Category Archives: Steelhead

Trap-and-Haul of Salmon/Steelhead Around Instream Barriers

Posted on by

By Don Beyer
Dams, impassable falls, and other instream barriers such as reduced flow, high temperature, poor water quality block or impede the migration of salmonids. The following are brief summaries of several case studies in Washington State where trapping and transport around these barriers has had encouraging results.

Recovery of Baker River Sockeye Salmon

Baker River is a tributary to the Skagit River in northern Washington State. Sockeye salmon have a very challenging life history in that they need a lake for young rearing prior to smolt outmigration to the ocean. Before the development of two hydroelectric dams, the native Baker Sockeye salmon used natural Baker Lake for spawning and rearing. After the two dams were constructed (the first dam, Lower Baker, was completed in 1925 below the lake, the upstream dam was completed at Baker Lake outlet in 1959) the sockeye salmon migrations were nearly completely blocked. Natural spawning habitat was destroyed upstream of the upper dam. The adult returns of sockeye salmon prior to the dams were estimated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife1 to be about 20,000 fish but the returns fell to a low of about 99 fish in 1985.

Considerable efforts have gone into research and development of ways to facilitate both upstream and downstream passage around the two dams. The current efforts include improved trap-and-haul operation facilities below the lowermost dam, trucking to artificial spawning beaches (also newly improved) located on Baker Lake, and a new conservation hatchery next to the spawning beaches. Some adults are also released into Baker Lake to spawn naturally in Baker River and its tributaries upstream of the lake. Downstream smolt migration has been improved by trapping outmigrating smolts at both dams and transporting by truck for release below the lowermost dam. The outmigrant collection facilities have been upgraded with nets behind each dam that guide the outmigrants to the traps where they are collected and transported below the lowermost dam.

These improvements have resulted in a record run of 22,500 adult sockeye in 2010. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife2 forecast for returns in 2015 is 46,268 adults. The improved runs have resulted in removal of the Baker River sockeye from the Endangered Species Act candidate list. In addition, the current runs support both a tribal fishery (in downstream areas) and sport fishery (in downstream areas and in Baker Lake).

Adult Salmon/Steelhead Trap and Haul – South Fork Skykomish River at Sunset Falls

The South Fork Skykomish River joins the North Fork near Index, Washington. Combined, the two forks form the Skykomish River, which eventually flows into Puget Sound (as the Snohomish River) at Everett, Washington. This Snohomish River basin supports significant runs of coho salmon, Chinook salmon, chum salmon, pink salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout. Sunset Falls (near Index) is the first of three steep gradients that historically formed a totally impassable barrier to upstream migration of adult salmonids. The drainage area upstream of these barriers is about 350 square miles which has many mainstem and tributary areas that are favorable for spawning and rearing of anadromous fish.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (at the time they were the Washington Department of Fisheries) built a trap and haul facility below Sunset Falls in 1958. Trapped adult anadromous fish are captured and transported by truck to an area above the uppermost falls. These fish then migrate further upstream to spawn naturally.

The trap and haul approach has been in operation since 1958 and has passed an average of 25,000 total fish (all species) per year. This average has increased in recent years (to 46,000) due to large increases in pink salmon returns3.

Cowlitz River Fish Transport

The Cowlitz River is a major tributary to the Lower Columbia River that supports major runs of salmon and steelhead. Upstream passage of adult fish was blocked by construction of Mayfield Dam which began operation in 1963. Initial attempts to pass adults upstream were made by capturing adult fish below the dam and transporting them upstream. Outmigrants were passed around the dam through a bypass system. The situation became more complex when Mossyrock Dam (upstream of Mayfield Dam) began operation in 1968. At the same time, a barrier dam was constructed downstream of Mayfield Dam to channel fish into a newly constructed hatchery. This hatchery, one of the largest in the world, was mainly composed of concrete raceways for holding of adults and rearing of juveniles. In addition, another hatchery, primarily dedicated to production of steelhead, was constructed downstream. This hatchery has large rearing ponds for the juvenile steelhead rather than concrete raceways.

The operation of the barrier dam provided the opportunity to utilize fish for production in the hatchery or to move adults to upstream areas to naturally spawn. The challenge then was to have the outmigrants successfully migrate downstream through the reservoirs and dams.

