What’s the Plan, Sam?

Posted on April 28, 2016 by Tom Cannon

Uncle Sam has the Trinity River Plan together for 2016 (Figure 1). Trinity Reservoir is not full (Figure 2) and may not fill, but it is a Wet water year under the Trinity River Record of Decision, and the fish are going to get a lot of water after the worst two storage years since the reservoir first filled in 1963.

I can’t say the same for the other parts of the Central Valley Project in northern California. Despite the fact that Shasta Reservoir will soon fill (4.5 million acre-feet) and is making flood releases, it is only a “Below Normal” year for the Sacramento Valley. But all the north- of- Delta water contractors will be getting 100% of their water allocations. ¹

What will the flows be below Shasta? What will be the flows at Wilkins Slough in Sacramento River in mid-Valley? What will Delta inflows, exports, and outflows be? Will the Delta have a wet June? What will the target water temperatures near Redding this summer be for Winter Run salmon? Will it be a 53°F summer target for the salmon for Red Bluff, or will Water Right Order 90-5 requirements be weakened as they has been over the past four years of drought?

The Sacramento River Plan is due at the end of April. It all hinges on whether Shasta will retain 2.2 million acre-ft of storage by the end of September (it will unless diversion demands are excessive). Will the feds and the state try to weaken the standard again? Will they accept poorer results than 2010 and 2011 (Figure 3)?

Figure 1. Trinity River Restoration Program Homepage.

Figure 2. Trinity Lake monthly storage level 1962-2016. (Source: CDEC)

Figure 3. Survival of Winter Run year classes below Shasta Dam from 1996-2015.² WR 90-05 water temperature standard for Sacramento River near Red Bluff was weakened during 2012-2015 drought. The severely weakened standard in 2014 and 2015 led to poor survival and virtual loss of two year classes.

Winter Run Salmon have taken the Brunt of Punishment from Reclamation’s Shasta-Trinity Drought Operations – what about 2016?

Posted on March 22, 2016 by Tom Cannon

In the last two summers, Winter Run salmon production was greatly reduced by Reclamation’s operations of the Shasta-Trinity Division of the Central Valley Project. While the drought brought on the problem and the specific damaging project operations, the damage done was in large part unnecessary. Furthermore, not all the blame should go to Reclamation – the State Water Board and resource agencies who condoned the damaging operations also deserve some of the dis-credit.

I wrote on the subject in some detail in November.¹ Resource and management agencies who were responsible for the failure of two year classes of Winter Run continue to blame the drought or demands of water contractors on Shasta-Trinity storage (Figure 1). Soon they will prepare a plan for the coming irrigation season. The plan will depend greatly on present and coming late-winter weather and hydrology. Given that Shasta Reservoir likely will fill this spring, the plan will likely revert to operations similar to those of 2011 and 2012, the last two years when the reservoir filled.

Figure 1. NMFS blames the drought.

State Board’s Thoughts

The State Board has been thinking carefully about what to do this summer for Winter Run salmon. ²

