uid=iep,o=EDI,dc=edirepository,dc=org all public read Interagency Ecological Program (IEP) Jacob Stagg United States Fish and Wildlife Service jacob_stagg@fws.gov https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6183-1593 Jonathan Speegle United States Fish and Wildlife Service jonathan_speegle@fws.gov https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1780-8351 Adam Nanninga United States Fish and Wildlife Service adam_nanninga@fws.gov https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2140-0439 Eric Huber United States Fish and Wildlife Service eric_huber@fws.gov Sang Seon Yun United States Fish and Wildlife Service sangseon_yun@fws.gov Jessica Falcon United States Fish and Wildlife Service jessica_falcon@fws.gov Lara Mitchell United States Fish and Wildlife Service lara_mitchell@fws.gov https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8439-8508 Ryan McKenzie United States Fish and Wildlife Service ryan.mckenzie@water.ca.gov https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9667-7408 Donald Marcetti United States Fish and Wildlife Service donald_marcetti@fws.gov Marelle Arndt United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Adriana Arrambide United States Fish and Wildlife Service https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3282-5616 contributor Lucia Arreola United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Pamella Asnata United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Olivia Bertelsen United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Jordan Besson United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Gershom Bigham United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Kristie Braken-Gueike United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Benjamin Brewster United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor David Bridgman United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Billy Bullard United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Jordan Buxton United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Megan Carmen United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Selena Cao United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Benjamin Charpentier United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor David Cole United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor John R Cook United States Fish and Wildlife Service https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0081-6627 contributor John Craig United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor David Dominguez United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Samantha Downs United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Justin Dummitt United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Nicholas Elsberg United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Jessica Falcon United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Isabella Ferruzzi United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Jackson Fimrite United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Autumn Fisher United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Gabriela Garcia United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Paul Gary United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Andrew Goodman United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Rebekah Gordon United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Jeff Gronemyer United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Jackie Hagen United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Alex Haner United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Patrick Hapgood United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Klayton Harmon United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Rebecca Heisey United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Daw B Her United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Paula Higginson United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Michael Higingotham United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Erika Holcombe United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Kate Huber United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Bryant Jew United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Madeline Johnson United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Harrison Kazik United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Evan Kinnett United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Sunny Lee United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Kiana Lindblad United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Eric Louwerens United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Claudia MacFarlane United States Fish and Wildlife Service https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5022-3775 contributor Robert Manos United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Mike Marshall United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Andres Mendoza United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor James Meneses United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Kristian Merrell United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Anna Merrens United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Clayton Miller United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Vanessa Mora United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Matthew Murphy United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Sarah Nece United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Ken Noble United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Eric Ojerholm United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Kristie Okimoto United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Cabel Patterson United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Vivian Peck United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Britany Perry United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Lauren