Category Archives: Steelhead

WaterFix will devastate more than just Salmon

Posted on by

Dave Vogel and I are contributing a series of posts on the potential effects of the WaterFix Twin Tunnels Project on Delta fishes. Our focus to date has been on salmon. In this post, I focus on the “other” fishes of the Bay-Delta that will be harmed by WaterFix.

Striped Bass (non-native gamefish)

Striped bass will be devastated by WaterFix tunnel intakes located on the lower Sacramento River. The main spawning run of striped bass is in spring in the lower Sacramento River from near Colusa down to the tidal Delta. Eggs and larvae are buoyant and are carried by currents to the tidal Delta and Bay. Nearly all the eggs and larvae must pass the tunnel intakes. The original Peripheral Canal (circa 1980) had a provision to limit diversions during the striped bass spring spawn. The Vernalis Adaptive Management Program (VAMP) from the late 1990s to the late 2000s protected striped bass in spring with higher Delta inflows and reduced exports (generally a limit of 1500 cfs from mid-April to mid-May). The D-1485 Delta standards had a limit on exports through June (6000 cfs). The proposed WaterFix would have spring exports up to 15,000 cfs (9000 from tunnels and 6000 from existing South Delta pumps). Those eggs and larvae that pass the tunnel intakes would be subject to the pull of south Delta exports without the benefit of the extra flow taken at the tunnel intakes.

Longfin Smelt (native)

Longfin smelt will suffer from reduced flows in the winters of drier years. The WaterFix will take a quarter to a third of sporadic uncontrolled winter flow pulses that support the spawn of longfin smelt in drier years. The lower flows will force longfin to spawn further upstream in the Delta where they are vulnerable to central and south Delta exports. The longfin population declines in drier year sequences; the WaterFix will add to downward population pressure.

Delta Smelt (native)

A recent post by Moyle and Hobbs at UC Davis suggests Delta smelt will be better off under WaterFix:

“The status quo is not sustainable; managing the Delta to optimize freshwater exports for agricultural and urban use while minimizing entrainment of delta smelt in diversions has not been an effective policy for either water users or fish.” Comment: So allowing the water projects to take more water will help? Delta inflow and outflow are the key factors in Delta smelt population dynamics – both will be negatively affected by WaterFix.

Moyle and Hobbes point out “reasons to be optimistic about Waterfix,” as follows:

  • “Entrainment of smelt into the export pumps in the south Delta should be reduced because intakes for the tunnels would be upstream (of) current habitat for delta smelt and would be screened if smelt should occur there.” Comment: The existing south Delta intakes will continue to take spring-summer water (and smelt) from the Delta in similar amounts as in the past. However, smelt in the south Delta will not have the benefit of the inflow taken by the proposed tunnels. Smelt will also be more likely to spawn near or upstream of the tunnel intakes. Screens on the tunnel intakes would not help save larval smelt and would be minimally effective for adult smelt.

  • “Flows should be managed to reduce the North-South cross-Delta movement of water to create a more East-West estuarine-like gradient of habitat, especially in the north Delta.” Comment: If outflow remains low or becomes even lower, the low salinity zone will more frequently move further into the Delta. The north Delta already has a strong gradient – allowing the gradient to move further upstream into the Delta will have adverse effects. Circulation in the south Delta will remain poor, and the south Delta will continue to experience reverse flows, because south Delta exports will continue. The south Delta will lose the benefit of inflow taken by the tunnels.

  • “Large investments should be made in habitat restoration projects (EcoRestore) to benefit native fishes, including delta smelt.” Comment: Delta smelt are totally dependent on pelagic (open-water) habitats, but few EcoRestore projects will improve such habitats. Salinity, water temperature, turbidity, tidal-flow dynamics, water quality, and nutrients are by far the most important factors controlling smelt population dynamics.

Steelhead (native)

Steelhead, much like salmon, are affected by ancillary changes in reservoir storage and releases, river flows, Delta inflow and outflow, water temperatures, and turbidities. But the greatest threat to steelhead, as for salmon, is from the three large intakes and their screen systems, which will adversely affect young steelhead passing on their way to the ocean.