“With the loss of two out of three cohorts of endangered wild winter-run Chinook salmon (2014 and 2015), it is critical that we develop cold water pool resources in the winter and spring to support temperature management needed later in the year for this third wild winter run Chinook salmon year class.” Comment: irrigation deliveries to Sacramento River Settlement Contractors in April and May of the last two years were a major cause of the loss of the cold-water pool in Shasta. This in turn led to high egg mortality in the upper Sacramento River just below Shasta. While cutting the April and May deliveries would have alleviated the greater part of the problem in both years, it is not all of the problem or solution. Operational changes in the Shasta-Trinity Division could have eliminated many of the problems with little impact to irrigation deliveries, at least in 2015.
“These data reflect a 97.9% mortality of winter-run Chinook salmon eggs and fry on the upper Sacramento River in 2015.” Comment: Yes, the excessive water temperatures allowed by the State Board by relaxing their water quality standards caused the nearly complete loss of 2015 Winter Run production.
“Shasta operations: Implementation and Exception Procedures for End of September (EOS) Storage of 1.9 MAF or below – As per RPA Action I.2.2.C, if the EOS storage is at or below 1.9 MAF, then Keswick releases shall be managed to improve storage and maintained at 3,250 cfs unless hydrology improves.” Comment: Hydrology in the Central Valley has greatly improved with El Niño, yet releases were kept at 3250 cfs all winter, to the further detriment of the Winter Run, and were only increased well after Shasta exceeded the reservoir level at which Reclamation is supposed to release water to protect against floods. Young salmon need flow pulses to successfully migrate downstream from spawning and rearing areas.
“Given the substantial mortality of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook during the egg incubation and emergence periods in BYs 2014 and 2015, there is a need to conservatively manage for protection of the third of three winter-run Chinook cohorts, which will return to spawn upper Sacramento River beginning in summer of 2016. In the coming months, Reclamation and NMFS will be evaluating different actions to balance fishery needs, water supply, and water quality to develop a greater likelihood of protecting juvenile winter-run from BY 2016. As mentioned previously, any proposed action will require the cooperation of senior water rights holders on the Sacramento River and a system-wide operational approach to prioritize cold-water storage and operations at Shasta Lake.” Comment: After the failures in 2014 and 2015, we await the final plan for 2016.
“Under any hydrologic exceedence scenarios, there is a need to maximize water storage in Lake Shasta to comply with the December 15, 2015 adopted Order and also increase the likelihood of successfully implementing a water temperature management plan to benefit winter run Chinook salmon. The NMFS has prepared some initial concepts to achieve storage and temperature goals (Attachment 4) (Figure 2). In general, the proposed concept involves flow release as low as 2750 and 3250 until late May or initiation of a water temperature management plan.” Comment: The suggested NMFS improvements (“2016 adjustment”) would be a great benefit, particularly the 53°F DAT (daily average temperature) at Clear Creek in Redding (CCR). Obviously, 53°F would be a substantial improvement over last year’s allowed 58°F. The change is reasonably conservative given the present state of the population. The 55°F 7-day average daily maximum option leaves too much room for error, such as a day of lethal temperatures. Given the circumstances, we can only hope that NMFS recommends the more conservative approach, as it will also greatly help downstream habitat conditions at Balls Ferry and Jellys Ferry, which would further benefit Winter Run.

Figure 2. NMFS considerations for the coming summer water temperature standard in the Sacramento River near Redding.

Present Prognosis

Nearly half way through the water year it is safe to say there is a very reasonable chance there will be adequate water resources to save the Winter Run salmon this year. Shasta storage is sharply rising (Figure 3). The reservoir will likely fill this spring for the first time since 2012. The snow pack is also above average.

Figure 3. Shasta Reservoir storage water years 2011-2015. (Data source: CDEC)

Recommendations

Reasonable water temperature criteria for 2016 are:

Maximum daily average water temperature in Keswick Reservoir release – 53F.
Maximum daily average water temperature at Red Bluff – 58F.

Both these criteria were achieved in 2011 and 2012 (Figures 4 and 5), the last two years when Shasta Reservoir filled.

Figure 4. Water temperature (daily average) in Sacramento River at Red Bluff – April 2011 to November 2013.

Figure 5. Daily average water temperature of Keswick Reservoir release – April 2011 to March 2013.

More Information

For more information on saving the Winter Run Chinook Salmon in the Sacramento River and Delta see the following sources:

http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/2015-long-term-operations-biological-opinions-annual-science-review-review-materials-supplemental

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/stories/2015/23_12232015_winter_chinook_math.html

http://mavensnotebook.com/2015/12/15/conserving-chinook-salmon-at-the-southern-end-of-their-range-challenges-and-opportunities/

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/Central_Valley/Water%20Operations/ Delta%20Operations%20for%20Salmonids%20and%20Sturgeon/ DOSS%20WY2016/2016.02.09_final_doss_notes.pdf

Saving Shasta, Trinity and Klamath Salmon in 2016

Posted on March 10, 2016 by Tom Cannon

Salmon in the Sacramento, Klamath, and Trinity rivers depend on maintaining cold water releases from Shasta and Trinity reservoirs through the summer and early fall. Major die-offs of salmon on the lower Klamath and lower Sacramento below Shasta have occurred under conditions of low flows and high water temperatures. In summer and fall of dry years, flows and water temperature cannot be maintained if there is too little reservoir storage, especially the cold-water portion in the bottom of the reservoirs.

The biggest overall threat is that one of the reservoirs will run out of cold water in September and October when salmon eggs and embryos are in the gravel spawning beds in the rivers. For Winter Run salmon in the Sacramento, eggs are in the gravel from June through August. For Klamath-Trinity and Sacramento Spring Run salmon, eggs are in the gravel beginning in September or October; Fall Run eggs in each river are in the gravel beginning in November. In addition to the high water temperatures that can kill any of the eggs, flow reductions in the Sacramento in September and October can also dewater spawning beds after initial spawning in higher flows has occurred.

