Welcome to the California Fisheries Blog

The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance is pleased to host the California Fisheries Blog. The focus will be on pelagic and anadromous fisheries. We will also cover environmental topics related to fisheries such as water supply, water quality, hatcheries, harvest, and habitats. Geographical coverage will be from the ocean to headwaters, including watersheds, streams, rivers, lakes, bays, ocean, and estuaries. Please note that posts on the blog represent the work and opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect CSPA positions or policy.

Shasta-Trinity Salmon Revisited – Part 2: Shasta-Trinity Division Effects on Winter Run Salmon in 2014 and 2015

This is part 2 of a four-part series on the effects of the Shasta-Trinity Division on Sacramento and Trinity-Klamath salmon. Part 1 is an introduction to the series. Part 2 is a discussion of the effects of the Shasta-Trinity Division on Sacramento River salmon.

There are two key points regarding the Winter-Run Chinook Salmon of the Sacramento River in the 2009 NMFS Biological Opinion (BO) that address the long-term operation of the Shasta-Trinity Division:

  •  “The current status of the affected species is precarious, and future activities and conditions not within the control of Reclamation or DWR are likely to place substantial stress on the species.” It turns out that Reclamation also added a lot of stress that was under their control in both 2014 and 2015 that has put the species under extreme jeopardy.
  •  Simply altering project operations was not sufficient to ensure that the projects were likely to avoid jeopardizing the species or adversely modifying critical habitat. So NMFS prescribed some long term actions (i.e. trap and hauling salmon above Shasta and establishing a Winter Run population in Battle Creek). Because these solutions remain far off, and short-term project operation prescriptions have been entirely ineffective in sustaining the population in the interim, the Winter Run population is in dire straits1.

NMFS’s near-term measures prescribed in the BO focused on providing suitable water temperatures in the Sacramento River below Shasta in a high percentage of years. The BO prescribed fewer and fewer protections in the drier years with poorer and poorer spawning and rearing habitat near Redding, reaching an unintended consequence of little or no viable habitat left in late summer 2014 and sub-marginal habitat through the summer of 2015. NMFS blamed poor reservoir temperature modeling and forecasting by Reclamation in both years. In reality, problems in both years could have been avoided.

The basic problem in 2014 and 2015 was that the operation of the Shasta-Trinity Division resulted in elevated water temperatures that had lethal and sub-lethal effects on egg incubation and juvenile emergence in the upper Sacramento River. Their excuse: “The immediate operational cause was lack of sufficient cold water in storage to allow for cold water releases to reduce downstream temperatures at critical times and meet other project demands.” The real problem was defective forecasting tools and over-allocation of water to contractors during the third and fourth years of the drought. The lethal outcome was also not only the result of high water temperatures, but also of redd stranding from flow reductions (see figure below).

CDFW Report on stranding mortality of salmon eggs and alevins in the Sacramento River in late summer 2014. It is obvious from the report’s cover photo that the problem was not just water temperature.

CDFW Report on stranding mortality of salmon eggs and alevins in the Sacramento River in late summer 2014. It is obvious from the report’s cover photo that the problem was not just water temperature.

NMFS’s “Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA)” in its Biological Opinion

“NMFS made many attempts through the iterative consultation process to avoid developing RPA actions that would result in high water costs, while still providing for the survival and recovery of listed species. … We will seek to incorporate this new science as it becomes available through the adaptive management processes embedded in the RPA.” The RPA requires Reclamation to seek higher water costs (more water for salmon) from the State Water Resources Control Board in extreme conditions. But in 2014 and 2015, Reclamation instead asked the State Board for the opposite: contracted deliveries to senior water contractors at the expense of the fish, with a simultaneous weakening of water quality standards for flow and water temperature. The Board granted Reclamation’s request, with NMFS’s “concurrence.” In both its Biological Opinion and in real time decision making, NMFS limited water costs but failed to protect the species. A Biological Opinion can only work when a regulated entity follows it and a regulator enforces it.

