Category Archives: Hatcheries

Wild Salmon – A Superfood

Posted on by

salmon for dinnerRecently, I had fresh, wild, troll-caught1 Coho from Costco ($4.99/lb whole) with wild rice and fresh strawberry walnut salad. The salmon was truly delicious as is the usual case with fresh, wild, troll-caught salmon.

Wild salmon like this is a “Super Food”.

“Salmon is a great source of protein and is packed with omega-3 fatty acids, which are associated with a healthy heart and brain function. Look for wild salmon to get the biggest health boost.” http://partnersinhealth.kaiserpermanente.org/july-2015/national/10-superfoods-that-pack-a-nutritional-punch-nat-july2015#sthash.hUM61ZOx.dpuf.

“Fatty ocean fish such as salmon and tuna are high in omega-3 fatty acids and can help reduce cholesterol levels, especially when you eat fish instead of saturated fats from red meats. Herring, trout and sardines are also high in omega-3s. Fish is also high in protein and minerals.”
http://nutrition.about.com/od/cardiovascular/ss/Super-Foods-that-Lower-Cholesterol.htm#step10

Having wild salmon available in markets is a very strong reason for upgrading the Central Valley Fall Run Chinook Salmon hatchery program, as I have advocated in earlier posts. Demand for salmon will be increasing as more and more Californians become health conscious. With the public recognition that farmed salmon are not “wild” salmon, there will be further pressure to increase production of “wild”, “free range” salmon in our coastal waters. Central Valley salmon hatcheries can help meet this need.

Approximately 90% of the coastal “wild, free-range” salmon come from the many federal, state, and tribal hatcheries on Pacific Coast rivers.

However, hatchery salmon and the fisheries they support can be a threat to native non-hatchery wild salmon runs, many of which have been listed as threatened or endangered under federal and state endangered species acts. Fishery harvest pressure on these non-hatchery “wild” salmon like the listed Winter Run and Spring Run Chinook of the Sacramento River, potentially put these runs at greater risk of extinction. With the greater risk comes fishery restrictions and less harvest of hatchery salmon, and the need for careful planning and management of the hatchery programs and fishery harvest. Harvest can be focused on times and locations where endangered salmon are least frequently present, but often this may not be possible. Other measures such as gear and catch restrictions, terminal fisheries, and mark-selective fisheries could be employed, making it possible to “have our salmon and eat them too!”

  1. Troll-caught salmon are from regulated commercial fisheries in coastal waters from California to Alaska. They are caught live on trolling lines (in contrast to gill nets) and placed immediately on ice. I avoid purchasing “wild” salmon products from Russia or China that are available in grocery stores, because they come from “unregulated” fisheries, possibly even illegally from North American waters. Gill nets up to 50-miles long have been found fishing in ocean waters. I never purchase farmed salmon, which have little of the nutritional benefits of wild salmon. ↩

It is time to save the Delta Smelt

Posted on by

Causes of the Decline of the Endangered Delta Smelt

There are multiple threats to the Delta Smelt population that contribute to its viability and risk of extinction. Chief among these threats are reductions in freshwater inflow to the estuary; loss of larval, juvenile and adult fish at the state and federal Delta export facilities and in urban, agricultural and industrial water diversions; direct and indirect impacts of the Delta Smelt’s planktonic food supply and habitat; and lethal and sub-lethal effects of warm water and toxic chemicals in Delta open-water habitats.

Temporary urgency change orders by the State Board have allowed reduced Delta outflow and increased Delta salinity. This has moved the Low Salinity Zone further upstream (eastward) into the Delta, thereby increasing the degree of each of these threats. During the past few drought summers, remnants of the population have been confined to a small area of the Low Salinity Zone where water temperatures barely remain below lethal levels. The change orders are an obvious and direct threat to the remnants living in the Low Salinity Zone. Further allowing these weakened standards to be violated is a direct disregard for the remnants of the population. It places them at extraordinary risk by bringing them further into the zone of water diversions, degrading their habitat into the lethal range of water temperature, further degrading their already depleted food supply, and increasing the concentrations of toxic chemicals being relentlessly discharged into the Delta.

Saving the Delta Smelt

The following are measures necessary to save the remnant Delta Smelt population:

  1. Keep the low salinity zone (LSZ) out of the Delta as prescribed in State water quality control plans over the last several decades. This can be readily accomplished by meeting already defined flow and salinity standards and restrictions on Delta exports. The LSZ on the Sacramento channel side should be in the wide open reach of eastern Suisun Bay between Collinsville and the west end of Sherman Island (location of Emmaton standard). It must be kept out of the Emmaton-to-Rio Vista reach just upstream in the west Delta, because this reach is confined and continually degraded by reservoir releases and warm water passing through the North Delta via Three Mile Slough to the interior of the Delta and south Delta water diversions. On the San Joaquin (south) side, the low salinity zone belongs in the wide Antioch–to-Jersey Point reach as prescribed in standards. This can be accomplished in spring and summer of dry years by maintaining prescribed flows, salinity standards at Jersey Point, installation of the False River and Dutch Slough Barriers, and opening the Delta Cross Channel (which results in positive net outflow from the mouth of Old River downstream to Jersey Point in the Central Delta). Maintaining the net positive flows in west Delta channels helps tremendously in getting salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, striped bass, and smelt from upstream freshwater spawning areas to their downstream rearing area target, the estuary’s LSZ. Keeping the LSZ in eastern Suisun Bay, as has always been an objective Delta Water Quality Plans, has huge indirect benefits as well, including greater plankton production, lower non-stressful water temperatures (conducive to growth and survival of all the Delta fish including smelt and salmonids), higher turbidity levels in the LSZ (reduced predation on and improved feeding for Delta smelt), lower invasive Asian clam concentrations in eastern Suisun Bay (which siphon off plankton and larval fish), and lower concentrations of toxins in the LSZ.
  2.  Improve the physical habitat of the LSZ. Habitat in eastern Suisun Bay, though far better than that of the west Delta, has been continuously degraded over the past century. Fortunately, there are few levees along the north shore of the Sacramento side. However, the wave-swept shores along Antioch Hills have lost all riparian vegetation except pockets of invasive Arundo. Hillside windfarm and shoreline erosion have filled in shoreline shoals, shallows, bays and alcoves that provided rearing habitat for smelt and salmon (salmon fry are the most abundant fish in these shallows through the winter). Miles of shoreline bays, inlets, and tidal marshes east of Collinsville have been lost. On the south side of the Sacramento channel are the remnants of historic Delta marshes and islands of West Sherman Island and Sherman Lake. Gradually the riparian shoreline and shallow waters are washing away as a consequence of wind as well as ship-wake erosion. Lack of interior marsh channel circulation has also led to grand infestations of invasive non-native submergent, emergent, and floating aquatic vegetation. Like the north shore, the south shoreline of West Suisun Bay on the San Joaquin side is not leveed. Likewise, shoreline and shallow water habitats are degraded, but from industrialization. Large areas east of Antioch to Big Break are degraded much as in the area of Sherman Lake. Both the north and south East Suisun Bay channels are degraded by dredging of the two deep-water ship channels, which has resulted in the loss of shallow shoal, bay, and mudflat habitats. Virtually none of the habitats mentioned above were addressed in the grand BDCP restoration plans for the Bay-Delta. Though some of the areas have been prescribed for restoration in various mitigation plans, virtually no progress has been made toward their restoration in the last several decades.
  3. Stock hatchery raised smelt in the LSZ. The agency-sponsored Delta Smelt conservation hatcheries could be upgraded to production status to provide juveniles to be stocked in the LSZ in late spring and summer. The population is so low now (zero 20-mm and Townet survey indices) that stocking would be helpful if not necessary.
  4. Provide a spring pulse flow into and through the Delta to help smelt fry transport from freshwater spawning areas downstream to the LSZ. This could include passing some Sacramento River flow through the blocked entrance to the Deepwater Ship Channel at the Port of West Sacramento. Delta inflow pulses could be provided by reservoir releases coordinated with infrequent natural flow pulses through the Delta.
  5. Manage tidal flows and Delta hydrodynamics, as well as water quality, on a real time basis to help maintain the LSZ in east Suisun Bay and to stimulate and sustain plankton blooms. Real time management is possible because of the many satellite-accessible data recorders in the Delta, as well as the many frequent biological monitoring surveys being conducted throughout the Bay and Delta. Active adaptive management is possible with the many flow controls available on diversions, reservoir releases, and flow splits (e.g., Delta Cross Channel).

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.

Hatchery Reform – Part 3

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hatchery Selection. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2011.2

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

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

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