Puffer United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Magdalena Ramos United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Dan Rinkenberg United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Adelaide Robinson United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Taylor Rohlin United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Shawn Sanders United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Gabriel Santana United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Kailee Schulz United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Erin Sharkey United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Josh Slocum United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Garret Smith United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Joe Sonnenberg United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Keegan Spencer United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Ryan Sprague United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Geoffrey Steinhart United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Michelle Szeto United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Michael Talley United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Madeline Toolen United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Savannah Valdez United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Kandi Vargas United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Nicholas Veal United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Danielle Villalpando United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Erich von Hasseln United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor John Wainwright United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Robert Weiland United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Jennifer Whitt United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Jennie Wiggins United States Fish and Wildlife Service contributor Lori Smith United States Fish and Wildlife Service associate 2025-11-21 The United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Delta Boat Electrofishing Survey was designed to estimate spatial and temporal trends in abundance, occupancy, capture probabilities, and related environmental drivers of fish assemblages across nearshore littoral habitats within the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The USFWS Lodi Field Office, in collaboration with the United States Geological Survey, developed the survey in 2018 to expand fish monitoring and inferences in nearshore habitats not monitored by long-term USFWS beach seine surveys within the San Francisco Estuary. The survey uses a robust statistical framework, including a stratified random sampling design and segmented transects that act as spatial replicates for occupancy modeling. For more information on the Lodi U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office: https://www.fws.gov/lodi/ ecology aquatic ecosystems freshwater estuaries rivers macrofauna fishes abundance long term monitoring endangered species invasive species water temperature conductivity turbidity LTER controlled vocabulary Interagency Ecological Program for the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary United States Fish and Wildlife Service San Francisco Estuary Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta nearshore fishes electrofishing Chinook Salmon Sacramento Hitch Sacramento Splittail Largemouth Bass McKenzie, R., & Mahardja, B. (2021). Evaluating the Role of Boat Electrofishing in Fish Monitoring of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 19(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2021v19iss1art4 Available from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2n18n8xk This information is released under the Creative Commons license - Attribution - CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The consumer of these data ("Data User" herein) is required to cite it appropriately in any publication that results from its use. The Data User should realize that these data may be actively used by others for ongoing research and that coordination may be necessary to prevent duplicate publication. The Data User is urged to contact the authors of these data if any questions about methodology or results occur. Where appropriate, the Data User is encouraged to consider collaboration or co-authorship with the authors. The Data User should realize that misinterpretation of data may occur if used out of context of the original study. While substantial efforts are made to ensure the accuracy of data and associated documentation, complete accuracy of data sets cannot be guaranteed. All data are made available "as is." The Data User should be aware, however, that data are updated periodically and it is the responsibility of the Data User to check for new versions of the data. The data authors and the repository where these data were obtained shall not be liable for damages resulting from any use or misinterpretation of the data. Thank you. San Francisco Estuary California USA -122.4899 -121.176304 39.21999207 37.6131828 2018-11-08 2025-07-31 ongoing Jacob Stagg Fish Biologist United States Fish and Wildlife Service jacob_stagg@fws.gov Jonathan Speegle Data Manager United States Fish and Wildlife Service jonathan_speegle@fws.gov Adam Nanninga Program Supervisor United States Fish and Wildlife Service adam_nanninga@fws.gov The Delta Boat Electrofishing Survey is a component of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Delta Juvenile Fish Monitoring Program and contributes to the Interagency Ecological Program’s (IEP’s) monitoring enterprise of fish communities in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta). The survey began in 2018 as a collaborative pilot study with the U.S. Geological Survey to expand fish monitoring efforts in the Delta to dominant nearshore littoral habitats (e.g., rock revetment, submerged aquatic vegetation) not sampled by long-term beach seine surveys, which currently