The success of the two hatcheries has been monitored and evaluated over the years since they began operation until the mid-1990s. During this period, the mainstem below the barrier dam supported an intense sport fishery which in some years had been very good and other years not so good (mixed results that have been attributed to a number of factors including the fish handling/hatchery conditions, ocean survival, commercial/sport fisheries downstream, volcanic eruptions (i.e., Mt. St. Helens in 1980), and others). This fishery continues to the present day.

Although the fish management approach to the Cowlitz River evolved over a number of years, the situation changed when another dam (Cowlitz Falls Dam) was completed 1994. This dam is located upstream of the Mossyrock reservoir. With the current operation of the three dams, a new emphasis was placed on natural production of fish in upstream areas. Adults are transported from the downstream barrier dam to areas upstream of the Cowlitz Falls Dam where they can naturally spawn. They are also transported to the Tilton River, a tributary to the Mossyrock reservoir.

Outmigrating juveniles are funneled into bypass flumes at the Cowlitz Falls Dam where they are passed downstream to a fish collection facility. At the facility, fish are marked with various methods including coded wire tags implanted in the snout of the fish that allows for later identification. Some are radio tagged for research purposes.

Upstream migrating adults originating from above the dams captured at the barrier dam can then be transported above the Cowlitz Falls Dam with natural production (unmarked) fish. Fish marked originally at the hatchery can also be kept for production at that facility.

The Cowlitz River situation can best be described as an evolving process that is moving in a favorable direction. The fish management approach has maintained and, in some instances (such as increased limit sizes), improved the very active sport fishery in the downstream areas. Improvements in utilizing the areas upstream of the dams for natural production should assist in further expansion of the fisheries resources in the Cowlitz River basin while increasing natural production.

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.)

Puget Sound Winter Steelhead Sport Fishing – Gone for Good?

Posted on by

Puget Sound is a large inland marine system whose rivers and streams have historically had excellent populations of winter steelhead (both native and hatchery fish) that supported important sport fishing opportunities. Many anglers would brave rain, cold and snow to stand in a stream for hours, trying to hook onto one of these prized fish (up to a trophy size of 20 lbs). Sadly, over the last few decades, this sport fishery has been slowly disappearing and is now almost gone, maybe for good. How come?

A little bit of background on major events that have affected this sport fishery. First was the Judge Boldt decision in 1972, where the judge ruled that the salmon/steelhead resources within Puget Sound must be shared 50-50 between Native Americans and non-Native Americans. This immediately decreased the number of steelhead and salmon available to the sport fishermen. It also led to the co-management of the resources. Various positive and negative opinions have been expressed over the Boldt decision. However, it set the management in a different direction with more people involved. It also set new and untested legal issues in motion.

A second event that affected this fishery was the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Through many legal battles, protection of “wild” or “native” steelhead became paramount because studies with various results showed that hatchery steelhead were/were not as viable as the “native” fish. You can pick which side you want on this one, because studies with both positive and negative results exist. It has been claimed, however, that hatchery fish are not good for the native fish (even though they swim around in the Pacific Ocean for several years and return to their stream of origin to spawn). Likely, most sport fishermen and the general population would like to see strong returns of “native” fish, with no need for hatcheries.

In addition to the Boldt decision and the ESA, other legislation has also affected the salmon and steelhead populations of Puget Sound (and elsewhere along the Pacific Coast). Of particular interest is the protection of seals, sea lions, and other predators (such as birds) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and other legislation.

How have these events affected the winter steelhead sport fishery? First, as noted above, the Boldt decision diminished the number of fish available to the sport fishery. To some degree, this was mitigated by a very active program to develop mark-selective fishing on hatchery steelhead. Though details changed, the general approach was to mark outmigrating steelhead at hatcheries by removing the adipose fins (a small fin near the tail of the fish). With this clearly visible “mark”, the fishermen were allowed to keep marked fish, but unmarked fish (i.e., fish with a visible adipose fin) had to be returned to the stream (i.e., not kept). Other measures, such as using barbless hooks and reduced seasons, were implemented to further protect the “native” fish. These efforts allowed a viable winter steelhead fishery to occur, although the success rate per angler in Puget Sound streams has diminished, likely due to population growth and increased interest in this fishery.

