Panel for their information.
The Chairman. Without objection, it will be included.
Do you have additional questions, Mr. Cardoza.
Mr. Cardoza. I will have, Mr. Chairman, but I thought I'd
let the rest of the Panel----
The Chairman. I'm going to recognize Mr. Miller for a
second round of questions at this point.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Mr. Harlow, I don't want you to
think I'm picking on you here, but you have the most extensive
statement here which kind of I think leads us through the
process here and the components of it. I'm just trying to
figure out the interaction of this.
As I said in my opening statement, I think all of your
contributions are incredibly important to unlocking this
problem. I'm also concerned how policy lays over the top of
that when we get--Congress doesn't always accept the best
evidence. That may be news to some people, but probably not the
scientists. And so I'm concerned about those overlays.
And you say that in March 2004, you concluded that
delisting was not warranted and that the species continued to
be threatened with extinction and that you're revising your
1996 recovery plan. Is that still work in progress?
Mr. Harlow. Yes.
Mr. Miller. I assume that's being influenced by what's
going on here at the table and out there in the Delta?
Mr. Harlow. Absolutely.
Mr. Miller. OK. The other one, you make a decision, you
make a comment, I don't like to paraphrase, but on page 5 you
say that your team has several adaptive water management tools
that can be used to help protect the smelt, including, but not
limited to the environmental water count, water available from
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, commonly known as
B2Water.
What else is in that tool kit that you would summon up to
use?
Mr. Harlow. Yes, Congressman Miller, I'll try to remember
all the environmental water tools that are available, but we
have the ability to carry depth in San Luis Reservoir, the
State Water Project will carry depth.
We have the ability to change some of the hydrology by
opening or closing the cross channel gates. And we have----
Mr. Miller. So those are operational calls that you make?
Mr. Harlow. Operational and we can--timing shifts.
Mr. Miller. Let me ask you, one of those obviously, I guess
is you can recommend a slowing down or a timing of exports in
the fall or the winter, different times, right? Is that
correct?
Mr. Harlow. Correct.
Mr. Miller. And Mr. Chotkowski, I'll go to your paper, you
made a decision I think in January '05 that there should be a
slow down of the pumping at that time that the Service or the
Committee made. That was not adhered to, is that correct?
It was modified from the original recommendation?
Mr. Harlow. Probably better if I respond to that one as
well. The action I think principally there was just a delay in
its implementation and then by the time it was implemented----
Mr. Miller. When the water is flowing through the pumps,
delays are a big deal.
Mr. Harlow. There are difficulties that the project
agencies have to deal with in terms of setting up timing of
changes in pumping and addressing power changes and the like.
Mr. Miller. And the same true in April '05, right? Made a
recommendation and that, too, was changed, correct?
Mr. Harlow. That was May.
Mr. Miller. Was that May? OK. I just want to go to your
response to Mr. Cardoza and Mr. Radanovich that you did this
time average study apparently based upon your understanding of
the science at that time, you thought that that would make
sense to slow down or to change the pumping regime that was
called for at that period of time.
I don't quite get how we're going to determine whether or
not the pumping is a problem that can contribute to the
solution if we're not following the science and the current
operation.
I don't know what impact that has on your study because you
say you don't know the downsides of the most important periods,
and you magnified the impacts of the least important areas when
you do your time averaging. So we have recommendations for
scientists throughout the year that maybe the pumps ought to be
modified because of conditions in the Delta. Those aren't
followed. How do we know then what the study tells us?
Mr. Harlow. Actually, the first thing I'd have to say is
that the recommendation you're referring to, January of '05,
predates the study that I was describing, so that information
was available then.
Mr. Miller. OK.
Mr. Chotkowski. All I can say about the effects of pumping
is that it's pretty clear that it's complicated and it depends
a lot on a lot of small hydrological details and so I think as
far as the smelt working group is concerned, any
recommendations that we might make as scientists are based more
in a sense of precaution about doing things that we think might
be important, but which we don't really----
Mr. Miller. I think that's the way you should operate. I
mean you're here with the fish that had an indices of a
thousand and it's now at 26 and you have apparently some
determination within this working group that we ought to slow
down the pumps for five days or we ought to delay the pumping,
the increase in volumes for some period of time, some
modification of that and yet policymakers, apparently override
that. And yet, we're told that this is a very delicate thing
and it contributes to it. We don't know how much and yet we're
not following the science.
I'm just trying to determine here--we can keep talking for
sound science, but then when we don't follow what may be the
best available science at the time or the best hunch, if you
will, based upon that science, it's not followed.
Mr. Chotkowski. All I can say is that the issues that arose
in '05 predated the studies, so there isn't a question of
whether this science was being followed. Other than that, I
really can't comment on it.
Mr. Miller. Well, should these recommendations be
overridden, when we're in this time, when we're trying to hold
on to what may now be an endangered species?
Mr. Chotkowski. I'm a scientist and I can't answer that.
That's a question that should be addressed to the policymakers.
Mr. Miller. Well, the problem is that if you continue on
through your statement, Mr. Harlow, you talk about making real
time decisions, that you're trying to get the science in shape
so you can make some real time decisions because we know
conditions change for a whole lot of external reasons within
the Delta, but if you can't--if those real time decisions
aren't followed, that's not going to work out very well.
Mr. Harlow. Yes, and working with the California Department
of Water Resources and the California Department of Fish and
Game and the development of the Delta smelt action plan which
came out, I believe, this last spring, not quite a year ago,
one of the things the Department of Water Resources looked into
was their ability to implement actions more quickly. And
basically, they've changed the rules and they, in an emergency
situation, they have committed to being able to change pumping
rates at the state facility within three hours.
Mr. Miller. If they decide to do so. I mean that's the
problem. Again, you make the recommendation, they can decide to
do so or not do so. It's not a binding recommendation.
Mr. Harlow. Well, they control the pumps ultimately----
Mr. Miller. There's big systems where there's an overriding
concern. In the airline industry, it's getting the planes out
on time, so you start to override. You have to have ways people
can say wait a minute, we think you ought to check the engine.
In the oil business, ships leave on time, you know. In this
case, obviously, the export of water that is vital to the
entire State of California is a driving force. And the question
here is whether or not the best science that we're developing
as is determined under an adaptive management program can
provide a circuit breaker at various times because the
scientists determine it's critical to do that, maybe if only to
learn something. But it doesn't appear that that's how this
system is, in fact, really set up. It's going through
modifications and I appreciate that. I think it's important and
it's going through modifications because of the lawsuits or at
least there's some question of whether or not that criteria was
correct or not.
But if it's just going to be overwhelmed by the adherence
to the export of that water without determine whether it can be
modified in time and place or total amount or with the rest of
it, I'm not sure you can cure these problems, whatever you find
out about the clam, the herbicides and the rest of these things
that are taking place.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Harlow, your
statement states that the agencies can address pumping effects
within the existing operational criteria and assets.