represents the only other IEP littoral habitat monitoring survey. The electrofishing survey focuses on nearshore edge habitats—it does not sample “offshore-open-water” areas of littoral habitats that are prevalent in certain regions of the Delta (e.g. Liberty Island, Frank’s Tract, Mildred Island). Sampling transects are selected using stratified random sampling within subregions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, with a minimum target of one transect per subregion per month. Transects are divided into six independent sampling segments to allow for spatially dependent occupancy and detection probability estimation. Key water and habitat parameters are collected, such as temperature, conductivity, bank composition, relative abundance of in-water vegetation, etc. (1) Data collection methods: BOAT ELECTROFISHING: We electrofish using a single-pass design, and power is standardized using the minimal power output setting needed to achieve immobilization (Miranda 2005). Our sampling crews consist of one boat operator, two net handlers, and a data/livewell manager. During sampling events, we maneuver the electrofishing boat in and out from the nearshore edge while moving in the direction of the current/flow. Netters shock when the boat is moving towards the shore and stop approximately 5 seconds after the electrofishing boat ends forward progress. For each sampling event, we shock six continuous 30-50m segments of nearshore edge habitat, resulting in a 180-300m long sampling transect. For each segment of the transect, all stunned fish are netted and recorded along with shocking seconds and habitat parameters. FISH HANDLING: Generally, we identify all fish in each sample that are ≥ 25 mm fork length (FL) to species or race, apart from six species that are readily identified at ≥ 20 mm FL: Sacramento Splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus), Three-spine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), Western Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), Rainwater Killifish (Lucania parva), Bluefin Killifish (Lucania Goddei), and Sacramento Sucker (Catostomus occidentalis). Prior to release at the site of capture, we measure fish to the nearest 1 mm FL. If greater than 15 individuals of a species or race are captured, a subsample of 15 individuals is randomly measured for FL, and the rest are counted and assigned a fork length of zero in the database. Fish that cannot be accurately identified in the field are retained, and identification is then confirmed with the use of dichotomous keys and microscope at the station’s laboratory. We determine the race of all unmarked juvenile Chinook Salmon (i.e., no adipose fin-clip to indicate that it is hatchery-origin and implanted with a coded wire tag [CWT]) using the river length-at-date criteria (LDC) developed by Fisher (1992) and modified by Greene (1992). The assumptions associated with the river LDC for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River basin are that (1) spawning of fall-run Chinook Salmon occurs between October 1–December 31, (2) spawning of late fall-run Chinook Salmon occurs between January 1–April 15, (3) spawning of winter-run Chinook Salmon occurs between April 16–August 15, (4) spawning of spring-run Chinook Salmon occurs between August 16–September 30, and that (5) the growth rates of fish are identical among all Chinook Salmon races (Fisher 1992). Although one or more of these assumptions are likely violated (Fisher 1994; Yoshiyama et al. 1998), the river LDC methodology is widely used by managers to race salmon due to sampling logistics and funding limitations. Fisher (1994) noted that Chinook Salmon races within the Central Valley do appear to spawn at distinctly separate time periods except for fall- and spring-run due to the loss of headwater habitats (e.g., resulting from dams), forced coexistence, and subsequent hybridization within the Sacramento River basin (Banks et al. 2000; Greig et al. 2003; Banks et al. 2014). As a result, many of the Chinook Salmon we characterize as spring-run by the river LDC may actually be fall-run. We use the river LDC to differentiate between unmarked winter-run, spring-run, fall-run, and late fall-run sized juvenile Chinook Salmon. The race designations used in this dataset should be considered a rough approximation and not interpreted as definitive. We consider juvenile Chinook Salmon with missing (clipped) adipose fins as marked fish. Fish possessing other forms of marks or tags (e.g., stain dye, disc tags, acoustic tags) are also included within this dataset. We consider all clipped/marked juvenile Chinook Salmon as hatchery-reared and bring them back to the laboratory for coded wire tag retrieval to acquire information on hatchery origin and release location. WATER QUALITY: Water quality measurements are taken with YSI PRO 2030 (2018-2024) or ProDSS (2025 forward) Meter immediately before each fish sampling event. We record temperature to the nearest 0.1˚C, dissolved oxygen to the nearest 0.01 mg/L, and ambient conductivity and specific conductance to the nearest 0.01 micro siemen (µS). A Hach 2100Q Turbidity Meter is used to measure turbidity to the nearest 0.01 Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU 2018-2024) or Formazin Nephelometric Unit (FNU 2025 forward). NEARSHORE HABITAT: From 2018 to 2020, we recorded habitat parameters immediately after each fish sampling event. Water depths were recorded ~10 meters from the nearshore edge at the start of each segment of the transect. Nearshore edge percent cover of emergent vegetation, floating vegetation, and in-water structure was visually estimated for each segment. Percent cover was estimated for each segment from the outer channel edge of the shocked area to the shoreline. When we shocked flooded vegetated shoals where no shoreline existed, percent cover was estimated from the outer channel edge of the shocked area to the halfway point of the shoal. Bank type was based on the shoreline observed at the water’s edge at the time of sampling. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) was sampled at the center of each transect using a thatch rake and the height (cm) of the SAV sample was measured using a standard rectangular sampling container (50cm X 33cm). We calculated the wet volume of the SAV sample by multiplying the height of the sampled SAV by the area of the rectangular sampling container—i.e., wet volume of SAV= height (cm) of sampled vegetation x 50 cm container length x 33 cm container width. We also recorded dominant substrate during SAV sampling by probing the river bottom with the thatch rake and determining dominate substrate based on feel. After 2020, a few changes were made to our habitat quantification methods. We replaced our in-water structure category with a woody debris category that only included natural woody debris and submerged overhanging branches. Exact percentage estimates of in-water habitat categories were replaced with 25% bins (0-4) and visual estimates were now conducted along the outer shoreline edge instead of estimated from the outer edge to the shoreline to increase the precision of estimates. Volumetric estimates of SAV were dropped and replaced with a recording of presence/absence in each segment along with dominant substrate. In 2021 the substrate would now be assessed by taking a substrate sample from each of the 6 segments using a telescopic scooper and running it through a 63 µm mesh sieve. Substrate is assigned based on modified US Geological Survey guidelines; Mud < 63 µm, Sand 63 µm – 2 mm, Rock > 2 mm. Starting in July 2022 the SAV assessment was revised to a visual estimation of percent coverage that is defined categorically. Observations are made from the boat using a mix of personal vision and side-scan sonar. To help limit observation bias, the categories were defined as: 0 = no visible rooted SAV; 1 = sparse coverage, ≤ 25% of transect covered with SAV; 2 = scattered or interrupted coverage, 26-75% of transect covered with SAV; 3 = mostly or fully covered, > 75% of transect covered with SAV; and 4 = overgrown, SAV reaches the surface and impedes boat movement. (2) Link to blank datasheets: Available upon request (see data contact information) (3) Instruments and equipment: BOAT ELECTROFISHING: Until November 2019, we used a Smith-Root Extra Heavy Series Electrofishing Boat equipped with a 5.0 Generator Powered Pulsator (GPP) electrofisher. Starting in December 2019, we upgraded to a Smith-Root Extra Heavy Series Electrofishing Boat equipped with an APEX electrofisher. Full specifications and product manuals are available on the manufacturer’s website and are available upon request. WATER QUALITY: Prior to August 2024 water quality was measured using the YSI PRO 2030 Meter, to measure parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity and a Hach 2100Q Turbidity Meter to measure turbidity. Starting in August 2024, the survey moved to using the YSI ProDSS, which can measure all previously mentioned parameters. (4) Analysis and methods (standard operating procedures): Data are in their original form and no catch per effort calculations have been made. Standard operating procedures for methods and quality checks are available upon request. (5) Project history (changes in methods and locations): Modifications to fish sampling are made regularly to improve data accuracy, adhere to permit limitations, and accommodate safety conditions and/or special studies. PROGRAM-WIDE CHANGES: 2018-2020: Pilot years of the Delta Boat Electrofishing Survey. From November 2018 to March 2020, shocking seconds were recorded at the transect level. Also, from November 2018 to March 2020, emergent vegetation, floating vegetation, and structure were quantified as a percentage of the sampled area. 2019: Standardized location of segment depth measurement points. New Smith-Root Electrofishing boat (Extra Heavy Duty Series with APEX Electrofisher) purchased and used for survey. Electrofishing monitoring did not occur from June to September 2019. 2020-2021: Sampling was paused from April 2020 until June 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 2021: Beginning in July 2021, the following programmatic changes were implemented: • Electrofishing survey is performed during all months of the year • Information about gear condition code, wind condition, water surface state, Secchi disk depths, presence/absence of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), substrate type, special study name and shore measurements of dissolved oxygen and water temperature is recorded and added to the database • Information about sampling direction stopped being recorded • Changes were made to the quantification of emergent vegetation, floating vegetation, and large woody debris (LWD) (see “Neareshore Habitat” section above for more information) • Shocking seconds are recorded at the segment level. Previously shocking seconds were recorded at the transect level. • Transect widths were standardized during sampling Also note that sampling in the South-Central Delta region commenced in August 2021. 2022: Changes to SAV quantification were made from presence/absence to visual percent coverage (according to a scale of zero to four). Opportunistic sampling in the West Delta region begins in January 2022 when conductivity levels are sufficiently low to permit electroshocking. 