Category Archives: Northern California

Sacramento River Salmon and Water Right Order 90-5

Posted on by

Operation of the Central Valley Project’s Shasta-Trinity Division is governed in part by the State Water Board’s Water Right Order (WRO) 90-5. Issued in 1990, this Order prescribes reasonable protection for Sacramento River salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon even under today’s conditions. The problem in recent years is that “requirements” are not being met by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Even in the past three non-drought years, including record wet 2017 and this year’s normal classification, Reclamation has not met requirements. This has caused significant impacts to salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon, which I have documented in prior posts. In the past three years, Reclamation has used its poor performance during the 2013-2015 drought and global warming as excuses to prioritize preserving water storage in Lake Shasta over meeting water temperature requirements for the Sacramento River under WRO 90-5. But while Reclamation has argued it must preserve Shasta Reservoir’s cold-water pool, Reclamation has maintained full deliveries to its Sacramento Valley contractors.

The State Board has a whole website dealing with the issue and problems dealing with Reclamation on the issue: (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/sacramento_river/ ).

In a March 14, 2018 letter to Reclamation, the State Board’s Deputy Director for Water Rights wrote to Reclamation on compliance with WRO 90-5,1 stating:

As you know, Order 90-5 requires Reclamation to maintain a daily average temperature (DAT) of 56 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in the Sacramento River at Red Bluff Diversion Dam during times when higher temperatures will be detrimental to fish, unless factors beyond Reclamation’s reasonable control prevent it from maintaining such temperatures. If Reclamation is unable to meet the temperature requirement at Red Bluff Diversion Dam throughout the temperature control season, Reclamation must develop an operations plan for approval by the Chief of the State Water Board’s Division of Water Rights (Deputy Director). The plan, which is required to be developed in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively fisheries agencies), and the U.S. Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), must designate a location upstream of Red Bluff Diversion Dam where the temperature requirement will be met. Order 90-5 includes specific monitoring and reporting requirements in addition to a general requirement (Condition 3) that Reclamation conduct such monitoring and reporting as is required by the Deputy Director to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of Order 90-5.

Given potential concerns with temperature management this year and the degraded status of the winter-run Chinook salmon population following the drought, Reclamation should be aware that operational changes may be needed beyond those proposed by Reclamation in their TMP to minimize impacts to winter-run Chinook salmon and avoid redirected impacts to other native species. Reclamation should acknowledge those needs in its TMP and provide for a process for continually evaluating conditions and operations to ensure that needed adjustments to temperature control operations are considered in a timely manner.

On April 2, 2018, Reclamation responded2:

This response not only states that Reclamation will not meet WRO 90-5 water temperature requirements at Red Bluff (river mile 243), but also that it will not meet these requirements at Balls Ferry (river mile 276), 30 miles upstream and half way to Keswick Dam. In fact, Reclamation to date has blatantly kept the promise of not meeting requirements (Figure 1), despite the fact that Shasta Reservoir is full of cold water. It is not even May yet!

The Coleman Fish Hatchery just stocked 4 million fall-run salmon hatchery smolts at Battle Creek upstream of Red Bluff, with another 2 million soon to follow.3 The recently released hatchery fish (and their wild counterparts) are being subjected to highly stressful conditions in their 200-mile journey to San Francisco Bay (Figures 2 and 3).

There is plenty of cold water in Shasta Reservoir (Figures 4 and 5) to meet the flow and temperature needs of salmon in the lower Sacramento River through the summer, as required by WRO 90-5. It would take a total release of about 6000 cfs from Shasta to meet WRO 90-5 requirements at this time just at Balls Ferry. Reclamation increased releases in the past several days to 5300 cfs to meet water contractor demands. The problem remains that this water is not reaching the lower river, where water temperatures now hit 70°F and exceed the WRO 90-5 limits of 68°F (Figure 3). It will take an added 2000-3000 cfs at Wilkins Slough to keep the lower river below its 68°F limit This added release would represent about one foot of Shasta Reservoir water-surface elevation per week (Figure 4).

Sacramento Valley contractors have been given a 100% water allocation. South of Delta San Joaquin CVP contractors have been allocated only 40%. Reclamation is fully capable of meeting WRO 90-5 requirements, as it did historically. It is up to the State Board to enforce the CVP permit requirements. Given the state of the salmon populations, there should be no compromise on the permit requirements.