Splittail (native)

Splittail were once on the endangered species list. Today, splittail numbers, especially for recruitment of juveniles, are way down, well below the numbers occurring at the time of their listing. Splittail from the Bay-Delta migrate upstream into river floodplains upstream of the Delta to spawn in spring. The three largest floodplain areas are in the Yolo Bypass, Sutter Bypass, and the lower San Joaquin River wildlife areas. The Sutter group will be at high risk to fry-stage entrainment/impingement at the tunnel intakes. The San Joaquin group will have a continued risk to south Delta exports, a risk made worse by the diversion of inflow from the Sacramento River into the tunnels.

American shad (non-native gamefish)

American shad migrate from the ocean to Valley rivers to spawn in the spring. Eggs, larvae, and fry from the major spawning rivers of the Sacramento Valley must pass the tunnel intakes in the north Delta. Like the striped bass, these lifestages of American shad will be devastated by entrainment and impingement at the tunnel intakes.

Pacific Lamprey

Like salmon and steelhead, Pacific lamprey migrate from the ocean to spawn in Valley rivers during the spring. Young larval lamprey would pass the tunnel intakes on their migration back to the ocean. Because they are weak swimmers they would be highly vulnerable to impingement or predation at the screens.

Native Minnows and Suckers

Many species of native minnows and suckers migrate upstream from the Delta to Valley rivers to spawn in spring and summer. Their young must pass the tunnel intakes on their return to the Delta, and thus will be at risk to entrainment/impingement at the tunnel screens.

The Delta smelt Summer Townet Index is at record low numbers in recent years including the wet year 2017 index.

The striped bass Summer Townet Index remains near record low in 2017.

 

Are Hot Rivers in Summer the New Norm?

Posted on by

The much anticipated salmon season opener on the Sacramento River will be a bust, just as it was last year.

USA Fishing reports on July 15, 2017: “The Central Valley rivers open to salmon fishing on Sunday July 16th. The good news is that reservoirs are full and we have cold water and much higher releases than we have seen (for the opener) in years.”

The sad news is that despite record inflow to reservoirs, the “new norm” in the lower Sacramento River is low water, high water temperatures, and no salmon during summer. This “new norm” is a consequence of the fact that federal and state regulators have changed the rules as they are applied on the ground, with little or no public input. Federal EPA and State water quality standards are no longer being enforced. The summer 68oF limit for the lower Sacramento River between Red Bluff and the Delta no longer applies. The “new norm” is 72-75oF (22-24oC), as is evident in Figures 1 and 2, below. This new norm is in direct contrast to 2006 and 2011, the last two wet years (Figures 3 and 4). The apparent reason is an absolute prioritization of using Shasta Reservoir storage for water contractors and winter-run salmon. Fall-run salmon, the backbone of ocean and river salmon fishing alike, no longer rate protection. Shasta Reservoir is just about full, but the Bureau of Reclamation is using none of the water stored there to maintain water temperatures in 200 miles of the lower Sacramento River.

Why are flows and water temperatures important in the lower 200 miles of the Sacramento River? In spring, millions of upper river hatchery and wild salmon and steelhead smolts pass through the lower river on their way to the ocean. Also in spring, white and green sturgeon spawn and rear in the lower river. Adult winter-run and spring-run salmon also pass upstream through the lower river during the spring on their way to upper river and tributary spawning grounds. In summer, adult fall-run salmon begin their upstream run in July, with a peak in August-September. The lower river is home to rearing juvenile salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon all summer; high water temperatures and low flows are detrimental to their survival and favorable to predators. High water temperatures and low flows in the river also increase the likelihood of higher water temperatures and lower flows through the Delta to the Bay, leading to poorer survival of longfin smelt, Delta smelt, and other native Delta fishes.

Figure 1. Water temperature (daily high and low) and flow at Wilkins Slough of lower Sacramento River, June-July 2017. Source for all figures: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/

Figure 2. Water temperature (daily high and low) and flow at Verona of lower Sacramento River, June-July 2017.

Figure 3. Water temperature (daily high, median, and low) and flow at Wilkins Slough of lower Sacramento River, June-July 2011.

Figure 4. Water temperature (daily high and low) and flow at Wilkins Slough of lower Sacramento River, June-July 2006.