Would you explain that, please?
Mr. Harlow. Yes. What that means is if we have the tools
that I mentioned in response to Congressman Miller, plus we
have what's called the Environmental Water Account which is
basically a checkbook that the fishery agencies have available
to reduce pumping rates for protection of fish and then
reimburse whoever has essentially lost that water supply at a
later time. And that actually is part of the reason that the
timing of pumping of water that Dr. Sommer referred to has
shifted is because we'll typically reduce during the springtime
when there's considerable fish movement in the Delta and then
reimburse that at a later time in the fall. And then there's,
of course, the water available under the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act, referred to as B(2), although it's a secondary
purpose, we can apply B(2) at pumping reductions at the Central
Valley Project facility.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Chotkowski, how much funding
money has the Bureau asked for in the Fiscal Year 2007 budget
for the work of the inter-agency ecological program and the
pelagic organism decline study and who is responsible for
paying for them and where does the money come from? Does it
come from the taxpayer, water users, CVP restoration and does
CALFED pay for any of these studies?
Mr. Chotkowski. Yes, ma'am. I don't want to be
disappointing, but I don't know the answers to some of your
questions. I only know how much we, as scientists, have asked
for from the program.
Ms. Napolitano. Which is how much?
Mr. Chotkowski. Actually, Chuck Armor can probably answer
that down to the dollar.
Do you mind if I pass it off to him?
Ms. Napolitano. No. Please, whoever can answer it.
Mr. Armor. In terms of funding coming into the program for
2006, the Bureau of Reclamation is putting in about $4,230,000
into the IEP part. They are also putting in--I'm sorry,
$4,062,000 into the IEP part and $1,847,000 into the POD part.
Ms. Napolitano. That's '06. What about the request for the
'07 budget?
Mr. Armor. The '07 budget, I don't know. I am dealing, the
only budgets I'm dealing with is getting the current year in
and running. I think it's safe to assume they're asking for an
equivalent amount and with possibly some additional on top to
account for cost of living increases, but I don't know what
they've asked for.
Ms. Napolitano. Well, knowing full well or at least you
have already signs that you're having a problem, you're not
asking for an increase to be able to cover any of those cost
studies for the expansion of the research?
Mr. Armor. The directors, when we've gone in and asked for
additional funding, they have made it available and they've
told us--I'm not going to say in three years I need another $10
million because I don't know if that's going to be the case.
What I do have from the directors when I walked in last year
and said I needed $1.7 million, it was on the table right
there. When I walked in this year and said I need $3.7, it was
there and they've made the commitment to us, tell us what
resources you need and they will get it for us. So that's a
construct under which I'm working and so far that's--now what
their budget, I know on the Federal side they have to budget a
number of years out. I don't know what numbers they're using
there.
Ms. Napolitano. Is anybody looking at the ways we can cut
back on the use of the pesticides, is that a part of your
study, since we know that it is toxic?
Mr. Breuer. Part of the problem is that you can determine a
contaminant is toxic and its location it's being used, but our
issue is how to make that connection with the pelagic fish
decline. So that's why we have what we call that fish-up
approach, where we're really looking to see if we see any
toxicity in the Delta to not only the fish, but the smaller
organisms which might give us an indication that the food chain
has been impacted.
If we don't see that toxicity, there's no reason to chase
after a contaminant, if we don't see the effect.
Ms. Napolitano. That's interesting, because this morning
there was a program in regard to water funded by many of the
water agencies which was talking about the--kind of the domino
effect, if you will, of the contamination being whether it's at
lower level, be eaten by a larger fish who gets eaten by a
larger fish and it increases the toxicity. That's an issue, is
it not?
Mr. Breuer. Certain contaminants can be moved up the food
chain. They accumulate within the food chain. Other
contaminants have an acute effect, in other words, they
basically create their effect, but are not absorbed by that
lower food chain and passed up. It's very, very particular to
specific types of contaminants.
Ms. Napolitano. And those are?
Mr. Breuer. They can be passed up the food chain, I'm
sorry? As far as our investigations, we're looking to see
whether or not we're seeing toxicity to the pelagic organisms
or components of the food chain in the Delta itself.
Ms. Napolitano. That should be part of the study or is it?
Mr. Breuer. It is part of the study, yes.
Ms. Napolitano. Will the fish be harmed even more if the
pumping is increased as called for in the CALFED ROD record
decision in the OECP?
Yes, no, maybe?
Mr. Harlow. Congresswoman Napolitano, I think that's one of
the three key areas that is being looked at by the group that's
assembled here. We won't know the answer to that until the
studies are completed.
Ms. Napolitano. And the studies should be completed when?
Mr. Harlow. Do you have a date for your analysis?
Mr. Chotkowski. There is no end date at which we can
confidently predict that we're going to have the answer. We're
making progress, but the nature of science is that it's got all
sorts of unexpected twists and turns and there's a lot of work
to do.
Ms. Napolitano. Understood, but there is a crisis that this
area is facing and unless we start working, seeing what the
results are and taking action, as you well know, the government
works very slowly in responding.
Mr. Chotkowski. We agree there's a crisis and that's we're
taking a full court approach to addressing this and so far
we've gotten complete support from our agencies to do as much
as we think we need to do. Resources haven't been an issue up
to this point.
Ms. Napolitano. Again, I go back to knowing how government
works and how the agencies sometimes banter back and forth to
be able to come down to the actual results and the solution. So
are you working so that that can come up to the forefront as
immediately as possible so that this issue can be looked at and
worked on not two years from now, but rather hopefully sometime
this year?
Mr. Armor. One thing that we've made a commitment to and I
alluded to this in my testimony, is that as we learn
information we're not waiting until the end of the year to put
it into a report and submit it. What we're doing is as we learn
things that we see will have an--that can have an impact on
policy and management decisions, that will be elevated
immediately. It will go through our internal review process. It
may go through some peer review, but it will be made available
as soon as we can get it up to our directors and out.
We're not waiting to put stuff into a big report that tells
us. As we find pieces along the way that will be useful in
management decisions, they will be made available.
Ms. Napolitano. But who will be responsible for ensuring
that action is taken, positively to change the effect of what's
happening now? Because if you a higher echelon that says OK,
here's the report. It got buried.
Mr. Armor. That's the policy and management people that are
doing that. We'll provide them the science and our
recommendations and they make the call on what they do with it.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Mr. Cardoza.
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I sit here, I have
an observation that we have some of the world's experts in
biology of the Delta sitting in front of us and what I take is
that we know a lot more about what we don't know than what we
do know exactly. And that is a very difficult position for
someone like myself. It makes it easy for those on both sides
of the issue, those who have had a historical perspective that
additional pumping should take place, can use the lack of
information to their advantage; and those folks who have
historical anger about the fact that there's any pumping going
on at all can make their own case that we should stop
everything today until we find out exactly what's going on.