Figure 1. Reclamation report on Sacramento River temperatures through 24 April, 2018. Source: https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/sactemprpt.pdf

Figure 2. Water temperature at Red Bluff (RM 243), April 2018. Red line is limit requirement in WRO 90-5. Source: cdec.

Figure 3. Water temperature at Wilkins Slough (RM 118) April 2018. WRO 90-5 limit is 68°F. Water temperatures in excess of 65°F are highly stressful to juvenile salmon. Source: cdec.

Figure 4. Shasta storage characterization for water at the dam’s temperature control device (TCD), March 23 – April 22, 2018. Source: https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/ShastaTCD2018.pdf (See link for updates.)

Figure 5. Shasta Reservoir storage as of April 24, 2018.
Source: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/ResDetail?resid=SHA

  1. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/sacramento_river/docs/2018/03142018_sac_temp_plan_ltr.pdf ↩
  2. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/sacramento_river/docs/2018/04022018response_90_5.pdf ↩
  3. Note that Coleman Fish Hatchery on Battle Creek normally stocks 12 million fall-run smolts, but brood year 2014 salmon did not provide sufficient spawners (eggs for hatchery), and the hatchery thus produced only 6 million smolts in 2017. Hopefully, the 2 million smolts that have not yet been released will be trucked to the Bay. ↩

Feeding Stripers Again

Posted on by

Oroville hatchery steelhead smolts being released into the lower Feather River near Boyd’s Pump in early February. CDFW photo.

State and federal agencies have begun stocking over a million steelhead smolts from Central Valley hatcheries into the Sacramento River and its tributaries.1 Fishing reports in the SacBee and other sources note that the annual stocking provokes a strong striper bite in the river, one of the more popular fisheries in the Central Valley.  The yearling smolts are the perfect food for stripers.

Shasta, Oroville, and Folsom reservoir releases are each at about 3000 cfs, low for mid-winter.  As a result, along with the record warm weather, river and Delta water temperatures (Figures 1-4) have been in the preferred range for striped bass feeding (55-65°F).

The federal Coleman hatchery near Redding released its steelhead smolts in January during high flows, before the warm weather arrived and stripers began feeding in earnest.  But at Thermalito Afterbay on the Feather River, the state is stocking a quarter of a million steelhead and feeding bass. And the feds are will be stocking a half-million endangered winter-run salmon hatchery smolts near Redding in February and March.

The striped bass will soon decimate the Feather River steelhead and will be well positioned for the annual April hatchery salmon smolt stocking season in April.  In the meantime, the stripers attracted by massive chumming will be knocking off the wild juvenile salmon and steelhead heading for the ocean.

Why do hatcheries continue to waste so many of the over 20 million salmonid smolts raised each year to mitigate for all the dams on Central Valley rivers?  Smolts cost more than $1 each to raise.

Hatchery managers and their partners need to barge hatchery steelhead and fall-run salmon smolts to the Bay.  Barging smolts would likely increase adult returns sharply in coming years.  Both steelhead and salmon populations are relatively homogeneous genetically, which reduces concerns about the effects of straying.  Coleman smolts should be barged from near Hamilton City.  Oroville smolts should be barged from Verona.  Nimbus smolts should be barged from Discovery Park.

If releases of hatchery smolts into the rivers are to continue, water managers need to at least provide pulsed flows from Shasta Reservoir to help the fish succeed in reaching the Bay and ocean.  Shasta storage is 106% of average.  A 5% allocation to pulsed flows would amount to approximately 140,000 acre-feet, enough for seven days of an 10,000 cfs extra flow to the Sacramento River.  Pulsed flows would also reduce water temperatures.  Hatchery managers should also not  release smolts into the rivers during warm spells that stimulate striper feeding.

State hatcheries plan some trucking of salmon smolts to the Bay-Delta this year, as they have done in past years.  Trucked fish should also be barged or at least taken to the Golden Gate, not just to Rio Vista.

In addition to barging and trucking, and pulsed flows, hatchery managers need to accelerate a pilot program to stock hatchery salmon fry into lower river and Delta floodplain habitats for rearing closer to the Bay.  In these habitats, fry would grow faster than their hatchery counterparts and get to the ocean quicker.

