Water Supply and Habitat Resiliency for a Future Los Angeles River: Site-Specific Natural Enhancement Opportunities Informed by River Flow and Watershed-Wide Action

Nature Conservancy | December 15th, 2016

The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. As the Conservancy engages with the Los Angeles region, they are inve

The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. As the Conservancy engages with the Los Angeles region, they are investigating what it means to carry out this mission in the highly urbanized Los Angeles River ecosystem. As a starting point, it is known that the basic ecological principles of science apply to all environmental systems, regardless of their location. Therefore, the Conservancy is testing these principles by applying them in the Elysian Valley of the Los Angeles River and identifying habitat enhancement requirements, opportunities, and constraints. As a basic principle of ecological systems, a watershed’s hydrology determines the flow characteristics of its river system. These flows define what the biological characteristics of that river will be, which in turn determine what kinds of habitat enhancement projects will succeed at various locations along a river. The study of the Elysian Valley included one full year of multi-taxa biological surveys, a historical ecology investigation of the Elysian Valley, and a review of historic and existing hydrological and hydraulic conditions. Major findings of this study are: Multiple Flow Scenarios = Uncertainty: There are currently multiple visions for the flow characteristics of the Los Angeles River as a whole due to differing management priorities of the agencies and stakeholders that have governance over different aspects of this hydrologic system. Bringing the various hydrologic plans and possibilities for the watershed into a single integrated vision of system flow characteristics will allow certainty and clarity at the site level for the design of habitat projects anywhere in the River system, including the Conservancy’s study area. Flows Drive Biology: The study area currently has higher flood and much higher dry weather flow rates than its historic condition. These high flow rates are supporting and encouraging non-native and invasive species. This leads to a lower level of biological diversity and resiliency than what would exist under lower flow rates, particularly during dry weather conditions. Prioritize Complementary Habitats: Enhancing and increasing the amount of perennial riparian habitat in-stream alone will not create as much biological value as identifying complementary enhancement opportunities outside of the River channel in adjacent upper terrace floodplain and upland habitats (e.g. alluvial scrub, mulefat scrub, willow scrub, oak-sycamore woodland, sage scrub, and grassland). River Adjacent Land Use: Land uses adjacent to the River and throughout the watershed are a part of the solution and part of the Los Angeles River’s biological and hydrologic system. The landscaping and hydrology of these areas should be designed to provide a value-added role to the habitat functions of the Los Angeles River ecosystem. Next steps for advancing the discussion of habitat enhancement include working with local stakeholders and agencies to find consensus on a flow condition for the River and its Watershed as a whole. In the study area itself there are six complementary project opportunities that could be implemented in the near term to advance understanding of habitat enhancement for the Los Angeles River. These smaller, localized projects can be used as pilot projects for the complicated jurisdictional and regulatory processes that all future habitat projects will have to navigate. They will provide a manageable and controlled process that will bring the necessary agencies together to identify the most effective processes for future projects throughout the Los Angeles River ecosystem.

Water Temperature Differences by Plant Community and Location in Re-established Wetlands in the Sacramento– San Joaquin Delta, California, July 2005 to February 2008

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | ?

Rates of carbon storage in wetlands are determined by the balance of its inputs and losses, both of which are affected by environmental factors such as water temperature