The ESA has been used to eliminate much of the hatchery production of winter steelhead in Puget Sound streams. In a recent legal dispute, the “Wild Fish Conservancy” fought for the elimination of hatchery production of winter steelhead in Puget Sound streams. The case was settled with the Washington Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (WDFW) paying the legal fees and several thousand dollars to the Conservancy (the funds likely came out of sport fishermen’s money paid for license fees). As part of the settlement, the WDFW also agreed to not release any outmigrant steelhead from hatcheries in many Puget Sound streams. In 2014, the outmigrants that were already being reared in the hatcheries were released to lakes or other water bodies where they could not migrate to the ocean and return as adults. That left only one year of young hatchery fish to keep the hatchery system operable. So, what happened in 2015? The WDFW again released the outmigrants into non-migratory lakes. With no winter steelhead in the mark/selective approach returning as brood stock, the hatchery program has essentially dissolved, and future prospects for any revival are dependent on a determination by the National Marine Fisheries Service on whether or how hatchery management can be made compatible with recovery of wild Puget Sound steelhead.

The protection of predators on steelhead (as mentioned above) is only one additional step down for future steelhead recovery. The virtual explosion of marine mammal populations with little or no control (because of protection under the MMPA) further diminishes the populations available for any future sport fishing.

Is this situation (i.e., elimination of the sport fishery for steelhead in certain Puget Sound streams) a universal event? The answer is no. Some streams in Washington support very important winter steelhead sport fisheries through hatchery production. A good example is the Cowlitz River in southwest Washington. The returns of adult winter steelhead this year were so good that the limit was raised from 2 fish to 3 fish per day, mainly because the hatchery had sufficient numbers of returning adults for its program. Another example is the Columbia River system, which has increasing or record returns of a number of hatchery salmon/steelhead runs that support a very viable sport fishing program.

So, what’s the bottom line on the differences between the decline in Puget Sound sport fishing opportunities in Puget Sound (ongoing for many years) and programs that are currently very successful? In my opinion, the successful programs (through many years of negotiations, discussions, and back-and-forth efforts) have established recovery plans that have established goals of re-establishing and increasing salmon/steelhead and have put in the efforts to achieve those goals. It takes time and effort plus considerable amounts of money to make these plans work. On the Columbia, for example, millions of dollars have been spent on research, habitat restoration and enhancement, management, and other planning efforts. This money has been derived from water users, hydropower producers, and others. The sport fishermen also provide additional funds by paying an additional license fee if they fish in the Columbia River basin. Overall, a mix of both hatchery fish and native fish are part of the planning goals.

There are many very positive efforts in Puget Sound to recover steelhead and other anadromous fish populations. However, hatchery fish are not currently in the mix on some streams, and planning efforts appear to be bogged down. What appears to the general public is that winter steelhead sport fishing, for the foreseeable future, will continue to decline and perhaps entirely disappear because no releases of outmigrants have been made to continue the cycle. In addition, it is likely that with the large number of people now in the Puget Sound area, wild fish will not recover to a level that could support a sport fishery.

Are there possible solutions to the challenges of decreased opportunities for sports fishermen? This is a complex question, and many diverse opinions have been expressed. The diversity of environmental conditions and resource utilization play a large role in maintaining or recovering wild steelhead and salmon populations along the Pacific coast. For example, in Alaska, most of the salmon/steelhead populations are wild even though significant commercial fisheries (and localized sport fisheries) exist. In general, the watershed conditions and climate offer favorable conditions for these populations to be sustained.

In contrast to Alaska, the often severe environmental challenges faced by wild salmon/steelhead populations in other Pacific coast states (i.e., Washington, Oregon, and California) need to be realistically factored into the management plans (they are often considered, but the discussion often bogs down before plans are completed or implemented). For example, can wild steelhead/salmon populations be maintained in California if drought conditions leave only dry and impassable stream conditions for outmigrants or returning adults? The answer, of course, is no, unless some type of intervention (e.g., transport around critical areas) is provided. Similarly, under such conditions, can wild fish populations be maintained without some type of intervention such as hatchery supplementation or transport around dry stream beds? If the answer is to eliminate consideration of supplementation (where needed) and other interventions such as transport, the probability is that wild populations can’t support even a limited sport fishery or that the populations will disappear altogether (such as the case where streams run dry due to drought conditions). If the answer is to actively pursue measures to at least maintain populations through some type of interventions in hopes that conditions future conditions become more favorable, there may be a probability that stressed populations can survive.