2025: Starting in August 2024, the electrofishing survey changed from recording turbidity in Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU) to Formazin Nephelometric Unit (FNU), consistent with IEP standards. (6) QA/QC: METHODS: DJFMP has a dedicated fish biologist who is responsible for training field personnel in fish identification and implementing a field Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program. The fish identification QA/QC program consists of testing the field crew using preserved and wild specimens at least twice a year, reviewing preserved fish samples that are brought back from the field, and accompanying field personnel when sampling to ensure correct identification of fish species. Our current protocol states that any fish the field crew has difficulty identifying are to be brought back to the office to ensure correct identification. Before participating in field sampling, all personnel are required to (1) review the Delta Boat Electrofishing Survey’s standard operating procedures (SOPs) and Job Hazard Analysis (JHA), and (2) successfully complete the USFWS Electrofishing Safety Exam. In addition, personnel are always accompanied in the field by experienced field crew leads who are required to take and pass the National Conservation Training Center’s Principles in Electrofishing Course every five years. The YSI Digital Water Quality Meter is calibrated daily, and if a calibration fails, the instrument is no longer used until the necessary repairs have been made. The Hach 2100Q Turbidity Meter was checked and calibrated every three months and is replaced when needed. DATA: Data is entered into Microsoft Access with customized error-checking and data validation checks. The data QA/QC program consists of a double-entry system—data are independently entered twice by different personnel into two separate data tables and then compared by using a custom query. When a data entry mismatch is found, the field data sheet is reviewed, and errors are corrected in the database. (7) Contractor information: All fish identification and water quality measures are conducted by the field staff of the Delta Juvenile Fish Monitoring Program, Lodi Fish and Wildlife Office, United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (8) External review process: There is no external review process. (9) Methods references: Banks MA, Rashbrook VK, Calavetta MJ, Dean CA, Hedgecock D (2000) Analysis of microsatellite DNA resolves genetic structure and diversity of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in California’s Central Valley. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57:915–927. Banks MA, Jacobson DP, Meusnier I, Greig CA, Rashbrook VK, Ardren WR, Smith CT, Bernier-Latmani J, Van Sickle J, O’Malley KG (2014) Testing advances in molecular discrimination among Chinook Salmon life histories: evidence from a blind test. Animal Genetics, 45(3):412–420. Fisher F (1992) Chinook Salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, growth and occurrence in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system. Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game. Fisher FW (1994) Past and present status of Central Valley Chinook Salmon. Conservation Biology, 8(3):870–873. Greene S (1992) Memorandum: Daily length tables. California Department of Water Resources. Environmental Services Office Sacramento, California. May 1992 Greig C, Jacobson DP, Banks MA (2003) New tetranucleotide microsatellites for fine-scale discrimination among endangered Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Molecular Ecology Notes, 3:376–379. Miranda LE (2005) Refining boat electrofishing equipment to improve consistency and reduce harm to fish. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 25(2):609–618. Yoshiyama RM, Fisher FW, Moyle PB (1998) Historical abundance and decline of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Region of California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 18:487–521. 2018-2020_USFWS_EFISH_data.csv Fish catch and environmental data from the USFWS Delta Boat Electrofishing Survey 2018-2020 2018-2020_USFWS_EFISH_data.csv 4165952 b389a6e0d302d2fe36c3bf0ecc73ad73 1 \r\n column , " RegionCode Coarse level of spatial stratification string Coarse level of spatial stratification NA Not recorded Subregion Fine level of spatial stratification string Fine level of spatial stratification NA Not recorded SampleDate Date sampled date MM-DD-YYYY NA Not recorded StartTime Time at the start of sampling transect date hh:mm NA Not recorded StopTime Time at the stop of sampling transect date hh:mm NA Not recorded ChannelType Channel Type: 1- Main River, 2- Open Slough, 3- Dead-end Slough, 4- Flooded Island, 5- Other. Before 2021, we included Shipping channel as a category, but this was redundant with our subregion code for the Sacramento deep water shipping channel and it also caused confusion when the river channel was also the shipping channel (e.g. San Joaquin River near stockton). Flooded island refers to shoreline sampling within flooded tracts such as Frank's tract, Big Break, and Liberty Island. string 1 Main (lesser) River 2 Open Slough 3 Dead-end Slough 4 Flooded Island 5 Other NA Not recorded WeatherCode Weather condition at time of sample string CLR Majority direct Sunlight CLD Majority overcast at time of sample RAN Precipitation FOG Foggy NA Not recorded Tide Tide recorded at the nearest tide station at the start of sampling string Flood Flooding/incoming tide Ebb Ebbing/outgoing tide LS Within 30 minutes of Low Slack (LS) tide HS Within 30 minutes of High Slack (HS) tide NA Not recorded DOChannel Dissolved oxygen level of water float milligramsPerLiter real 5.89 11.8 NA Not recorded TempChannel Temperature of water measured mid-channel or >100 feet offshore of the sampling location float celsius real 7.9 18.3 NA Not recorded WaterTurbidityNTU Turbidity of water measured in Nephelometric Turbidity Units float nephelometricTurbidityUnit real 1.56 314 NA Not recorded SpecConductance Standardized water conductivity at 25 degrees celsius, measured in microsiemens. float microSiemensPerCentimeter real 54.6 1062 NA Not recorded AmbConductivity Water conductivity under ambient temperatures, measured in microsiemens float microSiemensPerCentimeter natural 39 821 NA Not recorded EstimatedHeight Height (cm) of submerged vegetation recorded in our standard measuring container at the center of the samping transect float centimeter real 0 41.5 NA Not recorded DepthSampled Water depth (m) at submerged vegetation sampling location in the center of the sampling transect float meter real 0.4 6.1 NA Not recorded SubstrateTransect Dominant substrate felt at submerged vegetation sampling location at the center of the sampling transect string