Government agencies have typically blamed large scale mortality events on the more than a decade-long series of droughts and competition between irrigation demands and water for salmon. But better water management of the Shasta and Trinity divisions of the Central Valley Project by the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal and state agencies can reduce mortality. Massive salmon die-offs in the Klamath, such as the one that occurred in 2002, have been avoided by targeted late summer and early fall cold-water releases from Trinity Reservoir during the past two multiyear droughts. However, failures of the 2014 and 2015 Winter Run broods below Shasta on the Sacramento River were not avoided.

Salmon runs continue to decline during droughts, with hatcheries making up a greater proportion of the runs in both river systems. On the Trinity, wild Spring and Fall Run salmon are at only 32% and 17%, respectively, of restoration program goals.¹ All the Sacramento runs are down, especially the Winter Run, and prognosis for future years is poor based on broodyear failure the past two years. Ocean stocks of Klamath-Trinity and Central Valley salmon are also down this year, which will likely lead to severe sport and commercial fishery restrictions.²

So what measures are in the works for 2016 for protecting salmon? Depending on what precipitation falls in the remainder of winter and this spring, there has been speculation of further restrictions on irrigation deliveries and water supplies, and the allocation of more colder water below the dams for salmon.

In addition to the many actions I identified in previous posts,³ there are several further options that should be considered for 2016 to benefit salmon:

The Klamath-Trinity system should get more emphasis because of potential risks to its salmon, and because it has not fared as well as the Sacramento system in the latest multiyear drought. Shasta Reservoir has reached 60% of capacity as of 1 March (Figure 1). Trinity Reservoir has reached only 40% (Figure 2). This summer, less water could be delivered to the Sacramento River from Trinity Reservoir via Whiskeytown Reservoir to the Sacramento River below Shasta Reservoir than last summer (Figure 3). Water delivered through Whiskeytown is warmer than water delivered from Shasta; reducing deliveries through Whiskeytown would thus save Trinity storage and the cold-water pool supplies in both Trinity and Shasta reservoirs.
Increasing the relative contribution of Trinity Reservoir to the Sacramento River in April and May (and reducing the summer contribution) would save the cold-water pool supplies in both Trinity and Shasta reservoirs. April-May releases from Whiskeytown Reservoir to the Sacramento River below Shasta are colder (<53°F) than the summer releases (58-59°F) (Figure 4) that threaten Winter Run salmon.
Reducing hydropeaking power production during summer would reduce the demands on the cold-water pools. Much of the water released from Shasta, Trinity, and Whiskeytown reservoirs in summer is released in the hot afternoon hours for hydropower production peak demands, leading to warmer waters in Keswick and Lewiston reservoirs. To ensure water that released from these two reservoirs is not too warm for salmon in the rivers below, Bureau of Reclamation operators should optimize daily water deliveries through powerhouses for water temperatures rather than for the value of power.

Figure 1. Shasta Reservoir storage March 2014 to March 2016. (Capacity is 4,552,000 AF.)

Figure 2. Trinity Reservoir storage March 2014 to March 2016. (Capacity is 2,447,650 AF.)

Figure 3. Water deliveries to Whiskeytown Reservoir from Trinity Reservoir via Lewiston Reservoir outlet to Carr powerhouse March 2014 to March 2016. Water then proceeds to Keswick Reservoir immediately below Shasta Reservoir on the Sacramento River. Approximately 100-200 cfs of these flows is also released to Clear Creek, which flows into the Sacramento River below Redding.

Figure 4. Water temperature in Spring Creek Powerhouse June to September 2015.

An Opportunity Missed?

Posted on March 4, 2016 by Tom Cannon

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has released 400,000 Winter-Run Chinook salmon smolts from the Livingston Stone Fish Hatchery into the Sacramento River near Redding. But according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Steve Martarano, “The release won’t occur until we see a significant increase in density and flow in the Sacramento River. It’s based on a rain event.” ¹

Last year Reclamation released some water from Shasta for the “event” (Figure 1). This year there was no such an “event” (Keswick release) (Figure 2). The real question is whether they missed the “real” flow event in January (Figure 3) when storm flows from Cow, Cottonwood, and Battle Creeks downstream of Redding brought flows near Red Bluff to 10,000-40,000 cfs. Why didn’t Reclamation and the Service coordinate release of water from Keswick and the salmon smolts at Redding in late January? Shasta inflows in January reached 40,000 cfs.(Figure 4.) Such a release would have also helped the wild salmon emigrate from their spawning reach at Redding to San Francisco Bay and the Ocean.