RPA Action 1.1.4

The RPA included Action I.1.4, Spring Creek Temperature Control Curtain Replacement. The curtain in Whiskeytown Reservoir at the inlet to the Spring Creek Powerhouse on Keswick Reservoir was replaced in 2011; however, the curtain was minimally effective in cooling water transferred to the Sacramento River from Trinity Reservoir. Large volumes of Shasta cold-water pool (50°F) had to be released into Keswick Reservoir to cool warmer (58-59°F) Spring Creek Powerhouse releases to keep releases to the Sacramento River at the required 54-56°F.

RPA Action Suite 1

The RPA also includes a suite of actions for operating the Shasta-Trinity Division.

  1. Ensure a sufficient cold water pool to provide suitable temperatures for winter-run spawning between Balls Ferry and Bend Bridge in most years, without sacrificing the potential for cold water management in a subsequent year. Additional actions to those in the 2004 CVP/SWP operations Opinion are needed, due to increased vulnerability of the population to temperature effects attributable to changes in Trinity River ROD operations, projected climate change hydrology, and increased water demands in the Sacramento River system.” In 2014 and 2015 water temperatures downstream of Redding, including the reach between Balls Ferry and Bend Bridge, were lethal to Winter Run eggs and alevins. The NMFS BO and in particular this RPA action suite were simply not followed. Instead, NMFS “concurred” with relaxing the water quality standards that resulted in objectives not being met.
  2. “Ensure suitable spring-run temperature regimes, especially in September and October. Suitable spring-run temperatures will also partially minimize temperature effects to naturally-spawning, non-listed Sacramento River fall-run.” Fall temperatures in the Sacramento River for Spring Run salmon were also lethal in 2014. It is unclear at present whether sufficient cold-water pool will be available in the fall of 2015 to prevent a repeat of 2014.

RPA Action 1.2.4

May 15 through October Keswick Release Schedule (Summer Action)

  1. Reclamation shall develop and implement an annual Temperature Management Plan by May 15 to manage the cold water supply within Shasta Reservoir and make cold water releases from Shasta Reservoir and Spring Creek to provide suitable temperatures for listed species, and, when feasible, fall-run.” The 2014 and 2015 plans proved faulty in their forecasts for sustaining the cold water pool in Shasta, and thus this requirement was not met even in the 9 mile reach of the Sacramento River immediately downstream of Keswick Reservoir.
  2. “Reclamation shall manage operations to achieve daily average water temperatures in the Sacramento River between Keswick Dam and Bend Bridge as follows: Not in excess of 56°F at compliance locations between Balls Ferry and Bend Bridge from May 15 through September 30 for protection of winter-run, and not in excess of 56°F at the same compliance locations between Balls Ferry and Bend Bridge from October 1 through October 31 for protection of mainstem spring run, whenever possible.” Reclamation, the State Board, and NMFS found maintaining these objectives impossible in 2014 and 2015.

Unable to meet temperature requirements, Reclamation and NMFS are seeking “other solutions”:

  1. Expansion of the Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery production for Winter-Run from the typical broodstock of 120 adults to accommodate up to 400 adults.
  2. Restrictions on recreational and commercial fishing to benefit of Winter-Run salmon.
  3. The agencies will continue to actively investigate other project elements that make sense, including:
    • applying reflective paint or other shading on the penstocks into Whiskeytown Reservoir
    • accelerating acquisitions related to the installation of the Oak Bottom Temperature Curtain in Whiskeytown Reservoir,
    • decreasing the exposure of cold water from Trinity to sunlight as it travels through the powerhouse and exposed pipes that to help ensure this cold water remains cold.
    • continue to seek input from stakeholders to develop other non-flow actions that may help minimize overall impacts (e.g. , predation control strategies and/or restoration, hatchery, etc.)2
The demise of 2014 Winter Run brood year has been attributed to high water temperature in the Sacramento River below Keswick Reservoir in late summer 2014.

The demise of 2014 Winter Run brood year has been attributed to high water temperature in the Sacramento River below Keswick Reservoir in late summer 2014.

Another contributing factor to the 2014 brood year demise was high flows during spawning (June-July) followed by low flows at emergence (September).