Anglers should take advantage of the great striper fishery.  But let‘s at minimum give the salmonid smolts some chance of reaching the ocean, so we can also once again have great salmon and steelhead fisheries.

 

Figure 1.  Water temperature in early February 2018 in the Sacramento River at the mouth of the Feather River

Figure 2.  Water temperature in early February 2018 in the Sacramento River below the mouth of the American River near Sacramento.

Figure 3.  Water temperature in the lower Sacramento River upstream of the mouth of the Feather River at Wilkins Slough

Figure 4.  Water temperature in the lower Sacramento River in the Delta near Rio Vista.

Another Salmon Hit for 2017

Posted on by

Shasta Dam releases were cut by a third during the first week of November, dropping water levels in the Redding salmon spawning reach by one to two feet (Figures 1 and 2). Delta CVP export demands declined, water temperatures dropped, and rain contributed modest flows from lower Sacramento tributaries, thus minimizing need for Shasta releases. Fall X2 flows are no longer are needed in the Delta. Might as well cut Shasta flows to save water for next year!

But somebody forgot that tens of thousands of spring-run and fall-run salmon that just finished spawning in the 50 miles of river below Shasta around Redding, Anderson, and Red Bluff! Will the water level drop hurt the fresh spawning redds? Yes, most certainly!

Figures 3 and 4 show depth use and optimum suitability for fall run Sacramento River spawners. The most used depth and optimum suitability for salmon spawning is between one and two feet. A one to two foot drop in water levels after spawning is not likely to create a good outcome. It would dewater many redds. It would lower flows and provide less oxygen, and more siltation in the redds that remained in the water, causing significant egg/embryo mortality of the eggs that survive the initial drop in the water level. These conditions could lead to a major loss of wild salmon production.

There is no valid reason for cutting the flows. Shasta storage is 3.15 million acre-ft, 120% of normal, near the all-time record of 3.25 maf for November. Who is guarding the henhouse? Where is that wonderful adaptive management federal and state agencies brag about?

Figure 1. River stage below Keswick Dam, Oct-Nov 2017.

Figure 2. River stage at Bend Bridge near Red Bluff, Oct-Nov 2017.

Figure 3. Habitat suitability and use of fall run salmon by water depth for spawning. (USFWS)

Figure 4. Habitat suitability and use of fall run salmon for spawning. (USFWS)

Enhancing Oroville Hatchery Salmon Contribution

Posted on by

In a recent post, I discussed ways to increase returns/survival of the Coleman (Battle Creek) Hatchery produced smolts released to the Sacramento River and the Bay. In this post I focus on ways to improve returns/survival of young salmon produced at the Oroville (Feather River) Hatchery. Trucking smolts to the Bay in drier water years and releasing spring flow pulses in wetter years remain the key management actions for increasing the contribution of hatchery salmon to coastal and river fisheries. Timing of releases is also critical. While overall returns are highly influenced by ocean conditions, active management by hatchery managers (trucking, barging, and timing of releases) and water managers (flow pulses) are important tools in maximizing the contribution of hatchery smolts to salmon populations.

In a prior post, I discussed general means of increasing hatchery contributions. In that post, I presented a summary of Oroville (Feather River) Hatchery returns for brood years 2008-2012 (Figure 1). Return rates were highest for brood years 2009-2011, with winter-spring normal-wet year designations (water years 2010-2012). Brood year 2008 and 2012 smolts were released in winter-spring of drought years.

In this post I provide information from earlier brood years. This information supports a more specific strategy to increase the Feather River hatchery program’s contribution to California fisheries. Below, I add a summary of returns from selected brood years (2002-2007).

Figure 1. Feather River hatchery fall-run salmon return rates by release method for brood years 2008-2012 (release years 2009-2013). Source of data: http://www.rmpc.org/

Brood Year 2002

Hatchery smolt returns for brood year 2002 were good, with hatchery releases in the above-normal water year 2003. The good adult return performance is generally attributed to good river and ocean conditions in 2003. A closer look at release return rates (Figure 2) shows generally good returns (>1%) reflecting the good river and Delta conditions in 2003 and good ocean conditions, at least in 2003. Some return rates were very good (>2%), including late April to mid-May returns for Delta and Bay (non-pen) releases. The higher return rates occurred coincident with a late-April through mid-May flow pulse (Figure 3). During the flow pulse, releases to the Delta had return rates in the same high range as Bay releases. Most of the river releases had low rates of return (<1.0%) before the flow pulse; while during the pulse, most rates were 1.0-1.7%.