Myself, as a moderate Member, some say I'm a raging
moderate, that tries to find the truth and I really appreciate
the perspective and the hearing that Mr. Pombo and Mr. Miller
have put together here. It's important for us to convene these
and do examinations and frankly, we have to take into serious
consideration both sides.
And I guess what I'm looking at now is how do we as
policymakers try and figure out the correct course based on the
amount of knowledge that we have in front of us today? And I'm
looking back at some of your testimony, Mr. Harlow, and on
December 9, 1993, you testified that Endangered Species Act was
enacted and Delta smelt was listed as threatened during that
period of time, around fall of 1993. And then I recalled in my
previous question that in 1997 or '98, that period of time, we
saw a tremendous increase of Delta smelt and to the point we
were thinking hallelujah, this may not be a problem after all.
We thought that for a period of time.
And then now we've seen the numbers crash back down,
according to Mr. Miller's quote and some of the other
testimony. I guess my question--and based on some lawsuits that
took place by the Farm Bureau and San Luis Delta Mendota Water
Agency, your organization is going through a five-year review
of some of the listing questions and some of the processes.
Mr. Harlow, could you please inform us the process and time
line of the Service's review of the recovery plan and what you
see might come out of that review?
Mr. Harlow. OK, Congressman Cardoza, our status review
actually was completed.
Mr. Cardoza. It is.
Mr. Harlow. Yes, that was completed and my apologies, I
can't remember the Court date, but it had to be submitted to
the Court. That was done and we were just commencing
preparation of a revision of the recovery plan.
Mr. Cardoza. That's what my question was.
Mr. Harlow. Right, and we don't have a specific deadline.
Typically, and particularly with one this complex, we will have
a number of academic members and stakeholder representatives,
they take typically a couple of years.
Mr. Cardoza. And I open this up to the Panel, do you see
tremendous benefits in shutting everything down so you can
study, knowing the economic costs that the community could
possibly have to export Southern California to the power plant
losses, and if you all could give your best guess, what's the
cost?
Is anybody willing to take that?
I think by the silence, we know a lot. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I appreciate the testimony of the Panel in
your effort to try to answer the questions that Members of the
Committee have. I think Mr. Cardoza is accurate in saying that
we know a lot about what we don't know, but none of you are in
a position right now to make policy recommendations that would
carry us from what current policy is to what a new policy would
be in terms of changing the laws. I mean I look at this and I'm
somewhat concerned. Over the last 15 years, we've gone through
a process of changing the timing of when we pump and how the
pumps work and putting in fish screens and spending literally
hundreds of millions of dollars and billions of dollars in lost
economic activity. And it doesn't seem that any of that has
worked and I think what we need to figure out is why.
Mr. Cardoza asked kind of rhetorically about shutting down
the pumps and I don't think anybody would realistically say
we're going to turn off the pumps completely, but the timing of
when they pump and all of that was based on what we felt was
the best science then and obviously there are policy decisions
that are made. There are political decisions that are made that
influence the final outcome of that, but it's based on what you
or your colleagues have recommended in the past and that has a
big impact on the health of the Delta, but it also has a big
impact on the health of the economy of the State of California
what we decide to do and what we don't do.
I am enlightened somewhat and hopeful that the tenor of
most of this hearing dealt with the science and our effort to
move forward has to be based on the best science we have. I
know that it changes every day and that you find out new things
every day and that has an impact on what the final report will
look like, but we do need to at least allow you the ability to
give us your best recommendation based on what you know.
We are the ones that have to make a political decision
based on that science, but if the science is the best that you
can give us and the best information that you can provide and
recommendations you can provide, we at least have a solid basis
to start.
I did not want this hearing to become another round of
finger pointing and have the ability of people to come up and
try and push their particular point of view which is why we
tried to focus on you here today and I do appreciate all that
you did. As we work forward on the policy side of this,
obviously you and the rest of the members of your team will
influence greatly what ultimately comes out of this, but I
think we all can agree that we want a healthy Delta ecosystem.
We want the Delta to be environmentally sensitive and
environmentally healthy. At the same time, I think most of us
agree that it is an important part of our economy of the state
for a number of reasons. And we can have a healthy Delta and a
growing economy at the same time. I think that's the balance
that I'm trying to find and I think most of the members of the
Committee are trying to find. So I appreciate your testimony. I
appreciate my colleagues being here today to--did you want
another round?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
The Chairman. I thought you were finished. I'll recognize
Mr. Miller for another round of questions.
Mr. Miller. Let me just say with all due respect to my
colleagues, somehow this is a contest between those who would
run the pumps full open and those who would shut them down. I
hope you didn't spend any time modeling those two alternatives,
since they're obviously unacceptable across the state. But the
question really is, how do we operate this system in a manner
that will meet the requirements of numerous laws about the
health of the Delta and its species? And that's the challenge
and I want to join in thanking you for that--for your
participation in that effort.
And for us in Congress to think that well one year we got
something good and the next year we got something bad, what
does that tell us? I assume what we're concerned about here is
certainly the last 20 years the trend lines are not great in
these species. We have ups and downs, but the trend lines
worries you here.
If I might, Mr. Nobriga, if I might ask you a couple of
questions for purposes of edification, you say that the Suisun
area is not the nursery that it used to be and you talked about
the clams and that.
Could you just, in layman's terms, tell us where you are
today in terms of do we get any relief when we have these high
outflows from rain? Does the water flow shrink or expand
nurseries or is it salinity which moves across that sort of
mixing area in the western Delta, I'd guess you'd call it or
the eastern bay. What do we think we know about this, this
species and its impacts?
Mr. Nobriga. Are you talking specifically for Delta smelts
or just the ecosystem?
Mr. Miller. I guess I would start with smelt, but obviously
the impacts on other species of interest to us, too. Just in
layman's terms.
Mr. Nobriga. To a point, speaking for Delta smelt, more
flow will generate more fresh water habitat for them to be in.
Too much flow can actually be a bad thing.
Mr. Miller. Is the fresh water then impacting the clam and
is the clam moving with that barrier, that interface?
Mr. Nobriga. Oh, you know, unfortunately from what I think
we've seen in our water quality monitoring, the clam is just
kind of perfectly adapted to the brackish water.
Mr. Miller. OK, so it's----
Mr. Nobriga. Really, really fresh water could displace it,
if it was prolonged and really, really salty water could.
Mr. Miller. But those are subject to pulses?
Mr. Nobriga. Right.
Mr. Miller. Next year's rainfall is not going to determine
that?
Mr. Nobriga. Yes, the clam seems to just be there, whether
it's a high flow year or not so much of a high flow year. Its
effect might be mitigated a little bit by high flows, but it
doesn't seem to come back to what it once did, even then.