Another contributing factor to the 2014 brood year demise was high flows during spawning (June-July) followed by low flows at emergence (September).

The reduction in inflow from the Trinity in 2014 contributed to Winter Run redd dewatering and higher water temperatures in the Sacramento River near Redding in 2014.

The reduction in inflow from the Trinity in 2014 contributed to Winter Run redd dewatering and higher water temperatures in the Sacramento River near Redding in 2014.

  1. NMFS is also contemplating drastic reductions in fishery harvests and increasing hatchery production, both backwards moves. NMFS is also supporting concerted efforts for predator control via reducing fishing regulations on black bass and stripers as well as advocating a pikeminnow bounty, all desperate actions to cover up the real causal factors in the salmon declines.
  2. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/docs/tucp/2015/stellejr_nmfs_070115.pdf

Shasta-Trinity Salmon Revisited – Part 1

The Draft EIS for the Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project1 was released in July, and comments are due by the end of September. Projects analyzed in the EIS include the Shasta-Trinity Division of the Central Valley Project (CVP) (Figure 1). The EIS focuses on the human effects of the reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) requirements in NMFS Biological Opinion on the two projects, including the Shasta-Trinity Division.

This is the first in a four-part series focusing on the operation of the CVP Shasta-Trinity Division on Sacramento, Trinity, and Klamath River salmon. Part 2 will focus specifically on Sacramento salmon with emphasis on the listed Winter Run Chinook. Part 3 will focus on effects of Klamath-Trinity salmon. Part 4 will focus on how the system can be better operated to save salmon in the two rivers. This Part 1 sets the stage for Parts 2 and 3.

In the past four years of drought, the track record of the Bureau of Reclamation has been poor in managing Shasta-Trinity reservoir storage, releases, and water temperatures to sustain salmon in Sacramento, Trinity, and Klamath Rivers. After reservoirs filled in the wet water year 2011, they were steadily drawn down in 2012 and 2013. By 2014, the reservoirs were dangerously low. On the Sacramento River in 2014, the system failed, and most of the Winter-Run brood year was lost to warm water and low flows in early September. As of the first week of September this year, the Shasta cold-water pool continues to contribute to the Sacramento, although water temperature standards were weakened through the summer at the request of Reclamation, causing some mortality after inaccurate spring predictions of cold-water storage in Shasta. On the Klamath and Trinity Rivers, the mass mortalities seen in 2002 were not seen in late summer 2014 and 2015 (so far) despite the presence of disease, because of emergency late summer cold-water flow increases from Trinity Reservoir that cooled the Trinity River and lower Klamath.

The Shasta-Trinity Division is a huge complicated system with associated difficulties in satisfying all the water contractors in the Central Valley while maintaining the salmon resources. Management for salmon boils down to the following set of parameters:

  1. Reservoir storage (Figures 2 and 3)
  2. The amount of cold-water pool in reservoir storage
  3. The distribution of reservoir releases through power turbines (warmer) or lower level bypasses (colder)
  4. The daily pattern of reservoir releases to meet peaking power demands for electricity
  5. Blending capabilities in reservoir outlets to power turbines (Shasta has a Temperature Control Devise that allows Reclamation to pull water from different lake levels)
  6. Water temperature mixing in the two re-regulating reservoirs (Keswick below Shasta and Lewiston below Trinity)
  7. Water temperatures of releases to the Sacramento and Trinity Rivers
  8. The export of Trinity Reservoir water via Lewiston and Whiskeytown reservoirs to Keswick Reservoir (to Sacramento River).
  9. The magnitude and seasonal variability of Keswick and Lewiston releases to the Sacramento and Trinity rivers, respectively.
  10. How much water is delivered (and thus, not delivered) to CVP contractors.
Figure 1. Shasta-Trinity Division of Central Valley Project

Figure 1. Shasta-Trinity Division of Central Valley Project

Figure 2. Shasta Reservoir storage in acre-ft from April 2012 to present.

Figure 2. Shasta Reservoir storage in acre-ft from April 2012 to present.