Shasta River Fall Run Chinook Salmon – Status and Future

Posted on by

In an April 10, 2017 post, I described a sharp decline in the Klamath River salmon runs after the 2012-2015 drought. In that post, I also noted the high relative contribution of the Shasta River run to the overall Klamath run, especially in the past six years. The recent upturn in the Shasta River run and its greater contribution to the overall Klamath run is likely a consequence of efforts by the Nature Conservancy and others to restore the Big Springs Complex of the upper river near Weed, Ca.

The Shasta run has increased measurably since 2010 (Figure 1). Cattle were excluded from Big Springs Creek in 2009, and flows, water temperature and juvenile Chinook densities were markedly improved in and below Big Springs Creek.1 The improved juvenile salmon production likely contributed to greater runs from 2011-2015 and to a higher than expected 2016 run given the 2013-2014 drought (Figure 2). The improvement in the Shasta run bodes well for the Shasta and Klamath runs (Figures 3 and 4). The Shasta run recovery is key to sustaining and restoring the Klamath run and coastal Oregon and California fisheries that depend on the Klamath’s contribution. The Shasta River’s spring-fed water supply comes from the Mt. Shasta volcanic complex. This water supply is resilient to drought and climate-change. The reliability of the Shasta River’s water supply makes the Shasta River’s contribution to Klamath salmon runs particularly important.

Restoration of the Shasta River and recovery of its salmon and steelhead populations has only just begun. Further improvements to the Big Springs Complex, especially to its spring-fed water supply (Figure 5) and to its spawning and rearing habitat, are planned. There is also much potential to improve habitat above the outlet of Big Springs Creek, both in the Shasta River and Parks Creek. There is further potential for habitat restoration in downstream tributaries (e.g., Yreka Creek and Little Shasta River). Reconnection of the upper Shasta River above Dwinnell Reservoir to the lower river would restore many miles of historic salmon and steelhead producing habitat.2 These improvements could make it is possible for the Shasta River to once again produce over half the “wild” (non-hatchery) salmon of the Klamath River.

Figure 1. Fall-run Chinook salmon escapement (spawning run) estimates for the Shasta River from 1978 to 2016. Data Source: CDFW GrandTab.

Figure 2. Mean annual Shasta River streamflow (cfs) as measured at Yreka, CA. Source: USGS. Designated water-year types in this figure are the author’s estimates.

Figure 3. Spawner-recruit relationship for Shasta River. Escapement estimates (log10X – 2 transformed) are plotted for recruits by escapement (spawners) three years earlier. Year shown is recruit (escapement) year. The number is the year that fish returned to the Shasta River to spawn. The color of the number depicts the water-year type in the Shasta River during the year the recruits reared. The color of the circle depicts the water-year type in the Klamath River during the year the recruits reared. Blue is for Wet water-year types. Green is for Normal water-year types. Red is for Dry water-year types. Example: 90 depicts fish that returned to the Shasta River as adult spawners in 1990. These fish were spawned in 1987 and reared in winter-spring 1988. The red number shows that the 1988 rearing year was a Dry water year in the Shasta River; the red circle shows that the 1988 rearing year was a Dry water year in the Klamath River. Note very poor recruits per spawner in 1990-1993 drought period, compared with relatively high recruits per spawner from 2011-2016, even though the latter period included the 2012-2015 drought.

Figure 4. Estimates of fall-run Chinook salmon escapement for the Klamath River, 1978-2016. Data Source: CDFW GrandTab.

Figure 5. Examples of Shasta River monthly average flows as measured at the lower end of Shasta Valley. Streamflow is low from late spring through summer because of surface and groundwater irrigation demands. October flows are higher because the irrigation season (and season of diversion under some water rights) ends on September 30. Data source: USGS Yreka gage.

Stocked Trout Fisheries

Posted on by

A recent paper in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management1 describes a nationwide 20% decline over the past two decades in sport fishing for trout.  The trout angling population is getting older, while the number of young recruits is declining.  With shrinking revenues from license sales, trout anglers and agencies are concerned about potential reductions in the numbers of trout stocked and the quality of popular trout fisheries supported by stocking.

Though the researchers found little relationship between the numbers of trout stocked and catch rate (within normal levels of stocking and catch rates), they did find a positive relationship between angler satisfaction and catch rate in the Virginia lakes and rivers they studied.  They also found greater satisfaction with greater size of trout caught.  Average catch rates of stocked trout were approximately one per hour.  Total angling hours were much higher for lakes than streams primarily because of ease of access and less need for equipment.