Mr. Miller. So the interface of the clam and the smelt is
what?
Mr. Nobriga. The direct connection of the clam to the smelt
hasn't been made. Smelt sizes in the fall are smaller, since
the clam has been here, than they used to be, but--excuse me,
than they were prior to that. But the abundance numbers haven't
tracked the clam. Delta smelt seems to have declined or started
declining before the clam got here. So that doesn't mean the
clam didn't put a cap on it. It just means something else
caused it to go down first and now you may or may not see a
clam effect.
The clam effect is more obvious on long-finned smelt and
striped bass which are two of the other.
Mr. Miller. And that's caused by?
Mr. Nobriga. Presumably it's caused----
Mr. Miller. Competition for food?
Mr. Nobriga. Yes, food. But that's an assumption.
Mr. Miller. And that's----
Mr. Nobriga. Probably a decent assumption based on the data
we have.
Mr. Miller. That's why I'm asking, from what you know
today, you think that's what the clam is doing is it's
competing for----
Mr. Nobriga. Yes, stealing the productivity. Putting it
into clams instead of allowing it to become fish.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, that's helpful. On the question of
exports, we used to have sort of a raging controversy over in
Glen Canyon and the question is what's happening to the
Colorado River and decisions were made to try some different
regimes to see what the impacts would be downstream. Some of it
was about sedimentation and some of it was about fish and some
of those concerns that were there when we put the dam in. And
we ran a number of models. They're not models. We ran big
flows, small flows back and forth and tried to see what was
happening down there. It was fairly controversial, if I
remember at the time with the power companies and the loss of
generating capacity at that time.
Are we doing any of that kind of effort with the pumps
here? When Fish and Wildlife makes the decision that it might
not make sense to pump at this particular time, this number of
days or this season, what have you, when that--is that studied
at that time to see what's taking place as a result of that
recommendation, if it's followed?
Mr. Harlow. The recommendations are based on what we know
about the fish and the hydrology at the time and we monitor
that----
Mr. Miller. It comes with the monitoring component?
Mr. Harlow. Yes, I mean the whole program here is an on-
going monitoring program and so in terms of kind of a research
model like you're speaking of, I do know a little bit about
that because I worked in Arizona for a number of years and I
would say it's not comparable to that type, where you have
extreme events that, of course, Glen Canyon, you have an
advantage because you can still capture the water. So you could
have extreme events and then catch it at the lower end.
Mr. Miller. When you're monitoring this, are you building a
model as you have these, make these--it's tough. I'm into deep
water here. In the sense that the years are all different in
what's going on in the Delta. We keep talking about this as one
of the most complex hydrological systems that we're trying to
deal with. Is there an ability to start to build on this
knowledge, to build on these recommendations? Was that right?
Was it wrong? Should it have been longer, shorter, different?
Is that effort being made so we can sort of look back and see
what decisions made sense or didn't make sense or is it just
the water years are too different to put much stock in it?
Mr. Miller. I think the analyses that Dr. Chotkowski and
Dr. Manley are working on help with that. And all these
gentlemen probably know more how to respond to you than I do
from the scientific methodology, but we do have a grant that's
been awarded by the CALFED Science Program to develop a Delta
smelt model and I believe the data, coming from these studies
can complement the model so that we can better assess what
actions are most beneficial at the population level, once that
model is developed and tested.
Does anyone else wish to respond to that?
Mr. Sommer. There's a couple of things we can do. We take
the data that we're observing in the field and try and make a
model out of that and there are also examples of adaptive
management where you do experiments with the entire Delta.
That's being done right now every year for salmon with the
Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan.
I think our managers would have a concern with too many
experiments going on at one point. That's already a big one and
we need to run that one long enough to be able to learn from
that. That may be useful though for learning about Delta smelt
and striped bass responses as well.
Mr. Miller. My concern is, I obviously hope, no way believe
I'm cavalier in raising the issues about exports that are
alluded to in some scientific work and my concern is that, as I
said, you wouldn't add more clams. Well, we have a policy
decision that has the expectation of increased exports through
the pumps in one form or another and so it would seem tome just
as you would want to figure out what's going on down there and
the complexities with the clams or what's going on with the
herbicides, you've got to figure out what's going on here
today, so you can make a rationale, scientifically based
decision about future protocols in terms, in the terms of the
exports from the Delta. And there may be a lot of other
alternatives than those pumps, that configuration, whatever it
is.
And I'm just trying to determine that this isn't and I
recognize and I'm pretty well steeped in the politics of this,
I'm just trying to make sure that this hasn't been taken out of
the equation or that we raised all of the complexities and
therefore it really doesn't make sense to look at this because
there's all this other stuff going on out there in that system
and this is just one part of it.
I'm just trying to make sure that when we're doing this
investigation that one is comprehensive and that all of the
questions that are being raised by you and others are subject
to that full investigation. That's my concern here. And again,
I appreciate that some of the policy and political concerns are
made outside the realm of scientific inquiry, but it's
important that these recommendations be given a chance to see
whether or not they make an operational difference, they make
an improvement or they diminish the health of the Delta.
Otherwise, I don't know how the scientists can't do this. You
can't say based on our recommendation we should go forward and
look at this, how you ever get to the end of the story here
with any credibility.
Mr. Chotkowski. Congressman, I just want to point something
out that no one has brought up that actually is something
that's going to be very helpful to all of us and that is
particle tracking and other hydro-dynamic computer models of
Delta operations are getting much more sophisticated and we're
able to model things now that are getting progressively more
able to model things in ways that we never could before.
And so it's entirely possible that some of the experiments
that some of us scientists would have loved to do, greatly
modifying operations in the Delta are actually going to be
possible to be done in a virtual way by computer fairly soon
and that should be a big help.
Mr. Miller. Modeling is controversial in this Committee,
but we'll set that aside for a moment.
[Laughter.]
Thank you and thank you for the additional time, Mr.
Chairman.
I would like to reserve the right of Members of the
Committee to submit some additional written questions as we
look at this transcript. And I would hope that this is the
first in a series of hearings about the on-going operation of
this. I think everybody in this room understands how central
this is. I do not believe that the people of this state,
whether they're from the north or the south, we've been through
some of those skirmishes, are going to make this a national
sacrifice area in its operation. I think the struggle that
you're involved in is strongly supported by people who
understand the ramifications of the failure, of the collapse of
this system.
A couple of you have said this just isn't about this
species. This is about this environment. And that environment
holds a huge amount of value to this entire state and it's--
that's the basis on which the laws were changed, was to make
sure that we went back from a very narrow tunnel vision of
responsibility of the north just to keep sending water south
without looking at the ramifications.
And it was clearly a lot of agreement and that's why you
have CALFED--that we had to go back and make this effort at
restoration. It hasn't been perfect. It hasn't been cheap, but
I'd like to--someone can look at these graphs you've brought us
and look at what that trendline would be if some of these
efforts weren't made on behalf of the fisheries that go through
the Delta.