Figure 2. Feather River hatchery fall-run salmon return rates by release method for brood year 2002 (release year 2003). Source of data: http://www.rmpc.org/

Figure 3. Water temperature and mean daily river flow in the lower Sacramento River channel of the Delta at Freeport in spring 2003. (USGS chart)

Brood Year 2003

Hatchery smolt returns for brood year 2003 were mediocre. The juvenile salmon were released in the below-normal water year 2004. The poor performance is generally attributed to poor river conditions in 2004 and poor ocean conditions in 2004-2006. A closer look at release return rates (Figure 4) shows few good returns (>1%); this reflects the poor river and ocean conditions. Some Bay-release return rates were good (>1%). The higher Delta-release and Bay-release return rates occurred with higher early-to-mid April flows (Figure 5). May river releases had near-zero rates of return. Overall, Bay-release return rates (all with net pens) far outperformed Delta and river releases, reflecting the advantage of bypassing poor river and Delta conditions after mid-April in 2004.

Figure 4. Feather River hatchery fall-run salmon return rates by release method for brood year 2003 (release year 2004).

Figure 5. Water temperature and mean daily river flow in the lower Sacramento River channel of the Delta at Freeport in spring 2004. (USGS chart)

Brood Year 2004

Hatchery smolt returns for brood year 2004 were poor despite the fact that juvenile releases took place in the above-normal water year 2005. The poor performance is generally attributed to poor ocean conditions in 2005-06. A closer look at release return rates (Figure 6) shows poor returns (<1%) reflecting the poor ocean conditions. Some return rates were extremely poor (<0.01%). Compared to good return rates of 1-4% in other years (see Figure 1), these rates are extremely low. For example, a normal annual release of 4 million smolts from the Oroville Hatchery would return 40,000 adults at 1% and only 400 at 0.01%. A closer look at Figure 6 release rates and water conditions in spring 2005 (Figure 7) indicates higher survival of releases into the Feather River and Bay during the May flow pulse, although Bay release rates (all net pens) averaged twice those of river releases.

Figure 6. Feather River hatchery fall-run salmon return rates by release method for brood year 2004 (release year 2005).

Figure 7. Water temperature and mean daily river flow in the lower Sacramento River channel of the Delta at Freeport in spring 2005. (USGS chart)

Brood Year 2005

Brood Year 2005 releases in the very wet year 2006 had return rates that were very poor for both Delta and Bay releases, reflecting very poor ocean conditions (no chart shown). Delta releases averaged 0.1 % return, with Bay releases (no pens) only slightly higher at 0.2 %. These low rates, along with similar low rates from other Central Valley hatcheries, contributed to the salmon fishery collapse of 2008.

Brood Year 2006

Hatchery smolt returns for brood year 2006 were poor (Figure 8). The poor performance is generally attributed to poor river, Delta, and Bay conditions in the 2007-2009 drought, and mediocre ocean conditions. Many return rates were very poor (<0.1%). Some of the higher returns came from earlier releases (April), when Delta inflow was higher and water temperatures were lower (Figure 9).

Figure 8. Feather River hatchery fall-run salmon return rates by release method for brood year 2006 (release year 2007).

Figure 9. Water temperature and mean daily river flow in the lower Sacramento River channel of the Delta at Freeport in spring 2007. (USGS chart)

Brood Year 2007

Hatchery smolt returns for brood year 2007 were generally poor (Figure 10). The poor performance is generally attributed to poor river, Delta, and Bay conditions in the 2008-2009 drought, and relatively poor ocean conditions, except in 2010. Many return rates were very poor (<0.1%). Some Bay pen release return rates were good (>1.0%). Most of the lower return rates came from May river releases under poor conditions (Figure 11). Bay pen release return rates were generally substantially higher than non-pen Bay releases during May.

Figure 10. Feather River hatchery fall-run salmon return rates by release method for brood year 2007 (release year 2008).

