Category Archives: Chinook Salmon

Listen to the River

Posted on by

In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) was enacted by Congress and resulted in the development of an Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) to double the anadromous fish populations in the Central Valley by 2002. Astoundingly, after twenty-three years and more than $1,000,000,000 spent, extensive monitoring studies and the use of alleged “adaptive management”, the salmon runs have not only not doubled in size, but have declined. Most notably, there is no measureable progress toward delisting any of the threatened or endangered anadromous fish, and the fall-run Chinook, the most abundant among the four salmon runs, have now dropped even further from historical levels. Some individuals have even recently suggested that the fall run may warrant listing as an endangered species (Williams 2012) … not exactly a glowing success story for salmon restoration (or an efficient expenditure of money).

Because of this poor track record, an independent peer review (“Listen to the River”) of the CVPIA fisheries program was conducted in 2008 and was highly critical of the government agencies’ implementation of the anadromous fish restoration efforts. For example,

“Yet it is also far from clear that the agencies have done what is possible and necessary to improve freshwater conditions to help these species weather environmental variability, halt their decline and begin rebuilding in a sustainable way. A number of the most serious impediments to survival and recovery are not being effectively addressed, especially in terms of the overall design and operation of the Central Valley Project system.” (Cummins et al. 2008)

In particular, the review criticized the failures of implementing an effective, scientifically valid adaptive management program:

“The absence of a unified program organized around a conceptual framework is one of the reasons the program appears to be a compartmentalized effort that lacks strategic planning and decision-making. As a result the program is unable to address the larger system issues, has a disjointed M&E [monitoring and evaluation] program, exhibits little of the traits expected from effective adaptive management, and is unable to effectively coordinate with related programs in the region. An uncoordinated approach also creates boundaries to the free flow of useful information and program-wide prioritization. We observed that most researchers and technicians seemed unclear how or even whether their local efforts related to or contributed to the overall program.” (Cummins et al. 2008)

The “Listen to the River” report provided numerous recommendations to improve implementation of the CVPIA AFRP. Included among those suggestions was development and utilization of an effective adaptive management program. Surprisingly, it has now been seven years since the review panel’s report and all proposals put forth remain unimplemented by the involved agencies. When a newspaper reporter recently queried Bob Clarke, fisheries program supervisor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), concerning the lack of progress and excessive funds expended in the AFRP, the response was that officials are still working to change the way they prioritize restoration. Clarke said: “It’s a process, unfortunately it’s not a process that allows you to get your results immediately,”1 Seven years? … It should have been done in seven months. A subsequent Redding Record Searchlight Newspaper Editorial2 on the topic responded that “those responsible have offered excuses, not explanations” and maybe what the AFRP needs “are fewer administrators and more field work”. It’s hard to disagree with that opinion. In an astonishing example, an examination of a portion of the annual AFRP budget in 2014 revealed that a total of $2,794,625 was expended on state and federal staff. Most of those funds were spent on so-called “Habitat Restoration Coordinators”.

AFRP Org ChartIt’s difficult to comprehend how one individual could work 52 weeks a year “coordinating” very few, if any, actual restoration projects in such small regions. Furthermore, with redundancy in the AFRP, both USFWS and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife have “Habitat Restoration Coordinators” overlapping within the same watersheds. Frankly, some of these efforts could probably be handled by an experienced individual during Saturday afternoons and serve as a “facilitator” to expedite projects, instead of a “coordinator” impeding progress with an added layer of bureaucracy. A suggested alternative approach would be to reorganize the program as shown below. This one example would allow more than $2,000,000 to be reallocated to actual salmon habitat restoration projects every year. Many more examples exist.

Proposed AFRP Org ChartDick Pool, President of Water4Fish and a long-time promoter for salmon restoration, recently summed up the problem: “The CVPIA program needs a major restructuring. For the last ten years, the salmon industry, Congress and many others have advocated the money be spent on ‘On the Ground’ projects in the river and in the Delta which deal with the real problems. So far there has been no change in the program.” After 23 years, it is time to listen to the river, implement a new approach, use true adaptive management, and place the needs of the salmon in front of building larger state and federal bureaucracies.