Figure 3. Trinity Reservoir storage in acre-ft from April 2012 to present.

Figure 3. Trinity Reservoir storage in acre-ft from April 2012 to present.

FISHBIO takes on Stripers – again

In a recent blog post1, FISHBIO again discuss the role they allege that Striped Bass are playing in limiting salmon production in the Central Valley. They bring up the 5-year-old proposal to reduce regulations on the Striped Bass fishery that was soundly rejected by fishermen, resource managers, environmentalists, and scientists alike. They state that despite the fact that anglers spend more than ten times the hours spent fishing for stripers than for salmon, the economic benefit of striper fishing is far below that of salmon fishing.

Well, assuming the raw economic numbers are true:

  1. The State closed the Striped Bass commercial fishery a century ago.
  2. The Striped Bass fishery is year-round and throughout most of the Central Valley, whereas the salmon fishery is seasonal and more localized. There must be some social value in diversity.
  3. The economic status of Striped Bass fishermen is far more diverse than salmon fishermen. There must be some social value in supporting a broader range of citizens.
  4. Many California residents are from the East, where stripers are king and there are no salmon.
  5. Much of the salmon fishery value derives from the ocean fisheries, whereas the striper fishery is focused on Bay-Delta and inland waters. The relative cost of fishing in these regions is very different.
  6. Most of the salmon fishery value (over 90%) is derived from hatchery fish. The Striped Bass supplemental rearing program was closed over a decade ago. The striper effort was ten times higher then, the number of stripers was up to ten times higher in the past, and the economic value was also likely ten times higher.

The other portion of FISBIO’s argument concerns the role of Striped Bass predation in salmon declines.

  • “ During the early 1900s, striped bass thrived alongside salmon, but as salmon declined over the latter part of the century, the impact of these introduced predators took a proportionally greater toll on the salmon population.” There is no evidence to support this statement. Stripers have declined more than salmon. There are still 30-million hatchery smolts for a much smaller striper population to feed on.
  • “Controlling predators to help their prey species is not a new idea; other states have been controlling non-native and native predators with measured success for decades.” No doubt the greatest “predator control” success (over 90%) has been on the Striped Bass population by the federal and state export pumps over the past two decades.
  • “While California has failed to act, some political support for predator control has recently developed at the federal level. Multiple bills currently proposed in Congress include provisions for advancing predator control in the Delta.” These bills were sponsored by San Joaquin Valley congressmen and have little chance of passing.
  • “While these federal actions alone may not be sufficient to produce population increases in some threatened or endangered species, there is evidence that predation is a major barrier to salmon recovery, and the proposed legislation demonstrates a changing mindset toward controlling predation of declining species.” There is no evidence that predation by Striped Bass on wild threatened salmon runs is even in the top ten reasons for their declines. The “mindset change” is to divert attention away from the real reasons for threatened salmon declines, or from having to pay for their recovery.

Finally FISHBIO speaks to “changing mindsets” of anglers: “Perhaps the biggest hurdle to controlling non-native species like striped bass will be changing the mindset of the fishing community that cares deeply about these popular predators.” They mean that anglers should accept the false premise that Striped Bass are the problem and should allow them to be exterminated.

Loss of Salmon in the Sacramento River Floodplain

The loss of juvenile and adult salmon in the Sacramento River floodplain has been a problem for many decades. The problem is largely the result of the construction of dams, agricultural drains, and flood control systems. The problem is acute, and although well documented and quite obvious, little has been done to resolve it. The fixes are not cheap and no one wants to get stuck paying for them. In addition, potential fixes have been hoarded as potential mitigations for large public works projects like the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and its associated Delta Tunnels.

The Problem

Figure 1 is a map of the Sacramento Valley with arrows showing some of the major locations of the problem. Much of the problem is the result of limitation or blockage of fish passage; another major factor is stranding. Adult salmon, sturgeon, and steelhead migrating up the Sacramento River become attracted to the high volumes of Sacramento water exiting the Sutter and Yolo Bypasses (adult fish movement is shown by red arrows in Figure 1), only to be blocked at the high weirs at the upstream end of the bypasses (Figures 2 and 3). Even modest bypass flows in drought years can cause attraction and subsequent mortality (Figure 4).