Figure 11. Water temperature and mean daily river flow in the lower Sacramento River channel of the Delta at Freeport in spring 2008. (USGS chart)

Summary and Conclusions

In summary, return rates from Oroville Hatchery fall-run salmon smolt releases vary greatly with ocean, river, Delta, and Bay conditions, within and among years. With up to 6 to 8 million fall-run smolts released each year, highly variable return rates result in highly variable catches of adult fish in coastal and river fisheries and spawner escapement to rivers and hatcheries. Good years can yield 1 or 2 percent total returns – producing 60,000-160,000 adult salmon returns. Poor years may yield only 0.1% or less – just 6,000-16,000 adult returns. Factors affecting the return rate include:

  1. Ocean conditions.
  2. River, Delta, and Bay conditions.
  3. Release location – Feather River, lower Sacramento River below mouth of Feather, north Delta, San Pablo/North Bay, and coastal bays north and south of San Francisco.
  4. Release method – trucked to river, Delta, or Bay boat ramps for direct release, trucked to acclimation pens in Delta or Bay, or trucked to feeding pens in coastal bays.
  5. Age/size of released smolts – February through July: early spring smolts, normal spring smolts (mid-April to mid-May), and advanced late spring smolts (mid-May to mid-June). Late spring releases are limited to the Bay because the rivers and Delta are too warm.
  6. Date of release – winter release of hatchery fry and fingerlings, spring release of smolts, late spring and summer release of advanced smolts.

The following actions by hatchery and resource managers can enhance returns to a limited extent, depending on conditions.

  1. Trucking to lower Sacramento River, Delta, Bay, or coastal bays.
  2. Acclimating trucked fish in pens prior to release.
  3. Timing releases to best available release conditions.
  4. Enhancing release conditions (e.g., flow pulses).
  5. Barging smolts to the Bay from the lower Feather River.

The most problematic situation for managers is improving returns in years with very poor ocean conditions (e.g., 2006). Under such conditions, trucking to Bay pens appears to be the best option and is the present management scheme. Barging smolts to the Bay may provide an added benefit. Under good ocean, Bay-Delta, and river conditions, releases to river and Delta locations with a supplemental flow pulse may provide good returns. Releases to lower Feather River locations generally provide poor returns regardless of conditions.

A further enhancement option is rearing hatchery fry in floodplain rice fields adjacent to the lower Feather River. Besides the obvious benefit of “natural” rearing, high growth would allow smolt release at least a month earlier than hatchery smolts. Such natural smolts could be trucked or barged to the Bay from near the rearing sites. A return rate of 5-10% from such smolts is conceivable, with the potential of contributing substantially to coastal and inland salmon fisheries.

Webber Lake

Posted on by

Webber Lake is a natural Sierra lake at 6500’ elevation north of Truckee. Located in the Little Truckee River headwaters, it was recently purchased and opened to the public by Tahoe-Donner Land Trust.1

Webber Lake was once renowned for big trout (privately stocked), but it is now a put-and-take fishery with a few holdovers (standard trout fishing regulations). The lake so far has no milfoil (boats and float tubes must be “certified” by staff). It has nice pond weed beds with abundant red shiners. It is a relatively small but deep (> 40’). The lake and valley are very quiet and pristine. Eagles, osprey, terns, and cranes are common.

The lake is situated off Hwy 89 on the way to Portola in a serene mountain valley. The adjacent mountains still have late summer patches of snow. It has a nice campground ($30; 35 widely spaced sites in woods next to lake) and day-use parking area (no fee). An RV camp will open next year.

The fishery is now managed by CDFW with mostly small 8-inch planter rainbow trout and holdovers from prior years’ stocking. I have not heard of any recent catches of browns or brookies, though in the past both were commonly stocked. Natural spawning creeks that can support wild trout flow into the lake.

It is sad to see this natural gem managed as another put-and-take trout lake like most of its neighbors (Davis, Frenchman, Gold, Boca, and Stampede, etc.). It could be managed as a wild trout lake, on the model that the Nature Conservancy now manages nearby Independence Lake.2 DFW has recently started stocking Webber Lake with Lahontan cutthroat, the native trout of the Truckee watershed. This suggests that management of the lake for wild native trout might be considered in the future.