Rates of carbon storage in wetlands are determined by the balance of its inputs and losses, both of which are affected by environmental factors such as water temperature and depth. In the autumn of 1997, the U.S. Geological Survey re-established two wetlands with different shallow water depths—about 25 and 55 centimeters deep—to investigate the potential to reverse subsidence of delta islands by preserving and accumulating organic substrates derived from plant biomass inputs over time. Because cooler water temperatures can slow decomposition rates and increase accretion of plant biomass, water temperature was recorded from July 2005 to February 2008 in the deeper of the two wetlands, where areas of emergent and submerged vegetation persisted throughout the study, to assess differences in water temperature between the two vegetation types. Water temperature was compared at three depths in the water column between areas of emergent and submerged vegetation and between areas near the water inflow and in the wetland interior in both vegetation types. The latter comparison was a way of evaluating the effect of the length of time water had resided in the wetland on water temperatures. There were statistically significant differences in water temperature at all depths between the two vegetation types. Overall, in areas of emergent marsh vegetation, the mean water temperature at the surface was 1.4 degrees Celsius (°C) less than it was in areas of submerged vegetation; however, when analyses accounted for the changes in temperature due to seasonal and diurnal cycles, differences in the mean water temperature between the vegetation types were even greater than this. For example, in the spring, the mean temperatures in areas of emergent marsh vegetation at the surface, midpoint, and near the sediment in the water column were 2.0, 2.3, and 2.1 °C less, respectively, than water temperatures in areas of submerged vegetation. When diurnal changes in temperature were accounted for by comparing temperatures in mid-afternoon (at 3 p.m.), water-temperature differences were even greater than the seasonal means indicated. In areas of emergent vegetation, the mean temperatures were cooler than temperatures in areas of submerged vegetation at the surface, the mid-point, and near the sediment in the water column by 3.9, 3.6, and 2.3 °C, respectively. Furthermore, from July 2005 through December 2006, water temperatures at the surface in the interior of the wetland were significantly cooler than in areas near the inflow supplying water from the San Joaquin River by 1.0 °C in areas of submerged vegetation and by 1.1 °C in areas of emergent vegetation.

West Valley Watershed Assessment 2018: Baseline Ecological Condition Assessment of Southwest San Francisco Bay Creeks in Santa Clara County; Calabazas, San Tomas Aquino, Saratoga, Sunnyvale East and West

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | May 1st, 2019

This report describes baseline information about the amount and distribution of aquatic resources, and evaluates the overall ecological conditions of streams using the Ca

This report describes baseline information about the amount and distribution of aquatic resources, and evaluates the overall ecological conditions of streams using the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM), for the West Valley watershed in Santa Clara County; consisting of Sunnyvale East and West Channels, Calabazas Creek, San Tomas Aquino and Saratoga creeks (subsequently referred to in this document as San Tomas-Saratoga), and many smaller tributaries. 

Wetland geomorphology and tidal hydrodynamics drive fine‑scale fish community composition and abundance

Environmental Biology of Fishes (Springer) | January 19th, 2024

Wetland Management Strategy to Reduce Mercury in Water and Bioaccumulation in Fish

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) | July 25th, 2019

Wetland environments provide numerous ecosystem services but also facilitate methylmercury (MeHg) production and bioaccumulation. We developed a wetland‐management tech

Wetland environments provide numerous ecosystem services but also facilitate methylmercury (MeHg) production and bioaccumulation. We developed a wetland‐management technique to reduce MeHg concentrations in wetland fish and water. We physically modified seasonal wetlands by constructing open‐ and deep‐water treatment cells at the downstream end of seasonal wetlands to promote naturally occurring MeHg‐removal processes. We assessed the effectiveness of reducing mercury (Hg) concentrations in surface water and western mosquitofish that were caged at specific locations within 4 control and 4 treatment wetlands. Methylmercury concentrations in wetland water were successfully decreased within treatment cells during only the third year of study; however, treatment cells were not effective for reducing total Hg concentrations. Furthermore, treatment cells were not effective for reducing total Hg concentrations in wetland fish. Mercury concentrations in fish were not correlated with total Hg concentrations in filtered, particulate, or whole water; and the slope of the correlation with water MeHg concentrations differed between months. Fish total Hg concentrations were weakly correlated with water MeHg concentrations in April when fish were introduced into cages but were not correlated in May when fish were retrieved from cages. Fish total Hg concentrations were greater in treatment wetlands than in control wetlands the year after the treatment wetlands’ construction but declined by the second year. During the third year, fish total Hg concentrations increased in both control and treatment wetlands after an unexpected regional flooding event. Overall, we found limited support for the use of open‐ and deep‐water treatment cells at the downstream end of wetlands to reduce MeHg concentrations in water but not fish. We suggest that additional evaluation over a longer period of time is necessary.

Will Tidal Wetland Restoration Enhance Populations of Native Fishes?