That's really what it's--there is a charge to put this
system right side up on a sustainable basis for the
environmental quality and for the species that move across it
or reside in it. That's pretty clear. That's the current law.
And some people want to change that and we can debate that at
policy, but right now that's kind of the operational construct
here that we get on an even footing here for these other
values, other than just exports.
Mr. Chairman, I think this has been a good beginning, but
we certainly have a ways to go and I would hope that we could
work with you to try to develop other hearings that would lend
to our understanding and consideration of what some of the
solutions might be when they're presented to us by the
scientists and others.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Napolitano, do you have any questions?
Ms. Napolitano. Just to add on to what my colleague is
talking about. Part of what--I've been involved with the
Colorado River, the Moab issue, the salinity issue on the
Colorado River. Is that--and of course, the other issue is the
effluent pumped by the cities into the rivers and into the
aquifers--not the aquifers, but the waterways, that does have
an impact on the life and the evolvement of your fish, of the
health of the fish.
Are all releases back into the river being treated before
they're released? Any way to be able to gauge whether or not
any of that is affecting the health of the fish?
Mr. Breuer. As we shift from agriculture to urban and our
watershed, this is becoming a bigger and bigger concern for us,
the expansion of waste water treatment and urban runoff is a
growing concern that needs to be studied more. And that falls
under the Clean Water Act and so those arms of agencies such as
the State Water Resources Control Board or U.S. EPA need to
address those issues so that----
Ms. Napolitano. Are you working with those agencies?
Because I don't see CAL EPA or the Federal EPA here.
Mr. Breuer. Yes, both the 2005 work involved both those
agencies.
Ms. Napolitano. What about current work?
Mr. Breuer. Yes. Both U.S. EPA and the Regional Board are
represented on our project work team as well as academia.
Ms. Napolitano. Is there--there's a mention in one of the
reports that there may be some leakage of saltwater that may be
causing some of the problem. Is that anything else going into
that? I read it in one of the reports. Don't ask me where
because I started last night.
Mr. Breuer. Can you give us a little more? I'm not too sure
what you're referring to.
Ms. Napolitano. It indicated there might be some leakage of
salt intrusion into the Suisun area at least, if I remember
correctly, that was in one of the reports.
No? I'll submit it to the record to you and that way you
can take a look at it and work it out.
Are EPA and the agencies working together to identify any
major dumping that may be causing part of the contaminants
anywhere?
Mr. Breuer. Once again, under the Clean Water Act, the
permitting and discharge of contaminants falls underneath, in
this case, the State Water Resources Control Board and the
regional boards. So to that degree, to the degree they're able
to have the resources to carry that out, yes.
Ms. Napolitano. Well, is this another case of agencies not
talking to each to compare notes?
Mr. Breuer. Absolutely not. We coordinate with them closely
and this has been a huge concern and like I said actually on
the synthesis report, scientists from U.S. EPA and scientists
from the regional board actually helped write the report and
the work plan for next year.
Ms. Napolitano. Because I'm with my colleague, Congressman
Cardoza, because we both served at the state level at the same
time and I can remember the Sacramento River being polluted by
the discharge of the motor boats and the boats--remember that?
That was an issue that was causing some of the damage.
Has part of that study been taken into consideration or is
there something else that can be done to prohibit the continued
use and contamination by the gasoline, the different oils that
are spewed into the river?
Mr. Breuer. We've looked at hydrocarbons as an issue and
after the MTBE--MTBE was a big issue with groundwater and
during that same time we did a very intense study of MTBE in
the surface waters and it's not a problem.
Ms. Napolitano. Surface waters. What about rivers?
Mr. Breuer. That's what I mean. Within the watershed of the
Delta, the surface waters including the tributaries. MTBE is
not a concern.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. Like my colleague, I would
certainly like to have some questions submitted for the record.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up
just a little bit on Ms. Napolitano's comments because I
remember when we were serving on the same Committee together,
and the testimony at that time was that there were budget cuts
at the state level that were precluding the ability to take off
wrecks or different things that were getting into the river. In
fact, anglers were complaining to the Committee that there
would be a wreck or someone would throw a vehicle over the
levee and into the river and it would sit there for 10 years
and leach heavy metals out of the batteries and all the rest.
Your information is not showing that that has any effect?
Mr. Breuer. Well, I'm trying to contain my comments
regarding right now to the pelagic organisms and for example,
Delta smelt has a very short life cycle. There are things that
might, like a long-term contaminant concern like the old
organic chlorines like the DDTs that accumulate and hang around
for a long time may not necessarily accumulate an organism that
has a very short life.
As you know, we've tried to, through the history of
contaminants such as agricultural and chemicals, we've tried to
move away from these chemicals as we've learned that they
create an environmental problem. The use of pyrethroids is an
example of that. We've moved away from the organophosphates
such as Diazinon and chlorvirophos because of our concern over
mammalian toxicity. We've gone to something--pyrethroids has a
very short half life, relative life and has a very low
mammalian toxicity. The problem is it can be very toxic to
aquatic organisms.
The question is does that find its way down into the Delta?
That's why we're asking ourselves do we see toxicity in the
food chain and the fish? If we do, then we'll go back and
identify the contaminant and then move our way up into--one of
the tools is regulatory process to reduce the use or eliminate
that.
Mr. Cardoza. I guess I want to hone in on this a little bit
because do you think that's a greater threat to fish
populations than five or six junkers who lose their entire load
of antifreeze in the river? And I guess those are the kinds of
questions, is anyone studying the other effects because I see
it happening. I see an increase in that population of problem
and I wonder if those other things are being considered as part
of the study.
I want to piggy back this with my second question which was
really what I wanted to sort of delve into was is there any
other activities that we should be looking at, is there other
studies that we should be conducting to find out other
potential causes? Because I really want to know the truth. I
don't want to know that we're going to focus all our attention
on pumping when that's a 6 percent problem and there's a 94
percent problem over here that we're not addressing.
Now if it's pumping, let's deal with it. But if it's
toxins, let's focus on that. And I want to know which toxins
and how to deal with it in order to make good policy decisions.
And that's the frustrating part that I have most commonly is
I'm not convinced that we're looking in the right areas and I
guarantee you all that when we find the right areas, I'll join
with whatever side it is to make sure that we have a healthy
Delta. There's no question. Mr. Miller is absolutely right
about that.
We, and the world, deserves a healthy Delta. The question
is are we looking in the right places to find out what's making
it sick?