Young salmon emigrating downstream from upriver spawning grounds pass into the bypasses (green arrows in Figure 1) and adjacent basins in huge numbers. Many become stranded and lost when flows and water levels decline when weirs quit spilling (the river can drop ten feet overnight and quickly cease spilling into bypasses).

Landowners Seek Solution

In one of the areas, the Yolo Bypass, local landowners and stakeholders are seeking a solution. They are addressing three critical issues:

  1. Blockage of upstream migrating fish behind the Fremont Weir at the head of the Bypass.
  2. Blocked fish migrating to their deaths into the Colusa Basin from the Bypass via the Knights Landing Ridge Cut1. Adult migrants are also attracted directly to Colusa Basin Drain outlet even when Fremont Weir does not spill.
  3. Increasing survival of young salmon spilled into the Yolo Bypass by augmenting flows and improving habitats and habitat connectivity.

The first issue often occurs each time the weir spills at flood stage (generally one in three years, although it has not spilled significantly since 2006 because of drought). The bandaid treatment is shown in Figure 2. Stakeholders have advocated a short-term solution for passing fish via a “small notch” in the Fremont Weir to pass fish over the weir into the river; however, long-term agency plans call for a more contentious “large notch” in the weir.

The second issue requires the opposite solution, placing a fish-blocking weir at the outlet of the Knights Landing Ridge Cut to stop adult salmon, sturgeon, and steelhead from migrating upstream into the Colusa Basin. Landowners are working with the California Department of Water Resources and Reclamation toward building such a weir. For now the bandaid is a fish trap and fish rescues such as that shown in Figure 2.

The third issue can be resolved by engineering the bypass floodplain to provide better habitat and connectivity for the salmon including high and longer-sustained flows from the Fremont Weir (via a “notch”). Local landowners have developed an array of actions to provide habitat and connectivity.

In my experience, placing leadership and responsibility for developing and implementing actions in the hands of local stakeholders has worked best to help save fish. “Locals” can be surprisingly adept at coming up with viable solutions to fisheries problems.

Map of Sacramento Valley showing levees and flood control system weirs and bypasses

Figure 1. Map of Sacramento Valley showing levees and flood control system weirs and bypasses. Gray area agricultural basins are generally below the elevation of the river and bypasses. The flood control system was initially designed to convey flood water and historic foothill mining debris through the Valley. Adult salmon (as well as sturgeon and steelhead) are attracted to the high flows entering, passing through, and exiting the Sutter and Yolo Bypasses (such adult migration is shown with red arrows). Many cannot successfully complete their passage either becoming lost or blocked at the upstream end by weirs (located at the blunt end of the green arrows). Many young salmon become stranded in the basins and bypasses after entering in spill over weirs during floods. (Map source: http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Libraries/Dynamic_Document_Library/Fact_Sheet_-_Sac_River_System_Weirs_and_Relief_Structures.sflb.ashx )

Figure 2. Sturgeon being rescued below a Sacramento River bypass weir

Figure 2. Sturgeon being rescued below a Sacramento River bypass weir

Moulton Weir 1997

High storm flows in late December 2014 into the Yolo Bypass from the Knights Landing Ridge Cut attracted many salmon to the northern end of the Bypass

Figure 4. High storm flows in late December 2014 into the Yolo Bypass from the Knights Landing Ridge Cut attracted many salmon to the northern end of the Bypass. When storm flows receded after several days, hundreds of adult salmon became stranded in winter-fallow fields that had been flooded. Many more salmon likely passed successfully into the Colusa Basin drain system only to find no route to spawning grounds in the upper Valley.