Figure 1. Keswick Reservoir releases into the upper Sacramento River near Redding in winter 2015.

Figure 2. Keswick Reservoir releases into the upper Sacramento River near Redding in winter 2016.

Figure 3. Upper Sacramento River flow near Red Bluff winter 2016.

Figure 4. Shasta Reservoir inflow during January storms.

http://www.orovillemr.com/environment-and-nature/20160204/400000-winter-run-salmon-planned-for-sacramento-river-release ↩

More on Mark-Selective Steelhead Fisheries

Posted on February 10, 2016 by Don Beyer with Prologue by Tom Cannon

Don Beyer and many others are concerned with the recent movement to limit hatchery production and mark-selective fisheries of Steelhead in the Puget Sound and Columbia River regions in Washington State. At the center of the debate have been proposals to eliminate hatchery programs on rivers with wild Steelhead.¹ Typically, WA Steelhead fisheries focused on winter hatchery fish (adipose fin clipped), with catch-and-release of wild non-clipped fish in winter and spring. In recent years, popular mark-selective and wild catch-and-release fisheries have been shut down on rivers in WA with seemingly healthy populations of wild Steelhead.² Will NMFS extend these strategies to California?

Recent catch of a hatchery Steelhead in the lower American River in Sacramento. (Photo by T. Cannon)

Marking of Hatchery Fish for Selective Fisheries

by Don Beyer

Salmon and steelhead hatcheries have been in existence for decades along the Pacific coast. The purpose of these hatcheries has been to maintain or improve fisheries for sport, commercial, and tribal interests. They are also a key factor in providing mitigation for habitat losses due to water resource projects such as dams, urbanization, land use alterations, and pollution which have negatively impacted wild fish populations.

Hatchery fish are utilized for food consumption by not only humans, but by marine mammals (e.g., Orcas, seals/sea lions, porpoise/dolphins), birds (bald eagles/ospreys/herons), and other fish (e.g., bull trout), many of which are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal Act, or other similar Federal acts. The sport fishing industry that has developed over decades around fish resulting from hatchery programs also has a very large economic impact involving millions of dollars.

As a result of the ESA and its efforts to protect non-hatchery raised salmon or steelhead, it was difficult for fishermen to distinguish between hatchery and non-hatchery fish and it appeared that harvest would need to be strictly curtailed or eliminated. To resolve this challenge, hatchery fish were required to be clearly “marked” so that they could be differentiated from non-hatchery fish. The most widely adopted approach has been to remove the adipose fin (a small non-functional fin near the tail of the fish) in juvenile fish before they leave the hatchery to migrate to the ocean. In this manner, if a fisherman caught a salmon or steelhead with an intact adipose fin, they were required to carefully release the fish (even if the season was open for that species). This approach (termed “selective fishery”) was to allow fishermen to continue fishing while protecting ESA-listed salmon or steelhead. Without this approach, the sport, commercial, and likely tribal fisheries would have ceased to exist. It took many years in all Pacific coast states, along with the efforts of many people, to get the selective fishery approved and implemented.

Other approaches are also being undertaken to minimize or eliminate interactions of ESA and non-ESA listed fish. For example, in the past, steelhead from Washington state hatcheries were released at the hatchery and often at other locations either upstream, downstream, or even other river systems. To minimize potential interactions with ESA-listed steelhead, this practice has been minimized to releases only at the hatchery. This takes advantage of the exceptional homing abilities of adult hatchery fish to return to their place of origin (i.e., the hatchery), thus reducing the interactions with non-hatchery fish.

Without the adipose-marking of fish, current fisheries would not be able to continue because fish protected under ESA could not be differentiated from hatchery fish. As such, a major food source for humans and other ecosystem components (e.g., those mentioned above) would cease to exist along with the loss of a major industry dependent on hatchery production. Without selective fishing, the only possibility for a return to a harvestable level of fish would be for ESA-listed species to recover to a level of sustainability that includes harvest. This is a long-term undertaking and may not be possible in some areas where the habitat would not sustain recovery. However, in some situations such as the Columbia River system, progress is being made through recovery of habitat, improvements in hydroelectric and hatchery programs, and harvest restrictions. On the latter, the selective fishery approach has allowed a very viable sport, commercial, and tribal harvest to continue.

California Fisheries Blog

Science, Management, Issues, Problems, and Solutions

Category Archives: Northern California