Because numbers of trout stocked were not significantly related to catch or angler satisfaction, the researchers suggested reductions in stocking rates to counteract longterm losses in license revenues.   Because this would seem counter-productive to sustaining angler interest and effort, they suggested:

“Beyond catch metrics, we believe that demystifying the programs by increasing transparency and increasing the communication of stocking densities and the persistence of catch rates—two common concerns—may increase retention and possibly lead to the recruitment of new anglers. We encourage information exchange between agencies and their anglers.”

This past June, I wrote a post on Lake Davis, a popular Sierra trout fishery.  In that post, I spoke of perceived angler dissatisfaction with low catch rates.  Rates had fallen well below one-per-hour in recent years, into the range where angler satisfaction was very low in the above-described research paper.  I suggested that the poor catch rate was possibly due to low stocking rates, although other factors were possible (e.g., drought-related low water levels).  This fall, I have noticed a sharp uptick in the catch rate at Lake Davis and a corresponding increase in angler satisfaction and effort.  Catch rates from both shore and boat, for both bait and fly anglers, increased into the 0.5 to 1 fish per hour range, with the large size of the fish pushing angler satisfaction (and seasonal effort) to near maximum.  Given the large average size of the trout, I assume the catch rate increase is not due to higher stocking rates, because fish are usually relatively small when they are stocked.  A reasonable hypothesis is that warm water in Lake Davis, due to low water levels and lack of snowmelt this past spring and summer, probably put fish off the bite.

A final thought on declining numbers of licensed anglers.  While CDFW does sponsor activities that promote angling for young people (see photo below), there is no general program promoting efforts, projects, and specific fisheries around the state.  A more comprehensive program designed to increase angling participation, such as the programs offered by other states (e.g. Michigan, Oregon, Texas, etc.), would help to increase angler recruitment.  I like Michigan’s weekly fishing report and its fishing tips reports.  CDFW needs to generate more excitement with up-to-date news, tips, maps, and techniques.  Biologists, wardens, and creel census clerks collect a lot of information that they could share through volunteers or the CDFW blog.  CDFW could also post, link or summarize reports from guides and shops (while giving appropriate credits).  CDFW could also report on how it is managing fisheries around the state how these fisheries are faring.  One topic of interest to many anglers I know is a new fishery that has appeared in the American River, apparently as a consequence of stocking trout (steelhead smolts) from the Battle Creek hatchery (Redding) in the American River (see photos below).

Fishing in the City event sponsored by CDFW. Young people love these events, but the program needs to follow up with other elements to sustain their interest.

Fishing in the City event sponsored by CDFW. Young people love these events, but the program needs to follow up with other elements to sustain their interest.

Are these American River fish steelhead from the Battle Creek Hatchery?

Are these American River fish steelhead from the Battle Creek Hatchery?

Bringing Back the Klamath Salmon

Posted on by
Restored tributary spring creek of Scott River, Klamath River tributary, with abundant juvenile Coho salmon. (See YouTube video for underwater view of countless juvenile Coho salmon rearing in this creek.)

Restored tributary spring creek of Scott River, Klamath River tributary, with abundant juvenile Coho salmon. (See YouTube video for underwater view of countless juvenile Coho salmon rearing in this creek.)

A recent post on the KCET website by Alastair Bland spoke of efforts to save salmon on the Klamath River. I add my perspective in this post.

I have been involved in the Klamath salmon restoration on and off for nearly 30 years. In my experience, the runs of salmon and steelhead keep declining because not enough gets done and because there is lack of progressive management. The Klamath is a big watershed (Figure 1). I tried to sit in the middle of one element of the process a few years ago on the Scott and Shasta Rivers, the Klamath’s two main upstream salmon tributaries below Iron Gate Dam. I found there were not just two sides involved in conflict, but really five: tribes, government agencies, ranchers-landowners, a power company, and environmentalists. There were even sides within sides. The four tribes often did not agree or work together. The four fish agencies often could not agree. The two states did not always agree, and individual state agencies disagree, resulting in conflicting water rights, water use, and water quality regulations. Counties and cities disagree. Neighboring Resource Conservation Districts differ in approaches. Many citizens want a new state carved from the two states. Some landowners love salmon and beavers, and others do not. Then there are the big watershed owners: private timber companies, US Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management that manage forest watersheds differently under a wide variety of regulations and approaches that often do not protect salmon. I watched county sheriffs try to lead landowners in policy and enforcement, with a willingness to enforce vague trespassing rules on rivers and creeks. I watched as State Water Resources Control Board members toured watersheds and met with tribes and local leaders in an effort to resolve conflicts in over-appropriated watersheds. I watched as CDFW staff tried to enforce stream channel degradation and water diversion regulations on private and public lands.