Mud Feels soft and sticky, fine particles of soil, silt, and clay observed on thatch rake Pavement Feels hard and uniform, e.g. concrete boat ramp Rocky/Pebb Feels hard and bumpy, not uniform e.g. rip-rap, boulders Sand Feels compact and course, small granular rock and mineral particles observed on thatch rake NA Not recorded ResearchVessel Electrofishing boat used during survey string GPP Smith and Root 5.0 Generator Powered Pulsator (GPP) Electrofisher APEX Smith and Root APEX Boat Electrofisher NA Not recorded BoatConfiguration Boom configuration of electrofishing boat used during sampling, our standard is the 2 boom/ 2 netter configuration. We only use the 1 boom/ 1 netter when ambient conductivity is over 1200 microsiemens string 1 One anode array deployed, hull as cathode 2 Two anode arrays deployed, hull as cathode NA Not recorded PulsePerSecond Shocking frequency or pulses per second float hertz natural 30 60 NA Not recorded Range Voltage range setting of GPP shocking unit string High GPP Electrofisher setting; 50-1000 Volts Low GPP Electrofisher setting; 50-100 Volts NA Not recorded PercentOfRange Shocking Unit Parameter specific to Smith and Root GPP Shocking Unit float percent natural 18 65 NA Not recorded Amps Root mean squared current measured by GPP shocking unit float ampere real 1.5 14 NA Not recorded DutyCycle The percentage of time power is applied over one cycle float percent natural 12 15 NA Not recorded PeakVoltage Peak Voltage set on Smith and Root Apex shocking unit float volt natural 150 480 NA Not recorded PeakAmps Peak Amperage recorded on Smith and Root Apex shocking unit float ampere real 7.06 35.24 NA Not recorded PeakWatts Peak Wattage recorded on Smith and Root Apex shocking unit float watt natural 1200 7400 NA Not recorded SecondsPerTransect Total shocking seconds recorded for entire sampling transect float second natural 166 1846 NA Not recorded SegmentNumber Number of segment within sampling transect float dimensionless natural 1 6 NA Not recorded SecondsPerSegment Total shocking seconds recorded for specific segment float second natural 22 414 NA Not recorded LatitudeStart Start latitude of segment, recorded in degrees decimal (WGS 1984) float degree real 37.90265 38.43481 NA Not recorded LongitudeStart Start longitude of segment, recorded in degrees decimal (WGS 1984) float degree real -121.7577 -121.31438 NA Not recorded LatitudeEnd Stop latitude of segment, recorded in degrees decimal (WGS 1984) float degree real 37.90242 38.43504 NA Not recorded LongitudeEnd Stop longitude of segment, recorded in degrees decimal (WGS 1984) float degree real -121.7575 -121.31463 NA Not recorded WaterDepthStart Water depth (m) recorded at the start of the segment. float meter real 0.36 14.9 NA Not recorded WaterDepthEnd Water depth (m) recorded at the end of the segment. float meter real 0.36 14.9 NA Not recorded Emergent Percentage of surface covered by emergent vegetation within specified segment float percent whole 0 90 NA Not recorded Floating Percentage of surface coverd by floating vegetation within specified segment float percent whole 0 85 NA Not recorded Structure Percentage of surface covered by structure within specified segment float percent whole 0 100 NA Not recorded BankType Dominant bank type recorded for the segment. string 1 Rip Rap 2 Mud Bank 3 Sand Beach 4 Mud Flats 5 Artificial Structure 6 Other NA Not recorded OrganismCode A 1 to 4 letter character code unique to each species string A 1 to 4 letter character code unique to each species NA Not recorded IEPFishCode A standardized six letter code used for each species across the Interagency Ecological Program string A standardized six letter code used for each species across the Interagency Ecological Program NA Not available CommonName Common name used for the species string Common name used for the species NA Not available MarkCode Indicator of whether or not fish has been marked or tagged. string None No marks AdClipped Adipose fin clipped VIE Visible Implant Elastomer Tag NA Not recorded StageCode Developmental stage of salmonids string 1 Yolk sac fry 2 Fry 3 Parr 4 Silver parr 5 Smolt 6 Adult NA Not recorded ForkLength Length of sampled fish measured from the point of the mouth to the fork of the caudal fin float millimeter whole 0 890 NA Not recorded RaceByLength Estimated race of Chinook Salmon based on the length-at-date criteria string Fall Fall-run Chinook Salmon race based on length Spring Spring-run Chinook Salmon based on length LateFall Late Fall-run Chinook Salmon based on length Winter Winter-run Chinook Salmon based on length Adult Not categorized to any run; adult salmon NA Not recorded TagCode Character code of coded wire tag, PIT tag, or acoustic tag retrieved from individual string Character code of coded wire tag, PIT tag, or acoustic tag retrieved from individual NA Not available RaceByTag Race of Chinook Salmon based on the coded wire tag or other markings. string Fall Fall-run Chinook Salmon Spring Spring-run Chinook Salmon LateFall Late-fall-run Chinook Salmon Winter Winter-run Chinook Salmon NA Not recorded Dead State of morbidity string Yes Fish was dead No Fish was alive NA Not recorded Count Number of fish sampled with the measured fork length (or unmeasured). float dimensionless natural 1 258 NA Not recorded Comments Notes from sampling string Notes from sampling NA Not recorded 15879 2021-2025_USFWS_EFISH_data.csv Fish catch and environmental data from the USFWS Delta Boat Electrofishing Survey 2021-2025 2021-2025_USFWS_EFISH_data.csv 16324117 6c122fa18f470e08b5c6e14a1a850377 1 \r\n column , " RegionCode Coarse level of spatial stratification string Coarse level of spatial stratification NA Not recorded Subregion Fine level of spatial stratification string Fine level of spatial stratification NA Not recorded SampleDate Date sampled date MM-DD-YYYY NA Not recorded StartTime Time at the start of sampling transect date hh:mm NA Not recorded StopTime Time at the stop of sampling transect date hh:mm NA Not recorded GearConditionCode Sampling difficulty code string 