Mr. Armor. I just want to follow up on one that Rich
alluded to. We're doing bioassays. We're collecting water from
across the Delta. And as we're looking, and we're doing this
across the whole year. Last year, we were only able to do it
during a short period of time. If there's a toxic event
occurring in an area, hopefully, this will pick it up and will
help us go back and start pinpointing it and we will start
zeroing in on that. With the use of the TIEs that will help us
hopefully identify the toxicant so that we can even more zero
in on it. And once we start identifying these events, we will
start focusing down on them, but we're looking across the whole
Delta right now to see what's going on in the broad scale and
if we find stuff, yes, we're going to focus in on it and go
after it.
Mr. Cardoza. In closing, I remember when I was living on
the Delta when I was living on the Sacramento River and that
was particularly low one year and I blew out the propellers on
my boat going across a sand bar. I spent a few hours watching
the river go by that day and I will tell you that I saw on more
than one occasion automobile and boat batteries sitting in the
bottom of the river. And it makes me wonder if these are lead
problems or it really makes you wonder as we as a society use
that wonderful estuary as a dump site, is that causing problems
that you're not looking at because we're so focused and all the
money and the studies are going into flows or this or that.
What are we doing on those other fronts? And I just don't
know that we've gotten great answers on that today.
Mr. Breuer. I'd say we're not being tunnel-visioned in our
look at contaminants. I think we're tapping all of those
agencies and experts, both in the bay and the Delta that have
on short-term and long-term monitoring permits to try to
identify these issues.
And sometimes something seems very dramatic like a car
battery or whatever, but you also have to remember that even in
a low-flow period, there's tremendous dilution that goes on and
so an event like that may seem significant, but in the overall
total volume in the Delta and the eventual concentration that
might reach into the food chain or in the fish, it actually
means very little.
Mr. Cardoza. When you talk about the pyrethroids, for
example, does that same dilution apply to them and what, when
you're measuring the levels in fish, is it small parts per
billion or are you seeing accumulations that are significant?
Mr. Breuer. As I said, one of the challenges of pyrethroids
is they don't easily mix in the water column. They like to hold
on to soil particles. And so we don't see, you not going to
easily find that. If we just test the water, you may not see
it.
Mr. Cardoza. You're not finding them in the fish livers or
in the--you reported earlier that there was damage to some of
the fish livers and you're not finding that?
Mr. Breuer. What may be causing that is not clear. It could
be--that's the problem with the histopathology that it could be
both stress from food issue or it could be from the actual
contaminant causing the acute effect, but like I said, a lot of
these chemicals, especially agricultural chemicals, they don't
accumulate and stay long-term in the environment. They have
shorter, what's called a half life where they break down
quickly into more natural or organic components as opposed to
the long-chain chemicals we used to have in the organic
chlorines.
The Chairman. The Members of the Committee have expressed
an interest in submitting questions in writing. Those questions
will be submitted to you and if you could answer them in
writing so that they can be included as part of the hearing
record.
We will hold the hearing record open for 10 business days
to allow you the opportunity to respond to those questions in
writing.
If there is further testimony, I know that a number of
people that are here today had expressed an interest in
commenting on the hearing and on the topic of this hearing. If
anyone would like to submit testimony, written testimony to the
Committee, we will hold the record open for 10 business days to
allow you to opportunity to do that. If you could pleas submit
those comments to the Committee on Resources, 1324 Longworth
House Office Building in Washington, D.C. or fax them to 202/
226-6953. But I believe the easiest thing to do would be to go
on resourcescommittee.house.gov and that has all of the
information on it for anybody who would like to submit
testimony.
Again, I would like to thank our witnesses for their
testimony today, for doing the best they could in answering the
Committee's questions.
I thank my colleagues for being here today and
participating in this hearing. Obviously, this is a complicated
issue. It is not going to be boiled down to 30 second sound
bytes, nor is it something that could be settled by going after
one particular problem or another.
I think we all learned a lot here today about where we are
in terms of the science that's been collected and what some of
the questions are. I know I have questions in my mind that we
need to pursue as we move forward on this and I'm sure the
other Members of the Committee do as well.
Again, thank you. Thank the Members of the Committee.
If there is no further business before the Committee, I
again thank the Members of the Committee and our witnesses and
the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the hearing was concluded.]
[Additional information submitted for the record follows:]
[A statement submitted for the record by the American
Sportfishing Association follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by the
American Sportfishing Association
The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) appreciates the
opportunity to submit the following statement for the record to the
House Committee on Resources at its February 27, 2006, field hearing to
examine the Declining Fisheries Populations in the San Francisco Bay-
San Joaquin Delta.
The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) is the National Trade
Association for Sport Fishing headquartered in Alexandria Virginia. It
unites more than 650 members of the sportfishing and boating industries
with state fish and wildlife agencies, federal land and water
management agencies, conservation organizations, angler advocacy groups
and outdoor journalists. The American Sportfishing Association
safeguards and promotes the enduring social, economic and conservation
values of sportfishing.
The ASA appreciates the Resources Committee interest in examining
the causes of the dramatic decline in the Delta fisheries. The
Association is deeply concerned about the declines in these fisheries
and believes that a strong commitment is required to fix the problems
and begin the restoration of the resident delta fish populations
including the delta smelt, striped bass, threadfin shad and longfin
smelt. We believe the same commitment should cover those species of
fish that migrate through the Delta and are heavily impacted by its
health including the endangered winter run chinook salmon, the spring,
fall and late fall runs of chinook salmon, steelhead trout, American
shad and white sturgeon.
The ASA understands that there are several factors that have
contributed to the decline of the Delta species. We applaud the
scientific efforts to isolate these factors and to develop corrective
actions. However, we believe that there is little debate that early
water development did not take into account its impact on fisheries,
and has therefore been a driving factor in devastating the fish runs.
There has been more than forty years of fish population declines
associated with water development. These declines occurred long before
exotic species and other factors now affecting the Delta were in
existence. One only has to examine the recovery plan for the endangered
winter chinook salmon to understand the linkage between water
development and fishery declines. The winter run is recovering. It is
doing so primarily because those water development projects that were
severely impacting the fish have been addressed. These include
modifications to the State and Federal Delta pumping schedules, the
repair of Shasta Dam to avoid lethal water temperatures in the spawning
grounds, the opening of Red Bluff dam to allow fish passage and the
screening of water diversions to avoid juvenile fish kills. These
changes solved many of the fish problems with little or no impact on
water deliveries for other uses. We urge that the Delta fish problems
be addressed before other water development plans are considered or
implemented. We are concerned that there may be attempts to abandon
fish considerations as various interests move to secure water. We
encourage the Resources Committee to maintain the balance so that
whatever steps are taken involve the recovery of the Delta fish as an
equal objective to any other considerations.
Until the last few years, a number of the Delta and Central Valley
fish species were recovering from years of decline. The American
Sportfishing Association credits two Federal Acts as the primary
vehicles which brought this recovery about.