In Puget Sound, the loss of two years of winter steelhead hatchery production (i.e., no outmigrants) in some streams clearly will diminish the probability of a sport fishery in those streams affected. Environmental conditions such as streamflow are still somewhat favorable to maintenance of residual wild populations which, in general, cannot by themselves sustain a sport fishery.

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.

Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Program Reform

Posted on by

Dr. Peter Moyle of the University of California, Davis commented last year commented on California salmon and steelhead hatchery reform at the California Fish and Game Commission’s Workshop on Strategic Improvement in California’s Anadromous Hatcheries, held in Sacramento on February 4, 20141.

Dr. Moyle remarked that hatcheries fail to meet their primary dual purposes of sustaining commercial and sport fisheries and assisting in recovery of wild (naturally spawning) salmon and steelhead. Hatchery strategies have led to the complete dominance (90%) of hatchery salmon and steelhead in most rivers, which will ultimately lead to “periodic shut-downs of the fisheries and extinction of most runs, even those supported by hatcheries.” He concluded that a much more radical reshaping of hatchery policy is needed.

He recommends two types of hatcheries: conservation hatcheries that focus on recovery of wild populations, and production hatcheries that focus on sustaining commercial and sport fisheries. He suggests abandoning wild salmon and steelhead management in favor of production hatcheries for some runs (e.g., Fall Run Chinook salmon).

Only the federal Sacramento River hatcheries near Redding operate in the recommended manner. The federal Livingston Stone Hatchery is a model conservation hatchery for endangered Winter Run Chinook Salmon. The Coleman National Fish Hatchery on Battle Creek is a production hatchery for Fall Run, Late Fall Run, and Spring Run Chinook, as well as steelhead. Only wild Late Fall Run, Spring Run, and Winter Run Chinook and steelhead are allowed to pass Coleman’s diversion dam to spawn in upper Battle Creek. Upper Battle Creek thus serves as a wild fish conservation hatchery.

The state hatcheries on the Feather, American, Mokelumne, and Merced rivers operate as production hatcheries, mitigating for the blockage of these major Central Valley salmon tributaries by dams. These hatcheries focus on Fall Run Chinook and steelhead, although the Feather River Fish Hatchery also supports Spring Run Chinook.

Only undammed Sacramento Valley tributaries Deer, Mill, Big Chico, Antelope, and Butte creeks support reliable native runs of wild Spring Run Chinook. Native-wild Spring Run are sustainable in these streams because habitats are accessible at higher elevations where over-summering habitat with deep, cool-water holding pools exists.

One way to improve production of wild fish is to develop conservation hatcheries that combine trap-and-haul programs with over-summering habitats above the dams, as recommended in the Central Valley Salmon Recovery Plan2. This would require a capture-sorting effort, as is presently done at Coleman Hatchery on Battle Creek. Wild fish would be trucked above the dams. Juvenile fish produced above the dams would be trapped and trucked downstream for release below the dams. Conservation hatchery components could be established initially at the four state hatcheries to get the program started with appropriate “wild” genetic stocks.

Wild populations of Winter Run and Spring Run could be established above Shasta Reservoir on the Sacramento River. Spring Run could be established on some combination of the upper Feather, Yuba, American, Mokelumne, Tuolumne and Merced rivers. Wild steelhead could be established above the dams in any of these rivers.

Meanwhile, production hatcheries of salmon and steelhead could continue below the dams. Marking production fish would allow separation of wild and hatchery fish, as well as mark-selective fishery harvest to preserve wild fish until such time wild stocks are sustainable. Trucking/barging of production smolts to Bay would reduce predation and competition with wild fish while increasing populations of production fish for harvest.

Dr. Moyle also recommended establishing wild salmon sanctuaries, as is currently being established on upper Battle Creek. The areas above the dams are good candidates for such sanctuaries. Undammed Valley Spring Run rivers are also good candidates. Isolated tailwaters on the lower Yuba, Mokelumne, and San Joaquin rivers may also be candidates.

More on hatchery reform options can be found at: http://cahatcheryreview.com/summary-conclusions/.