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | July 31st, 2003

Restoration of tidal wetlands might enhance populations of native fishes in the San Francisco Estuary of California. The purpose of this paper is to: (1) review the curre

Restoration of tidal wetlands might enhance populations of native fishes in the San Francisco Estuary of California. The purpose of this paper is to: (1) review the currently available information regarding the importance of tidal wetlands to native fishes in the San Francisco Estuary, (2) construct conceptual models on the basis of available information, (3) identify key areas of scientific uncertainty, and (4) identify methods to improve conceptual models and reduce uncertainty. There are few quantitative data to suggest that restoration of tidal wetlands will substantially increase populations of native fishes. On a qualitative basis, there is some support for the idea that tidal wetland restoration will increase populations of some native fishes; however, the species deriving the most benefit from restoration might not be of great management concern at present. Invasion of the San Francisco Estuary by alien plants and animals appears to be a major factor in obscuring the expected link between tidal wetlands and native fishes. Large-scale adaptive management experiments (>100 hectares) appear to be the best available option for determining whether tidal wetlands will provide significant benefit to native fishes. Even if these experiments are unsuccessful at increasing native fish populations, the restored wetlands should benefit native birds, plants, and other organisms.

Willingness to Pay to Protect Wetlands and Reduce Wildlife Contamination from Agricultural Drainage

Springer | December 2nd, 1991

This chapter presents the results of a survey of the general population in California regarding their willingness to pay for alternative programs to protect and expand we

This chapter presents the results of a survey of the general population in California regarding their willingness to pay for alternative programs to protect and expand wetlands as well as reduce wildlife contamination in the San Joaquin Valley (Valley). The results of 803 completed interviews from 1,573 successfully contacted households indicate that Californians would pay $154 each year in higher taxes to purchase water to prevent a decrease in wetland acreage from 85,000 acres to 27,000 acres. This value rose to $254 to provide foran increase in wetland acreage to 125,000 acres with an associated 40 percent increase of bird populations. California households would pay $313 each year in additional taxes to implement agricultural drainage programs that would reduce waterbirds exposure to contamination from 70 percent to 20 percent exposure. The water management implication of these results is that Californians value clean water supplies for refuges at over $3 billion a year.

World’s largest dam removal reverses coastal erosion

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | September 27th, 2019

Yolo Bypass Salmon Habitat Restoration and Fish Passage Analytical Tool Review

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | October 1st, 2017

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have issued a Biological Opinion (BiOp) on the long-term operat

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have issued a Biological Opinion (BiOp) on the long-term operations of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) that includes Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPA) designed to alleviate jeopardy to listed species and adverse modification of critical habitat. NMFS’ RPA requires the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to increase juvenile flood plain rearing habitat and improve adult fish passage for ESA-listed salmonids and sturgeon. The BiOp requires seventy-three (73) habitat restoration actions, five of which are specific to the Yolo Bypass. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and Reclamation have developed project alternatives for the Draft Yolo Bypass Fish Passage and Habitat Restoration EIS/EIR focused on the following two Yolo Bypass actions, which are the subject of this review:  - Increase seasonal floodplain inundation in the lower Sacramento River Basin  - Improve fish passage throughout the Yolo Bypass Alternatives The alternatives developed to address these two actions consist of a notch in the Fremont Weir, with alternative locations and configurations (width and weir-crest elevations), designed to increase the frequency and duration of hydraulic connectivity between the main-stem Sacramento River and the Yolo Bypass and to improve fish passage. Six alternative locations / configurations for a notch were identified.

Yolo Bypass Salmonid Habitat Restoration and Fish Passage Final Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report (Executive Summary)

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | May 1st, 2019

The Yolo Bypass Salmonid Habitat Restoration and Fish Passage Project (Project) Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) addresses methods to

The Yolo Bypass Salmonid Habitat Restoration and Fish Passage Project (Project) Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) addresses methods to improve fish passage and increase floodplain fisheries rearing habitat in the Yolo Bypass to benefit Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, and Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American green sturgeon. The Project actions would implement Reasonable and Prudent Alternative actions I.6.1 and I.7, as described in the 2009 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project and the 2012 Yolo Bypass Salmonid Habitat Restoration and Fish Passage Implementation Plan.  This EIS/EIR has been prepared according to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts resulting from the project alternatives on the environment of the region are evaluated.  Full document files: Chapters 1-8 Chapters 9-12 Chapters 13-26 Appendices and drafts