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.

Central Valley Hatchery Steelhead Program Misdirected

Posted on April 12, 2015 by Tom Cannon

Approximately 1.3 million yearling Steelhead smolts are released each year in rivers below our three state and one federal Central Valley Steelhead hatcheries. The hatcheries include Coleman Hatchery (federal) on Battle Creek near Redding, Feather River Hatchery (state) near Oroville, Nimbus Hatchery (state) on American River near Folsom, and Mokelumne River Hatchery (state) near Lodi. The smolts are generally released as yearlings in February at about 4 to-the-pound and 6-10 inches in length. In some drought years (e.g., 2014), Nimbus Steelhead are also released to the American River as several-month-old fingerlings in June because hatchery source water from Lake Natoma is too warm to carry the fish through summer until the normal February release date.

The problem with releasing over a million hatchery Steelhead smolts into the rivers in the spring is that wild Spring-Run and Fall-Run Chinook salmon fry emerge or have recently-emerged from redds at this time. The one-inch salmon fry are ready-made prey for the hatchery Steelhead smolts. Figure 1 shows the partial stomach contents (six salmon fry) of a hatchery Steelhead smolt caught in early March in the lower American River.

Figure 1. Partial stomach contents of an American River hatchery steelhead smolt (head at right) captured in early March 2015 near Sunrise Bridge. There were partial remains of twenty salmon fry in various stages of digestion in the stomach.

While many hatchery Steelhead likely migrate from the rivers towards the Bay-Delta soon after release, many also stay in the rivers. This is especially true in the American River, where they may be released early as fingerlings prior to summer and are thus likely to take up residence in the river. Many Feather hatchery smolts take up residence in the lower Yuba River. Smolts released in rivers also are more prone to becoming permanent river residents in drought years when there are fewer pulses of flow to stimulate emigration to the sea, especially in the Feather, American, and Mokelumne Rivers. Salmon fry may become prey of the hatchery Steelhead smolts for a few days to a month or more.

Releasing hatchery Steelhead into the lower rivers in such large numbers also impacts wild Steelhead that are present in much smaller numbers. The hatchery smolts compete with the wild smolts. Hatchery smolts attract large numbers of predatory birds and fish (e.g., Striped Bass). Hatchery smolts also feed on wild Steelhead fry that emerge from redds from April to June.

What can be done to help solve the problem?

Hatchery Steelhead smolts should be trucked to the lower Sacramento River rather than being released in their natal rivers.
The trucked hatchery smolts should be placed in barges, then barged from the Sacramento River to low salinity waters of the Bay to reduce the probability of their immediately returning to their natal rivers (and to maximize their survival to the ocean). Barging is necessary to minimize subsequent adult straying to non-natal rivers, a problem if smolts are trucked all the way to the Bay.
Fingerlings should also not be released into natal rivers below the hatcheries. They too should be trucked then barged to the upper Bay.
Pre-smolts could be released in early winter to natural floodplain habitats or even to specially designed flooded rice fields to grow to smolt size.

These actions, if taken, will both reduce predation on wild salmon and Steelhead fry and markedly increase survival of hatchery Steelhead to the Ocean and subsequent escapement of adult Steelhead to the rivers. Record low numbers of Steelhead returned to Central Valley rivers in winter 2015. More on this subject will come in later posts.

For more details on the Steelhead hatchery programs see the following website: http://cahatcheryreview.com/summary-conclusions/

The Delta Plan – where is the water habitat?

Posted on April 10, 2015 by Tom Cannon

The Delta Stewardship Council’s Jessica Davenport, Program Manager, Ecosystem Restoration and Land Use, released an issue paper in August of last year entitled “Restoring Habitat with Science and Society in Mind”. ¹

“The Delta Plan shall include measures that promote all of the following characteristics of a healthy Delta ecosystem:

Viable populations of native resident and migratory species.
Functional corridors for migratory species.
Diverse and biologically appropriate habitats and ecosystem processes.
Reduced threats and stresses on the Delta ecosystem.
Conditions conducive to meeting or exceeding the goals in existing species recovery plans and state and federal goals with respect to doubling salmon populations.”