1 Excellent sampling; light wind, low flow, majority of fish are netted 2 Moderate sampling; medium wind-flow-submerged aquatic vegetation, a moderate amount of fish are missed 3 Impaired-poor sampling; state reasons why in notes, many fish are missed during sampling NA Not available ChannelType Channel Type code where sampling was conducted. Before 2021, we included Shipping channel as a category, but this was redundant with our subregion code for the Sacramento deep water shipping channel and it also caused confusion when the river channel was also the shipping channel (e.g. San Joaquin River near stockton). Flooded island refers to shoreline sampling within flooded tracts such as Frank�s tract, Big Break, and Liberty Island. string 1 Main (lesser) River 2 Open Slough 3 Dead-end Slough 4 Flooded Island 5 Other NA Not recorded WeatherCode Weather condition at time of sample string CLR Majority direct Sunlight CLD Majority overcast at time of sample RAN Precipitation FOG Foggy NA Not recorded Wind Human observation of wind speed at the time of sampling string Low Wind speed estimated to be 0-5 mph Med Wind speed estimated to be 5-10 mph High Wind speed estimated to be 10-15 mph NA Not recorded SurfaceState Visual observation of water surface state at the time of sampling string Calm Glassy or smooth water surface with only slight riffles Choppy Water surface with large riffling or surface waves NA Not recorded Tide Tide recorded at the nearest tide station at the start of sampling string Flood Flooding/incoming tide Ebb Ebbing/outgoing tide LS Within 30 minutes of Low Slack (LS) tide HS Within 30 minutes of High Slack (HS) tide NA Not recorded DOChannel Dissolved oxygen level of water measured mid-channel or >100 feet offshore of the sampling location float milligramsPerLiter real 1.66 15.24 NA Not recorded DOShore Dissolved oxygen level of water measured within 3 meters of the shoreline edge just upstream of sampling location float milligramsPerLiter real 1.5 16.97 NA Not recorded TempChannel Temperature of water measured mid-channel or >100 feet offshore of the sampling location float celsius real 7.4 28.1 NA Not recorded TempShore Temperature of water measured within 3 meters of the shoreline edge just upstream of sampling location float celsius real 7.4 27.9 NA Not recorded WaterTurbidityNTU Turbidity of water measured in Nephelometric Turbidity Units float nephelometricTurbidityUnit real 1.5 316 NA Not recorded WaterTurbidityFNU Turbidity of water measured in Formazin Nephelometric Units float FormazinNephelometricUnit real 0.22 98.99 NA Not recorded Secchi Secchi depth taken midchannel offshore of the sampling location, measurements of over indicate measurements were over 1.8 meters string Secchi depth taken midchannel offshore of the sampling location, measurements of over indicate measurements were over 1.8 meters NA not available SpecConductance Standardized water conductivity at 25 degrees celsius, measured in microsiemens float microSiemensPerCentimeter real 32.3 2291 NA Not recorded AmbConductivity Water conductivity under ambient temperatures, measured in microsiemens float microSiemensPerCentimeter real 27.6 4965 NA Not recorded ResearchVessel Electrofishing boat used during survey string GPP Smith and Root 5.0 Generator Powered Pulsator (GPP) Electrofisher APEX Smith and Root APEX Boat Electrofisher NA Not recorded BoatConfiguration Boom configuration of electrofishing boat used during sampling, our standard is the 2 boom/ 2 netter configuration. We only use the 1 boom/ 1 netter when ambient conductivity is over 1200 microsiemens string 1 One anode array deployed, hull as cathode 2 Two anode arrays deployed, hull as cathode NA Not recorded PulsePerSecond Shocking frequency or pulses per second float hertz natural 40 40 NA Not recorded DutyCycle The percentage of time power is applied over one cycle float percent natural 15 15 NA Not recorded PeakVoltage Peak Voltage set on Smith and Root Apex shocking unit float volt natural 130 690 NA Not recorded PeakAmps Peak Amperage recorded on Smith and Root Apex shocking unit float ampere real 1.44 86.96 NA Not recorded PeakWatts Peak Wattage recorded on Smith and Root Apex shocking unit float watt natural 400 12000 NA Not recorded SegmentNumber Number of segment within sampling transect float dimensionless natural 1 6 NA Not recorded SecondsPerSegment Total shocking seconds recorded for specific segment float second natural 23 272 NA Not recorded LatitudeStart Start latitude of segment, recorded in degrees decimal (WGS 1984) float degree real 37.7752 38.47212 NA Not recorded LongitudeStart Start longitude of segment, recorded in degrees decimal (WGS 1984) float degree real -121.83436 -121.29892 NA Not recorded LatitudeEnd Stop latitude of segment, recorded in degrees decimal (WGS 1984) float degree real 37.77594 38.47268 NA Not recorded LongitudeEnd Stop longitude of segment, recorded in degrees decimal (WGS 1984) float degree real -121.83436 -121.29892 NA Not recorded WaterDepthStart Water depth (m) recorded at the start of the segment string Water depth (m) recorded at the start of the segment NA Not recorded WaterDepthEnd Water depth (m) recorded at the end of the segment string Water depth (m) recorded at the end of the segment NA Not recorded Emergent Percentage of surface covered by emergent vegetation within specified segment float percent whole 0 4 NA Not recorded Floating Percentage of surface coverd by floating vegetation within specified segment float percent whole 0 4 NA Not recorded LWD Percentage of surface covered by structure within specified segment float percent whole 0 4 NA Not recorded SAV Percentage of submerged aquatic vegetation within the segment or presence absence string Yes Submerged aquatic vegetation present in segment July 2021 to July 2022 only No Submerged aquatic vegetation absent in segment July 2021 to July 2022 only 0 No rooted submerged aquatic vegetation in segment 1 Sparse coverage (1-25%) of submerged aquatic vegetation in segment 2 Scattered or interrupted coverage (26-75%) of