References

Arthur, D. 2015. “$1 Billon Later, Salmon are Still in Peril”. Redding Record Searchlight, May 17, 2015.

Redding Record Searchlight Editorial. 2015. “Agencies finally getting it – fish need cold water.” June 5, 2015.

Cummins, K., C. Furey, A. Giorgi, S. Lindley, J. Nestler, and J. Shurts. 2008. Listen to the River: An Independent Review of the CVPIA Fisheries Program. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 2008. 51 p. plus appendices.

Williams, J.G. 2012. Juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in and around the San Francisco estuary. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 10(3). October 2012.

  1. “$1 Billon Later, Salmon are Still in Peril”. Article by Damon Arthur, Redding Record Searchlight, May 17, 2015. ↩
  2. June 5, 2015 ↩

Predator Fish Control Again Rears Its Ugly Head

Posted on by

The predator-control movement in the Delta got started around the turn of this century when efforts were initiated to reduce the Central Valley Striped Bass population by removing them from Clifton Court Forebay in the South Delta and by stopping the hatchery and pen rearing supplementation programs. Efforts under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA), specifically the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP), were beginning to make progress at restoring Central Valley fish populations including winter, spring, fall, and late-fall run Chinook, Steelhead, sturgeon, and Striped Bass. Of course, these efforts had been enormously aided by Mother Nature in the form of a series of wet years following the disastrous 1987-1992 drought that precipitated the CVPIA (and many of the endangered species listings).

Striped Bass supplementation had reached its apex. Hatchery raised yearlings were stocked by the millions. Millions of wild young stripers salvaged at South Delta federal and state pumps were placed in pens in the Bay and fed for one to two years and then released.

The end of the wet years and the beginning of the Pelagic Organism Decline in the early 2000s brought out “predator control” for the Central Valley. Federal and state water contractors planted the seed as their Delta diversions reached record levels of 6 million acre-ft. The first effort was to develop a predator removal program at the State Water Project’s Clifton Court Forebay in the south Delta. A further effort forced California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for its Striped Bass Supplementation Program (which was approved and the program continued for several years). CDFW did not undertake predator removal in the Forebay.

The 2007-2009 drought brought a water contractor sponsored lawsuit against CDFW, and when that failed, an approach to the California Fish and Game Commission to eliminate sportfishing regulation restrictions on Striped Bass. Relying on sound science, the Commission unanimously rejected their efforts.

The recent Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) included predator control at “hotspots” in the Delta. But BDCP has been cast aside in favor of Governor Brown’s “water fix.”

This past week FISHBIO Inc., a major contractor for the water districts in the Central Valley, posted “Can Predator Control Help California’s Native Fishes?”1 The post relates the passage of a bill in the House specifically regarding predator control to protect endangered species. While most (hopefully the Senate) will see the bill as part of the water contractors’ “smoke screen”, the bill exemplifies continued efforts on the part of water contractors in the Central Valley to place the blame and solution elsewhere. The post relates about a recent San Joaquin restoration program meeting where information on predators was presented. No mention was made of the recent record low flows in the San Joaquin or the fact that salmon numbers are directly related to flows, or that salmon cannot survive their migrations in the warm polluted waters of the San Joaquin in drier years.

The post mentions a modeling study that shows Striped Bass could eat all the San Joaquin salmon. However, it fails to mention the abundance of young hatchery salmon prey dumped into streams at the same time that Striped Bass and other predators are attracted into the cooler tributaries by the same warm polluted waters of the San Joaquin that block young salmon from moving to the ocean. It fails to acknowledge that upstream dams intercept the early natural pulse flows of cold water that would enable wild salmon fry to move out of the tributaries before waters warm sufficiently for predators to become active. It fails to mention that Striped Bass are also at record low levels. It fails to mention that hundreds of thousands of recovery program hatchery smolts have been dumped into the San Joaquin that serve to encourage predators to switch to salmon (these hatchery fish should be barged to and through the Delta to the Bay – an action that should be funded by the water contractors). And, for the record, it ignores the fact that aquatic life is a mutual eating society and hatchery salmon and steelhead smolts prey on wild salmon fry.

The post concludes with “This month’s actions to amend the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriation Act may finally open the door to predator control programs in California – a hopeful step towards remedying a long-term problem that continues to spin out of control.” FISHBIO had better prepare for interviews on FOXNEWS.

(AUTHOR’S NOTE: predators including native fishes, birds, and marine mammals, as well as non-native fish like the Striped Bass and other state protected gamefish, take a huge toll on our native endangered salmon, steelhead, trout, smelt, and sturgeon. Predation is probably a primary causal factor as an indirect effect of water diversions on native fish. What is needed is a comprehensive recovery program like that on the Columbia River2. That program addresses the full spectrum predators like pikeminnow, terns, cormorants, marine mammals, and even non-native shad, stripers, smallmouth, walleye, and northern pike. However, unlike California erratic efforts to manage fisheries, the Columbia success-story, at least to date, can be attributed to progressive water management and hatchery-wild fish, science-based, recovery programs.)

Are Winter and Spring Run Salmon being protected below Shasta? Absolutely Not!

Posted on by

By now it is common knowledge that 95% of last year’s endangered Winter Run Chinook salmon production in Sacramento River below Shasta-Keswick Dams was lost due to low flows and high water temperatures in summer. Large losses also occurred to Spring Run and Fall Run salmon. As they did last year, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, US Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and California State Water Resources Control Board are managing water releases from Shasta Reservoir to ensure flows and water temperatures are adequate for Spring Run and Winter Run salmon spawning adults and eggs and alevins in gravel beds. This year they all assured us they had adequate water and cold water pool to maintain flow and cool water temperatures to protect the salmon in the upper spawning reach near Redding. They acknowledged there was insufficient water to protect the lower spawning reach below Redding (down to Red Bluff).

Already two months into the irrigation season and after a quarter million acre-feet of water released to water contractors (about 10% of Shasta storage and 25% of the cold water pool), Reclamation has determined they overestimated the available amount of cold water pool and their ability to maintain flow and water temperatures for salmon into the fall. Fearing the worst, storage releases have been reduced, and protective water temperature limits in the Redding spawning reach have been raised to conserve the cold water pool.

We only have to look at the State Board’s own science review of water temperature effects on salmon1  to see if water management in the spawning reach is protecting salmon.

  1. Mean Weekly Maximum Water Temperature (MWMT) should not exceed 13C (55.4F) – generally referred to as 56°F limit.
    1. Keswick Dam releases have been slightly higher than 56°F MWMT.
    2. Sacramento River compliance point above Clear Creek has MWMT of 60°F.
    3. Clear Creek upstream of mouth has a MWMT greater than 60°F.
    4. Sacramento River below Clear Creek at Anderson has MWMT OF 62°F.
  2. Daily maximum water temperature should not exceed 13.5-14.5°C (56-58°F) from fertilization through fry development.
    1. Keswick releases have reached 56°F.
    2. Sacramento River at compliance point above Clear Creek has reached 60.7°F.
    3. Sacramento River below Clear Creek at Anderson has reached 62°F.
  3. Optimal temperatures for egg incubation is <13°C (55°F).
    1. Exceeded throughout spawning reach.
  4. Water temperature when pre-spawning mortality of adult Chinook becomes pronounced in ripe adult salmon – 13-15.5°C (55-60°F)
    1. Exceeded throughout spawning reach.

Obviously the 56-60°F maximum daily water temperatures in the primary spawning reach above the mouth of Clear Creek at Redding are a concern. The State Board has raised compliance from 56°F to 58°F in attempt to conserve cool water through the summer. They have also reduced allowed Keswick releases from 8000-9000 cfs to 7500 cfs for the summer to save storage and the cold water pool. Reclamation is keeping Keswick releases near 7000 cfs.