The Delta Plan,² much like the Governor’s Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP),³ has no measures that would promote a healthy Bay-Delta ecosystem. The plans virtually ignore water habitat: the characteristics of the water in the hundreds of miles and tens of thousands of acres of open water in the Bay-Delta. The plans fail to even define the components of a healthy ecosystem or how they relate to water habitat:

“viable populations” – what constitutes viable?
“functional corridors” – what is functional?
“appropriate habitats and ecosystem processes” – what is appropriate?
“threats and stresses” – what threats and stresses?
“conditions conducive to doubling salmon populations” – what conditions?

The plans simply focus on “restoration” of thousands of acres of edge habitat on marginal lands in Suisun Marsh and the Delta, virtually ignoring the “real problem” and its fixes. The “restoration” that is promoted will take decades to implement and will do little to promote a healthy ecosystem, at least in the short term.

The “real problem” is water management in the Central Valley and Bay-Delta. The “real problem” is our insatiable demand for water while virtually ignoring the beneficial uses and public trust requirements of the Central Valley and Bay-Delta ecosystems. There are water quality standards and endangered species biological opinions that provide minimal protections for resident and migratory native fish species. Yet the first thing that regulators do in droughts is relax these protections to provide more water for agriculture. As a consequence, the fish populations and their habitats suffer irreversibly in drier years, and especially in extended periods of drought. The result is fish populations on the verge of extinction, poor Bay-Delta water quality, salt in Delta water diversions, salmon smolts having to be trucked hundreds of miles from hatcheries to the Bay, and no freshwater inflow to the San Francisco Bay estuary.

Water is the ecosystem process ignored in the BDCP and Delta Plan. The characteristics of the water habitat in time and space are the missing element in the plans. The fish habitat that is most important is the water in Delta channels and bays, not the acreage of tidal marsh. Adding tidal marsh habitat will not fix the water habitat or provide a healthy ecosystem

The BDCP justified taking more water via the “tunnels” by offering thousands of habitat acres in return. The Delta Plan promotes these same land acreage solutions.

How can we really restore the Delta as habitat for smelt, salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, and other native fishes? We have to focus on Delta inflows, outflows, tides, and exports: hydrology, salinity, water temperature, and primary productivity patterns in the water habitat. The real habitat of the Delta is the three-dimensional characteristics of water in time and space. What should the water habitat be for Delta smelt when they hatch in the spring to insure good survival? How do we sustain the smelt in summer? Can they actually survive if all the Delta inflow is exported in August under relaxed standards? What happens to all the wild salmon smolts coming out of Central Valley rivers? What kind of water habitat do they need to pass through the Delta? They do not get a truck ride to and around the Delta. What is a “functional migration corridor” for them?

So instead of focusing on acreage, we should focus on the real habitat, water and all of its characteristics in time and space in the Delta, rivers, and the Bay. That way, we can promote the real ecosystem process that provides for a healthy Bay-Delta ecosystem.

The Delta Science Plan⁴ is just more talk and smoke and mirrors. What the Delta needs is more water and better water habitat. We do not need a new vision.

Mark-Selective Chinook Fishery in Puget Sound

Posted on April 9, 2015 by Don Beyer

Puget Sound is a large inland marine water body in Washington State that supports runs of five Pacific salmon, steelhead, and multiple marine fish species. Chinook salmon are a very popular recreational and (in the past) commercial species in Puget Sound. To support the naturally spawning Chinook salmon runs, numerous hatcheries were built in throughout the Pacific coast area.

As a result of the Endangered Species Act, the Chinook salmon fisheries were very restricted or completely closed to protect wild (“naturally spawning”) fish. This included closure for all (both hatchery and wild) Chinook salmon.

Through various planning efforts by sports fishermen, Native American tribes, Washington Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (WDFW) and others, a mark-selective approach for providing some fishing opportunities for Chinook salmon was developed. The approach involved marking of hatchery fish by removal of the adipose fin (a small fin near the tail) to identify hatchery fish from wild ones. Once removed, the fin does not normally regrow, and therefore, if caught by a fisherman, the fish can be identified as a hatchery fish and retained (if it meets other restrictions such as size limit, season, etc.). Wild fish (with the adipose fin) can then be readily identified and released. In addition, a certain percentage of hatchery fish may have a small “coded-wire tag” inserted into their heads. This provides additional information about the fish such as which hatchery it was reared in. WDFW has also added rules that wild salmon cannot be brought aboard a vessel (i.e., inside the gunwale) to assist in releasing the wild fish unharmed.