submerged aquatic vegetation in segment 3 Mostly or fully covered (76-100%) of submerged aquatic vegetation in segment 4 Overgrown, submerged aquatic vegetation reaches the surface and impedes boat movement NA Not recorded SubstrateSegment Dominant substrate present in segment, visually detemined from samples taken at the center of each segment string Mud Feels soft and sticky, fine particles of soil, silt, and clay observed on thatch rake Pavement Feels hard and uniform, e.g. concrete boat ramp Rocky/Pebb Feels hard and bumpy, not uniform e.g. rip-rap, boulders Sand Feels compact and course, small granular rock and mineral particles observed on thatch rake NA Not recorded BankType Dominant bank type recorded for the segment string 1 Rip Rap 2 Mud Bank 3 Sand Beach 4 Mud Flats 5 Artificial Structure 6 Other NA Not recorded OrganismCode A 1 to 5 letter character code unique to each species string A 1 to 5 letter character code unique to each species NA Not recorded IEPFishCode A standardized six letter code used for each species across the Interagency ecological program string A standardized six letter code used for each species across the Interagency ecological program NA Not available CommonName Common name used for the species string Common name used for the species NA Not available MarkCode Indicator of whether or not fish has been marked or tagged string None No marks AdClipped Adipose fin clipped VIE Visible Implant Elastomer Tag VIE-GS Visible implanted elastomer tag: Green Snout VIE-LBP Visible implanted elastomer tag: Left/ Blue/ Posterior dorsal VIE-LGA Visible implanted elastomer tag: Left/ Green/ Anterior dorsal VIE-LGP Visible implanted elastomer tag: Left/ Green/ Posterior dorsal VIE-LOA Visible implanted elastomer tag: Left/Orange/Anterior dorsal VIE-LOP Visible implanted elastomer tag: Left/ Orange/ Posterior dorsal VIE-LRA Visible implanted elastomer tag: Left/ Red/ Anterior dorsal VIE-LRP Visible implanted elastomer tag: Left/ Red/ Posterior dorsal VIE-PS Visible implanted elastomer tag: Pink Snout VIE-RBA Visible implanted elastomer tag: Right/ Blue/ Anterior dorsal VIE-RBP Visible implanted elastomer tag: Right/Blue/Posterior dorsal VIE-RGP Visible implanted elastomer tag: Right/Green/Posterior dorsal VIE-RGA Visible implanted elastomer tag: Right/ Green/ Anterior dorsal VIE-ROA Visible implanted elastomer tag: Right/ Orange/ Anterior dorsal VIE-ROP Visible implanted elastomer tag: Right/Orange/Posterior dorsal VIE-RRM Visible implanted elastomer tag: Right/Red/Mid dorsal VIE-RRA Visible implanted elastomer tag: Right/ Red/Anterior dorsal NA Not recorded StageCode Developmental stage of salmonids string 1 Yolk sac fry 2 Fry 3 Parr 4 Silver Parr 5 Smolt 6 Adult NA Not recorded ForkLength Length of sampled fish measured from the point of the mouth to the fork of the caudal fin float millimeter whole 0 990 NA Not recorded RaceByLength Estimated race of Chinook Salmon based on the length-at-date criteria string Fall Fall-run Chinook Salmon race based on length Spring Spring-run Chinook Salmon based on length LateFall Late Fall-run Chinook Salmon based on length Winter Winter-run Chinook Salmon based on length Adult Not categorized to any run; adult salmon NA Not recorded TagCode Coded wire tag number string Coded wire tag number NA Not recorded RaceByTag Race of Chinook Salmon based on the coded wire tag or other markings string Fall Fall-run Chinook Salmon Spring Spring-run Chinook Salmon LateFall Late-fall-run Chinook Salmon Winter Winter-run Chinook Salmon NA Not recorded SpecialStudy Shorthead code to specify a special study string Shorthead code to specify a special study NA Not recorded SpecialStudyID Identification code assigned to samples e.g. PIT tag, acoustic tag, or individual taken for specific studies string Identification code assigned to samples e.g. PIT tag, acoustic tag, or individual taken for specific studies NA Not recorded Dead State of morbidity string Yes Fish was dead No Fish was alive NA Not recorded Count Number of fish sampled with the measured fork length (or unmeasured) float dimensionless natural 1 485 NA Not recorded Comments Notes from sampling string Notes from sampling NA Not recorded 57498 Fish_Taxonomy.csv Taxon table for species including native or invasive classification Fish_Taxonomy.csv 14900 17cd948d139f66ca938539bdde13245b 1 \r\n column , " OrganismCode A 1 to 6 letter character unique to each species string A 1 to 6 letter character unique to each species NA unknown identification or not applicable IEPFishCode A standardized six letter code used for each species across the Interagency ecological program string A standardized six letter code used for each species across the Interagency ecological program NA unknown identification or not applicable CommonName Common name used for species string Common name used for species NA unknown identification or not applicable NonNative Indicator if the species is native or invasive in the San Francisco Estuary (yes=invasive, no=native) string Indicator if the species is native or invasive in the San Francisco Estuary (yes=invasive, no=native) NA unknown identification or not applicable Phylum Taxonomic Phylum string Taxonomic Phylum NA unknown identification or not applicable Class Taxonomic Class string Taxonomic Class NA unknown identification or not applicable Order Taxonomic Order string Taxonomic Order NA unknown identification or not applicable Family Taxonomic Family string Taxonomic Family NA unknown identification or not applicable Genus Taxonomic Genus string Taxonomic Genus NA unknown identification or not applicable Species Taxonomic Species string Taxonomic Species NA unknown identification or not applicable 150 conductivity (or specific conductance at 25 degrees celsius) unit NTU- ratio of the amount of white light transmitted through a water sample with the amount scattered at an angle of 90 degrees to one side FNU-ratio of the amount of infrared light transmitted through a water sample with the amount scattered at an angle of 90 degrees to one side EMLassemblyline 3.6.0