Our concern is for pre-spawn ripe adult mortality and egg viability, as well as egg viability and embryo survival in redds. The agencies seem to think maximum daily temperatures near 60°F are ok, when they are not. Destroying this year’s egg production before the cold water pool is exhausted should not be the approach. Maximum temperatures should not exceed 56°F above Clear Creek. A maximum temperature of 58°F should be the absolute limit.

Far more important is the water temperatures in the redds, which tend to occur in shallow pool tailouts that are often warmer than average river temperatures. There must be a margin of protection for this difference. Redd temperatures should also be carefully monitored.

Clear Creek at Redding Tempratures

Hatchery Reform – Part 4

Posted on by

Previously… Part 1: Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Program Reform, Part 2: Hatchery Reform, & Part 3: Hatchery Reform

Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGS) Project D.3 Improve Trucking Techniques for Hatchery Salmon Background and Scientific Analysis December 4, 20131

The goal of this project is to improve trucking results especially at the Federal Coleman Hatchery on Battle Creek where there are poor hatchery returns and high straying rates from trucking… The survival of trucked and acclimated fish was substantially higher than that of fish released at the hatchery basin. The combined average trucking improvement from all the hatcheries was 3.49 to 1. The improvements ranged from a high of 71 to 1 at the Feather River hatchery to a low of 1.8 to 1 at Coleman. These figures mean trucking produces many thousands of additional adults for harvest or for return. But, the returns are still very low when compared to the losses that are avoided by trucking the fish around the rivers and the Delta. Studies of the mortality of juveniles migrating down the Sacramento River and through the Delta range up to 90%. Avoiding this loss indicates that the survival of trucked fish should be more in the order of 10 to 1 over basin released fish. Current science cannot explain this difference. More research is needed.

Clearly, their Exhibit 1 below depicts the benefits of trucking in avoiding the many risks in the up to 200 mile trip to the Ocean for Central Valley salmon. Trucking bypasses much of risk, but results in high straying rates. As described previously, barging and out-planting offer potential reduction in straying without giving up the huge advantage in survival and production.

Exhibit 1

Smolt Production from hatchery adults. Kathryn E. Kostow , Anne R. Marshall and Stevan R. Phelps. 2011.2 Naturally Spawning Hatchery Steelhead Contribute to Smolt Production but Experience Low Reproductive Success

Our data support a conclusion that hatchery summer steelhead adults and their offspring contribute to wild winter steelhead population declines through competition for spawning and rearing habitats.

There is considerable scientific study that indicates that the offspring of hatchery salmon and steelhead have lower reproductive success than wild native fish. Wild native fish have many general and locally adapted traits that are often missing in hatchery fish. For Central Valley salmon and steelhead, many of these native traits were lost long ago. Tribes in northern California hope to bring some traits back from wild salmon sent from California to New Zealand a hundred years ago. Recently, special traits involving greater growth and longevity of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout were restored to Pyramid Lake in Nevada from an outside source.

In the end, we can only hope that restored “wild” populations will begin the natural selection process in restoring traits that contribute to higher survival and production. At minimum, hatcheries should discontinue practices that degrade natural diversity and genetic inheritance, and should focus on improving diversity and traits that enhance the ability to survive Valley conditions now and in the future.

Hatchery Reform – Part 3

Posted on by

Previously… Part 1: Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Program Reform & Part 2: Hatchery Reform

Contingency Release Strategies for Coleman National Fish Hatchery Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon due to Severe Drought Conditions in 20141

“Substantial data are available to show that transporting Coleman NFH fall Chinook salmon to the west Delta would likely produce substantial increases in ocean harvest opportunity but will also result in a significant increased rate of straying as they mature and return to freshwater. The levels of straying anticipated are likely to compromise some of the hatchery objectives, including contributions to harvest in the upper Sacramento River and the ability to collect adequate broodstock at the Coleman NFH in future years, particularly 2016. Although the levels of straying anticipated from releasing fish into the West Delta are unfavorable, this release strategy may in fact represent the best possible option when faced with the possibility of losing the entire 2013 production year. In future years, under less extreme conditions, the standard protocol for releasing Chinook from the Coleman NFH will continue to be on-site releases into Battle Creek.”