Reclamation continues to threaten Klamath-Trinity-Sacramento Salmon with transfer of Trinity water to Sacramento basin

Minimum carryover storage for Trinity Reservoir is supposed to determine Trinity exports to the Sacramento River basin. In the driest years (certainly 2015 would be considered such a year), exports to the Sacramento are to be minimized to meet minimum instream flow and water temperature requirements on the Trinity River to save Klamath-Trinity salmon from mass die-offs as occurred in 20021. The low probability of refilling of Trinity Reservoir, as compared to Shasta Reservoir, necessitates the restriction. Yet this summer, three-quarters of the 2000-cfs of water being released from Trinity Reservoir is going to the Sacramento River. Low flows in the Trinity and lower Klamath are again threatening Klamath-Trinity salmon, resulting in Reclamation having to triple Trinity River flows as of August 22 (Figure 1). The added water is coming from the already-depleted Trinity Reservoir, while the 1500-cfs export to Sacramento Basin water users continues.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Trinity-Lewiston Reservoir releases to lower Trinity River in mid August 2015. Base required minimum flow is 450 cfs. Flow pulse from August 17-20 was for Hoopa tribal ceremony. New release (1150 cfs) to cool river commenced on August 21.

Reclamation tries to justify the transfer of Trinity water as needed to save Sacramento Winter Run Chinook salmon below Shasta Reservoir, when the transfer actually puts the Sacramento salmon at greater risk2. The transfer water passes through Whiskeytown Reservoir, from which it is released to the Spring Creek Powerhouse to the Sacramento below Shasta. The 50°F water from the Trinity Reservoir cold-water pool transferred to Whiskeytown warms nearly 10 degrees (58.5-59.5°F) before passing through the Spring Creek Powerhouse on Keswick Reservoir. Water from Whiskeytown would be even warmer if not for a floating water curtain installed at the reservoir outlet in 2011 to reduce water temperature of releases to the Sacramento basin (Figure 2).3

Figure 2

Figure 2. Floating boom of water curtain in Whiskeytown Reservoir outlet cove to Spring Creek Powerhouse in Sacramento basin.

The 59°F water entering Keswick Reservoir must be cooled by Shasta 50°F cold-water pool water to meet the 54-56°F required release temperature of the 7000 cfs prescribed release of water into the Sacramento River above Redding. Because Shasta releases are a blend of cold and warm water to meet downstream required temperatures, the added burden of cooling the Trinity water adds to the demands on the critically low cold-water pool remaining in Shasta Reservoir.

The limited Shasta cold water pool has already resulted in the State Board’s weakening of the average daily water temperature standard of 56°F to protect Winter Run salmon eggs to 58°F at Redding. The weakened standard will result in some egg mortality. There remains concern whether the cold water pool releases can be sustained through the summer, unlike last summer when coldwater ran out in early September leading to the loss of 95% of the salmon production.

Further exacerbating the above problems is the continuing operation of all three storage reservoirs (Trinity, Whiskeytown, and Shasta) for peaking power (Figure 3). Releases for peak power demands occur during afternoon hours when reservoir waters are at their warmest (Figure 4). This specific operation pattern has lead to high afternoon water temperatures in Keswick releases to the Sacramento River, and most recently to higher night release temperatures (Figures 5 and 6). The standard remains 58°F average daily water temperature. Egg mortality increases above 56°F.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Release pattern at Shasta Dam in recent days. Peak releases to five powerhouses occurs in afternoon consistent with power demands. Note night releases having virtually been eliminated on August 23 in favor of daytime releases.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Temperature of water in penstocks to powerhouse from Shasta Reservoir. Note warmest water occurs during peak flows in afternoons.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Water temperature of water released from Keswick Dam to upper Sacramento River.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Water temperature of Sacramento River in Redding at CCR gage compliance point. Note average daily temperature approaches 58°F standard. Salmon egg mortality increases above 56°F.

  1. Trinity exports are also to be minimized to save carry-over storage for future Sacramento basin needs.
  2. http://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/?p=384
  3. To date, the curtain is performing as designed. It achieves an approximate 2 to 4 degree drop in water temperature.
    http://www.fabricatedgeomembrane.com/wp-content/docs/articles/fgi_jan2012_whiskeytown%20temp%20curtain%20pub%20file%20FI.pdf