In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act made the
maintenance of fish runs an equal objective to the other parts of the
original Act which included water development for agriculture, water
for municipal use and flood control. As a result, many fish runs have
steadily improved. The 1992 changes had strong public support in
California and we believe this support remains equally strong today.
The Endangered Species Act had a great impact in saving the
Sacramento River winter run of chinook salmon. In 1992, just a few
years after the fish had been declared endangered, only 191 fish
returned to the upper river to spawn compared with more than 50,000 in
the 1940s and 1950s. Last year, in 2005, the runs reached a modern day
record of more than 15,000 fish. The Endangered Species Act resulted in
modifications to several projects and led to the implementation of a
number of very positive river changes that allowed improved spawning.
Fish and fishing are big business in California. At $4.9 billion
dollars annually, California ranks second in the country in economic
impact from sportfishing, exceeded only by Florida. California has 2.4
million anglers who fish 26.6 million angler days per year. All of this
results in an economic impact of $2.4 million in direct expenditures,
$1.2 million in salaries and wages, 43,130 jobs, and $456 million in
state and federal taxes each year. With improved fisheries this impact
would undoubtedly greatly increase.
Most of the fishing in California is in Northern California. Trout
are the primary species targeted, followed by bass, salmon, striped
bass, kokanee and other fresh and salt water species. Hundreds of small
California coastal and mountain communities rely on fishing as their
primary economic engine.
Sportfishing is the 4th most popular outdoor activity in America.
It is exceeded only by recreational walking, recreational driving,
swimming and picnicking. Fishing dwarfs activities like golf, hunting
and motorcycling. Approximately 45 million people fish each year. One
in ten Americans owns a fishing license. Given the importance of
sportfishing to the American way of life, as well as its economic
impact, we appreciate the attention the committee is giving these
issues. We look forward to working to resolve these issues fairly for
all parties.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
______
[A letter and report submitted for the record by William
(BJ) Miller, Consulting Engineer, Berkeley, California,
follows:]
February 26, 2006
The Honorable Dennis Cardoza
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Cardoza,
Thank you for your interest and engagement in the important issues
we're faced with in the delta. The following is a response to some of
the questions that you have raised. In addition I have attached a White
Paper on the decline of the Delta Smelt. For the reasons set forth
below, we believe the 2006-2007 Pelagic Organism Decline (POD) Work
Plan requires a sharpening of focus to increase the chances of
identifying and correcting problems and to ensure cost-effective
expenditure of public funds on this important problem.
The POD involves only four fish caught in the Fall Midwater Trawl
survey and zooplankton in a limited range
The POD effort began with the perception of a recent ecosystem-wide
decline of pelagic (open water) organisms in the Bay/Delta system. On
closer inspection, there was no evidence of a recent system-wide
decline in phytoplankton (small floating plants) and bacteria at the
base of the pelagic food chain. Initial impressions of a system-wide
decline in zooplankton (small floating animals) were based on incorrect
data. There appears to be a zooplankton decline, but only in the
western Delta and downstream. Data on fish abundance from the Bay
Survey in San Francisco Bay did not show general declines. So, the POD
problem actually involves declining abundance of four fish species
(delta smelt, juvenile striped bass, longfin smelt and threadfin shad)
in the Fall MidWater Trawl (FMWT) survey and zooplankton in only part
of the estuary.
The POD program should focus on delta smelt as the key Bay-Delta
species
The FMWT surveys most of the range of the threatened delta smelt,
and everyone agrees the total population of this key species has
declined. So, the POD effort should concentrate on delta smelt, the
most important of the four species. As regards the remaining three
species:
Striped bass are voracious introduced predators on native
species, and juvenile abundance in the FMWT does not correlate with
adult abundance. So, the significance of a decline of juvenile bass in
the FMWT is questionable.
Longfin smelt range far downstream from the FMWT survey
area, out into the open ocean. Abundance of longfin smelt has increased
in the Bay Survey conducted downstream from the FMWT. Declining
abundance of longfin in the FMWT may represent a shift in their
population distribution rather than a decline in their total
population.
The introduced threadfin shad range far upstream from the
FMWT survey area. Declining abundance of threadfin shad in the FMWT
does not necessarily mean the total population of this wide-ranging
introduced species has declined.
So, all we can say with certainty is that there has been a decline
in abundance of one fish, the delta smelt, and zooplankton in the
western Delta and Suisun Bay.
Success of the POD program requires a focus on factors other than water
exports
In most years, some adult and juvenile delta smelt are entrained in
CVP and SWP export pumps. However, despite years of effort analyzing
decades of data, nobody has produced an analysis indicating that export
pumping (or any measure of entrainment) and is important to the year-
to-year or long-term changes in the key FMWT abundance of delta smelt.
In contrast, there is strong evidence that delta smelt are limited
by inadequate food supply in late summer. At that time, the vast
majority of delta smelt live near the confluence of the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Rivers and further downstream. For years, there has been a
mystery as to why the abundance of juvenile smelt in the summer, as
measured by the Summer Townet (STN) survey, was not a predictor of the
abundance of sub-adult delta smelt as measured just a few months later
in the FMWT. This lack of correlation between summer juveniles and fall
sub-adults means that the FMWT index is primarily controlled by events
in late summer and not by factors, such as exports, acting earlier in
the year. The fact that delta smelt are in areas more than thirty river
miles from the export pumps at that time offers some hint as to why
water exports are not important to delta smelt abundance in the fall.
In contrast, Professor Bennett (UC Davis) found that delta smelt caught
in the STN have depleted levels of glycogen in their livers, indicative
of starvation. Based on this information, the POD effort should
concentrate on the following factors affecting delta smelt abundance in
late summer:
1. Food availability
At this time, the introduced zooplankton species Pseudodiaptomus
forbesii is one of the main foods of delta smelt. The core delta smelt
habitat is in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers near their
confluence, near Chipps Island, and Suisun Bay. July STN abundance of
delta smelt in those areas of the core habitat with adequate abundance
of Pseudodiaptomus correlates with FMWT abundance of delta smelt better
that any other variable studied to date. In fact, it is the only good
correlation anyone has found between the FMWT abundance index and
factors acting before the fall. In other words, if many delta smelt are
in areas where Pseudodiaptomus are abundant, many smelt survive to the
fall and the FMWT index is likely to be high. Otherwise, the FMWT index
will probably be low. Therefore, declining abundance of Pseudodiaptomus
in recent years bodes ill for delta smelt. The causes of the
Pseudodiaptomus decline should be a major focus of the POD effort,
because this is likely to be an important factor in the decline of
delta smelt.
2. Toxic effects
In recent years, pyrethroid insecticide use has increased sharply
in California. Pyrethroids, and microcystins released by the algae
Microcystis aeruginosa that is increasingly common in the Delta, are
both toxic to zooplankton and fish. Late summer and fall toxic effects
of pyrethroids and microcystins on Pseudodiaptomus and delta smelt in
the core delta smelt habitat should be another major focus of the POD
program.
3. Other aliens
Other alien species are also candidates for investigation. The Amur
River clam has migrated upstream and could be affecting Pseudodiaptomus
in the core delta smelt habitat. Several other species have recently
been discovered, and they could be competing with or preying on delta
smelt.
4. Powerplant effects
Two large powerplants in Contra Costa County draw large volumes of
cooling water from the estuary, right in the heart of delta smelt
habitat. The associated effects of entrainment and discharge of heated,
chemically-treated water on delta smelt and their zooplankton prey must
be emphasized in the POD program.
The POD effort must avoid an overemphasis on export effects
Dr. Bryan Manly is widely recognized as one of the world's leading
statisticians. As part of the POD program, Dr. Manly did an exhaustive
series of statistical analyses under the supervision and direction of
the U.S. Department of Interior. As a result of those analyses, Dr.
Manly concluded, on January 25, 2006:
``...although there are significant effects of hydrological and
export variables on delta smelt, these seem non-linear (good
and bad) and do not seem to be able to explain the main long-
term trends in delta smelt numbers. By that I mean that the
hydrology and export effects seem to produce small wiggles on
the trend lines. This is not saying that the effects are not
statistically significant. It is saying that the effects don't
seem to be important compared to other things going on.''
(emphasis added)
Based on Dr. Manly's conclusion, there should be concerns that
continued emphasis on studies of export effects by the POD program will
detract from the effort to find the true causes of the delta smelt
decline and other biological problems in the Bay-Delta system. In my
opinion, if exports are to continue to be one of the two primary
focuses of the POD studies, someone should at least be able to produce
a credible analysis, using the decades of data at our disposal, that
exports have important effects on delta smelt abundance. Neither we nor
Dr. Manly nor several other researchers have been able to do that.
Respectfully,
Dr. B.J. Miller
[A report submitted for the record and prepared by Dr. B.J. Miller
entitled ``The State of the Delta: What is Killing the Delta Smelt?''
dated January 2006 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Daniel G. Nelson,
Executive Director, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority,
follows:]
March 9, 2006
The Honorable Dennis Cardoza
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Cardoza,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit the following comments as a
follow-up to the February 27 meeting of the House Resources Committee
in Stockton, CA. Testimony presented during the hearing revealed that
from a purely scientific perspective, very little is known about the
cause or causes of declining abundance of some pelagic species in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The hearing also revealed that an
inordinate amount of money has been spent on actions taken to force
curtailment of water exports.
What is known is that export curtailments have accounted for
approximately 100 times more spending than that which has been spent
for studies/remedies of other noted potential factors in the decline of
the Delta smelt.
See attached table:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
After the expenditure of millions of dollars and the dedication of
millions of acre-feet of water through pumping curtailments, it has
become evident that past finger-pointing at water exports being the
major cause of declining abundance of some pelagic species has done
little, if anything, to promote the recovery of these species.
Unfortunately, monies spent in attempting to validate water exports as
the culprit can never be recovered, and on February 27 Dr. Bryan Manly,
an expert statistician working for the pelagic organism decline (POD),
reported that the information derived from this focus on exports has
been ``unimportant.''
It is important to recognize that the cost has been high in
insisting that exports were the cause. In addition to the cost of
conducting research focused on exports, millions of dollars have been
spent by the Environmental Water Account (EWA) for Delta smelt
protection. The EWA is a program whereby water is purchased (by the
State and Federal governments) to repay the State Water Project (SWP)
and the Central Valley Project (CVP) for exports foregone to protect
Bay-Delta fish. Since 2001, the SWP and the CVP exports have been
reduced by about 1.4 million-acre-feet by the EWA for Delta smelt
protection.
When water exports are reduced to provide protection for the Delta
smelt under previous scenarios, the effect has been serious for our
water users. In addition to the EWA export reductions, the Federal
Central Valley Project has also foregone additional exports through the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act ``B2'' provision. Since 1999 the
CVP has lost over 1.4 million-acre-feet of water to protect the Delta
smelt. Unlike the EWA program, this lost water is not repaid.
Consequently, there have been almost 3 million-acre-feet of export
reductions made to protect Delta smelt during this time. Efforts by
these water users to make up a portion of this lost water supply
results in higher water costs that create a domino effect on the
economic livelihood of all Californians. Any delay in redirecting
science-based research will only serve to continue this crippling
effect on all Californians.
A summary of costs dictated as a result of export curtailments is
startling. A conservative combined total of over $217,000,000 in
expenditures was required by water users and State and Federal agencies
for a theory that has proved questionable. During this same time, a
relative meager amount of attention and money was being spent on
studying / remedying other factors such as toxics, food deprivation and
power plant operations.
Serious questions must be asked and answered if a resolution to
this crippling issue of a declining abundance is to be reached. We can
no longer afford to chase a ``preferred'' solution, such as reducing or
eliminating water exports, when the science does not support such an
approach.
Why has it taken so long to determine that the availability of
food, especially during the summer months near the confluence of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, is a limiting factor for at least
one pelagic species, the Delta smelt? These data have been available in
various studies for a number of years, yet those coordinating efforts
to find a solution have ignored this valuable information.
A closer look at the food limitation issue reveals a serious
decline in a small floating animal, Pseudodiaptomus forbesi, which is a
key food source for the Delta smelt. We do not know the effect of
possible contaminants in the waterway to this valuable food source
because no one has researched the issue. Isn't it time that such a
directive be given?
Another potential limiting factor that has been ignored is the
diversion of water by power plants located on the edge of the estuary.
The water is an integral part of the power generating process but to
allow this action to take place without documenting any affect it might
have on smelt populations is unacceptable. A thorough study should be
undertaken immediately to determine the effect these power plants have
on smelt populations.
Focusing on water exports as the major cause of declining abundance
of some pelagic species has served no purpose other than to demonstrate
that the problem lies elsewhere. This agency-directed research
indicates, contrary to what many had hoped, that water exports are not
the culprit.
Tough questions must be asked in your quest to find out why so much
time and money has been spent on attempting to place the blame on water
exports as the leading cause. More important, however, is the need to
find what is causing the Delta smelt decline.
California water users join with you in searching for the cause and
in asking these tough questions:
1. When will studies be initiated to determine the true status of
the smelt's food supply---Pseudodiaptomus forbesi?
2. What effects, if any, do suspected contaminants and other
factors have on the smelt food supply?
3. What effects, if any, does the operation of power plants in the
Delta region have on the smelt population?
Again, thank you for your commitment to finding the solution to the
declining population of the Delta smelt.
Sincerely,
Daniel G. Nelson
Executive Director
cc: Board of Directors & Member Agencies
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Spreck Rosekrans,
Senior Analyst, Environmental Defense, follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]