While some progress gets made, it is too slow to save the native fish. Coho and spring-run Chinook are hanging on but slowly going extinct. Fall-run Chinook are supported by hatcheries but still declining. The iconic Klamath and Trinity Steelhead are silently and slowly fading away.

For decades, the various sides have waged war over water, dams, and property rights. The watersheds and fish have suffered as “Rome” burned. Some folks have worked hard to save what is left (e.g., Blue Creek watershed). Over the decades many battles have been waged and much compromised. Lawsuits abound. Commercial and sport fishing get constrained more and more each year. Fewer California residents make the trip north to fish the Klamath each year.

There remain many intractable problems that may never be resolved. The upper watershed in Oregon, mainly around Klamath Lake and the Sprague River, suffers greatly from agricultural development and attendant water quality issues that are unlikely to go away. Much watershed damage has already occurred from timber cutting, urban and agricultural development, roads, fires, and floods. Global warming will continue to reduce rainfall and essential over-summer snowpack throughout the Klamath watershed.

Despite the grim outlook, I have found there are a host of potential actions that can help even before we get to the long-awaited four-dam removal. We need to stop the bleeding, save the patient, and start recovery. Many of the treatments and tools are already available. Some are willingly provided by Mother Nature (e.g., water and beavers). There are many diverse efforts and treatments already underway on a small scale that can be expanded and coordinated. Lessons learned can be better shared.

image2To get the process moving faster, I offer the following recommendations:

  1. Move toward making the Klamath tributaries, the Salmon, Scott, and Shasta rivers, salmon sanctuaries like Blue Creek on the lower Klamath, an effort being coordinated by the Yurok Tribe. Allow the Karuk Tribe to coordinate on the Salmon River (give them a grant to do this). On the Scott and Shasta Rivers, allow ranchers to coordinate. The Nature Conservancy is already involved in the Shasta River, as Western Rivers Conservancy is in the Blue Creek Sanctuary.
  2. Re-adjudicate water rights and water quality standards on the Scott and Shasta rivers. I know these are “fighting words”, but it must be done now. At least start this process, starting with the State’s new groundwater regulations. Vital portions of both rivers sit dry much of the year from surface diversions and groundwater extraction. Hundreds of thousands of young salmon and steelhead literally dry up every spring and summer, including tens of thousands of endangered Coho salmon. State laws prohibit this, as do State Board regulations, yet it continues on a large scale. Make the State enforce the laws.
  3. List Klamath spring-run Chinook as a federal and state endangered fish. They have become extinct from the Scott and Shasta rivers in my lifetime. They hold on in the Salmon River. They need and deserve full protection of the state and federal endangered species acts.
  4. Fully implement federal and state recovery plans for salmon and steelhead. Get funding.
  5. Re-introduce Coho and spring-run Chinook salmon to tributaries where populations are or are near extinction, including tributaries above dams.
  6. Rehabilitate hatchery programs on the Klamath and Trinity rivers. Develop conservation hatchery elements within these existing programs to promote wild genetic strains of salmon and steelhead in the tributaries.
  7. Reconnect the upper Shasta River to allow salmon and steelhead access. This process was started by the Nature Conservancy and tribes, but is long delayed and unfunded.
  8. Fully fund and implement a salmon and steelhead rescue program for young stranded in tributary spawning rivers.
  9. Improve access of spawning salmon and steelhead to historic spawning grounds blocked or hindered by irrigation dams, road crossings, or low streamflow.
  10. Ensure the ongoing development of the Klamath-Trinity Coho Salmon Biological Opinion for operation of the Shasta-Trinity Division of the federal Central Valley Project adequately protects and helps restore the endangered Coho salmon.
  11. Require the California Resources Agency to take a leadership role in making the Klamath a priority.
Figure 1. Klamath watershed. (Source DOI.)

Figure 1. Klamath watershed. (Source DOI.)

For more on the Klamath recovery see the following: