Report on the UC Davis Predation Science Workshop 7-22-23-2013
Funded by Striperfest, John Beuttler and David Ostrach attended the CDFW/NOAA Marine Fisheries work shop on the state of predation science with regard to Bay/Delta tributaries and their salmonids. Here is John's report:
David Ostrach and I attended both days of the Predation Workshop. Overall, we found the format to inform the Science Panel regarding predation in the estuary on salmonids (salmon and steelhead) to be a very trying and an exclusive process.
David and I were able to make comments during the public comment period at the end of the Workshop each day. We were each allocated 3 minutes to provide our statements. Except for the public comments, those who attended were not permitted to ask questions of the Science Panel or those who presented information to the Panel.
Over all, this two day “Predation Science Workshop” was a very intense process that was tightly controlled by CDFW and the Delta Science Panel. CDFW and the Delta Science Panel set the agenda and provided all the documents to the Panel by the authors who used power point presentations to summarize their “scientific studies and models”.
David and I were very displeased that some of these documents had not been peer reviewed. Some of them were predation studies that had been conducted by consultants hired by the State Water Contractors.
David’s statement to the Panel on the first day made it clear that if the work was not peer reviewed, it wasn’t science and its integrity could not be relied upon.
It was also disconcerting to discover during the morning of the first Workshop that the documents we submitted, on the critical background regarding legal, political, and administrative efforts to destroy the striped bass fishery to the Panel were not given to them. This was contrary to our request and the statements made by UC Davis representatives.
We found out later that the Chairman of the Delta Science Panel had screened all the documents for the panel and our documents did not make the cut.
At the end of the first day, David and I were permitted to provide statements to the Panel. David spoke to the necessity for the Panel to review and make use of only peer reviewed science. He noted that nearly a third of the documents submitted for review were not peer reviewed and should not be considered science. During my statement I informed the committee that there was a tremendous lack of funding to address the causative factors responsible for the decline of the estuary’s ecosystem and fisheries. I asked them to consider if our government’s extremely limited fiscal resources would be better spent on trying to address the critical problems that have clearly degraded the estuary than spending such funds on additional predation studies when many knowledgeable scientists had found predation to be a low level stressor on salmonids and the estuary’s ecology.
During the second day of the Workshop the panel Chairman provided an outline of the science process they would use during their evaluation of the predation information to arrive at a conclusion. He then announced that the panel had reached a “very preliminary perspective on the predation subject”. Highly summarized, he noted that:
-- Available information and data painted a very contradictory picture which they need to review in far more detail to better understand.
-- Most of the studies they had reviewed on predation and the fisheries of the estuary were not good science and critical aspects such as population abundance for salmonids and predators had not been done scientifically.
-- Most of the predation information was done on hatchery tagged salmon smolts which were not the same as wild fish.
He stressed that some of the tagged smolts used in the studies were not properly evaluated to determine the impacts of being tagged on their survivability. It appeared at least some of them were tagged with materials that were too heavy for the small smolts and this lead to physical stress that reduced their ability to survive predation and in some cases significantly subjected them to be predation.
-- The research was done by a wide range of researchers whose studies and scientific rigor were rarely integrated. Research methods were not standardized which yielded information that could not scientifically be compared with other studies.
-- He also noted that there was no relationship between striped bass predation and salmon abundance.
This was a huge admission!! If there was no relationship between them, then it seems like there cannot be a population level impact from striped bass predation. A number of the folks I talked to thought that this could mean they would not recommend any eradication programs at the very least. However, this was a preliminary finding. We will see what they recommend in about three months.
Following the Chairman’s presentation, public comments were permitted. David was able to comment on problems with some of models that were being used and his concerns that several of the models lacked scientific credibility.
My statement seemed to get some traction with several panel members as they appeared to be writing notes as I made my statement. My comments follow:
“Should you determine that predation is so critical that it warrants spending funding that would otherwise be used to help restore the estuary, we would urge that you to evaluate the role played in this predation by the design and operation of the state and federal water projects, including direct and indirect impacts that have radically altered the hydrology of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. It would also be most helpful if you could recommend the best ways for those projects to mitigate for their impacts to the estuary and its fishery resources.”
“I would also advise you that the direct and indirect impacts caused by the state and federal projects have never be properly quantified. The direct impacts of fish losses once fish enter Clifton Court Forebay have been roughly quantified annually for the past 30 years, but a cumulative effects analysis on the combined impacts this has had on the estuary’s fishery and aquatic resources has never been conducted. In addition, the losses associated with salmonids being pulled out of their migration corridors and carried into the Central Delta have never been estimated. Some guesses at these losses by scientists have suggested a range that is an order of magnitude higher than the direct losses because the interior Delta channels lack sufficient food to properly sustain salmonid migration. They also are habitat for a number of species of fish that predate on salmonids. The cumulative impacts of this loss are also unknown.”
Tom Cannon with CSPA made some key comments regarding the lack of screens to keep fish out of Clifton Court Forebay and the antiquated “screens” used by the state and federal projects that should have been replaced decades ago due to their inefficiency. He also referenced a very successful barging program on the Columbia River that had returns of hatchery salmon to the river estimated as high as 54% which is orders of magnitude higher than our hatchery returns! These fish were barged down the river to avoid the predation that takes place by Pike Minnow (squaw fish) and walleye.
David and I spoke with Tom following the Workshop. We discussed the potential benefits of a similar program for the estuary to get the fish from the hatchery to the ocean. It would stop predation on all of the hatchery fished barged. It would cause the predators to stop waiting at the mouths of many rivers for free lunch and to relocate providing benefits for wild salmon, and it would stop the ridiculous propaganda by the water contractors to eradicate striped bass. We will be working closely with Tom, CSPA and the CDFW to pursue such a program in the very near future!
I’d like to thank the Striperfest/AFG guys who showed up and especially Red Bartley, Jim Cox and Tom Cannon.
John Beuttler
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Andy Guibord
Bookmarks