There are two measures the Coleman Hatchery could adopt that would help to alleviate the straying problem associated with out-planting hatchery production. (1) Barging smolts to the Bay from Knights Landing area (above the mouth of the Feather River) would help imprint smolts on the Sacramento River. During barging, water is continually circulated through the fish tanks unlike during trucking. (2) Fry out-planting to the Yolo Bypass (Sacramento River source-water) would produce more natural smolts that would be less inclined to stray.

“The 1988-1992 period represents the most recent extended severe drought in the Central Valley. At that time the Service released nearly the entire production of fall Chinook to off-site locations to circumvent poor conditions in the lower Sacramento River and Delta. Conditions in the river and Delta were poorest during the spring of 1992 emigration season. Releases from the Coleman NFH into the West Delta in 1992 survived at a rate nearly 18 times higher than releases into Battle Creek, with a commensurate increase in ocean harvest. Owing to their markedly improved survival, West Delta releases from that same year also outperformed on-site releases in regards to returns to the hatchery. More than twice as many adult returns to the Coleman NFH in 1994 resulted from West Delta releases as compared to releases conducted into Battle Creek. If the Coleman NFH had released all production on-site in 1992 the hatchery would not have had sufficient returns of adults to meet production targets in 1994.”

Similar results are likely for the 2012-2015 drought. Despite these facts, there are many people who believe straying is unacceptable. These individuals hold out hope that “wild” Fall Chinook may someday recover in the Valley. To keep up such hopes we should adopt the two recommendations above, as well as continue to improve spawning and rearing habitats in the rivers. Our best hope for wild native genetic fish recovery is to incorporate natural habitats above the dams in trap-and-haul projects. At present, Fall Run Chinook and Steelhead are generally not being actively considered for these new programs.

“Implementation and Contingencies: The Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) have coordinated a schedule for the delivery (trucking) of hatchery production from the five state and federal hatcheries to acclimation net pens in the west Delta. However, if a precipitation event occurs in March or April, environmental conditions/criteria may be re-assessed and if none of the criteria above are forecast to occur, then groups of Coleman NFH fall Chinook salmon juveniles meeting appropriate size criteria for an on-site release (i.e., at or about 90/lb) may be released into Battle Creek per usual procedures. Further, criteria are expected to be assessed during the three following periods: mid-March, first of April, and mid-April. If criteria above are not met or expected to be met within a three week window, then on-site releases of appropriately sized fish will also occur shortly thereafter. Criteria may also be re-assessed one to two weeks prior to scheduled trucking dates and, again, if criteria above are not met or not predicted to be met within a three week window, then on-site releases of those groups of fish will be considered to instead occur on-site shortly thereafter. If during any of these assessments, existing/predicted conditions are expected to meet the criteria triggering consideration of the alternative release strategy, then preparations will begin, continue, or be implemented to truck appropriate groups of fish to the acclimation net pens in the west Delta as scheduled.”

These drought-year plans focus on early river releases and trucking to the west Delta. Both of these options will lead to poor survival. Instead, fry-fingerling out-planting to the Yolo Bypass, Sutter Bypass, and Bay-Delta should be considered for Jan-Feb. Barging to the Bay should be considered for Mar-Apr smolt releases. If trucking is retained, it should be further to the west (e.g., Collinsville or Pittsburg), not Rio Vista which is in the zone of influence of the South Delta Export pumps.

Hatchery Selection. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2011.2

“Our results support the finding outlined by others that even contemporary hatchery practices (e.g. using wild brood stock, pairwise matings) can produce fish that have lowered reproductive success in the wild. This evidence suggests that hatcheries may need to consider how to replicate the intricacies of natural breeding behaviors if they are to produce fish for supplementation programs that truly help recover endangered populations.”

In-hatchery replication of natural breeding behavior is another complicated subject worth further consideration in Central Valley hatchery programs. For more on the subject see: http://www.hatcheryandwild.com .

This post is part of a 4 part series on hatchery reform, check back into the California Fisheries Blog over the next week for Part 4.