Each year, the WDFW and Native American tribes (co-managers of the fisheries in Washington State) set quotas on the number of marked Chinook salmon that may be taken in Puget Sound (which is divided into several subareas to assist in management for various runs of Chinook salmon. For example, one subarea may be dominated by a run to a specific hatchery. Depending on the projections for adult returns to that hatchery, a quota for take is established and considered in the overall quota for that subarea).

The quotas for each subarea are monitored through dockside sampling. They are also supported by WDFW staff that fish for Chinook salmon with methods similar to those used by private and charter sport fishing groups. This “on the water” sampling provides key information about take, wild/hatchery fish ratios, and fishing effort. The information is used to support the overall development of quotas.

Seasons and quotas are set early in the year so that some planning by fishermen (e.g., vacations, days off, etc.) can be made. However, if the quota is reached early, the season may be closed early.

Overall, the mark-selective approach has re-opened fishing opportunities. These have been very popular with fishermen, as noted by the large groups that are currently observed on the water. This has also helped support economically important aspects such as charter fishing, tackle shops, boat sales, etc.

The WDFW has provided very detailed information about the mark-selective Chinook salmon fishery in Puget Sound (and elsewhere in Washington State) in multiple publications and press releases (see wdfw.wa.gov/publications). These publications provide information on the overall program, sampling techniques, quota development, and other pertinent aspects of the mark-selective approach.

Several issues have arisen about the approach, which are of interest. These include costs associated with marking millions of hatchery fish and monitoring programs, incomplete or non-marking of hatchery fish, mortality associated with capture and release of wild fish, and other aspects of the program. However, overall, this approach has helped to provide fishing opportunities that would not be possible under the no-take restrictions that were originally imposed by the Endangered Species Act.

Hatchery Chinook salmon taken in a Puget Sound mark-selective fishery. Photo by the author.

What is wrong with summer water transfers?

Posted on April 5, 2015 by Tom Cannon

Summer water transfers are predominantly made with water released from Shasta and Oroville reservoirs. Instead of being used by Sacramento Valley CVP and SWP contractors, water is sold to South of Delta contractors who take the water via the South Delta CVP and SWP export pumps. Non-project water transfers are also facilitated by CDWR. Transfers usually occur in drought years when allocations to South of Delta contractors are low and excess export capacity exists at the South Delta pumping plants. Purchasers must also pay for an additional 15-25% of “carriage” water to limit salinity intrusion into the Delta that would occur with export of transfer water.

Under existing “rules”, up to 600,000 AF of water may be transferred through the Delta during the allowed summer transfer “window”. In 2014, 110,000 AF of CVP water from Shasta Reservoir was transferred from July through November (Reclamation was granted a temporary change to transfer water in the Oct-Nov period in 2014). In 2014, approximately 300,000 AF of transfers were conducted by CDWR during the summer. In 2015 CVP transfers of Shasta water are expected to be 240,000 AF, while SWP transfers are expected to be less than they were in 2014.

So what are the problems with water transfers from an ecological perspective¹?

Transfer water is released from reservoirs in summer where during drought years there may be a limited cold-water pool to sustain downstream fish populations through the summer and fall. In 2014, the brood year for Winter Run Chinook Salmon was lost when the Shasta cold-water pool was exhausted at the end of August (Figure 1). Some would argue that the water would have been released in any case to downstream ag contractors. However, there are other options that would keep the water in the reservoir (e.g., fallowing programs, water purchase, deferring transfers).
The water is released from multi-year storage, thus limiting the amount of carry-over storage in the coming years that is needed to sustain fish and their habitat, as well as water supplies for public health and safety.
Transfer water exported from the Delta is not the same water released from the reservoirs. Water exported is a combination of Sacramento River inflow, San Joaquin River inflow, and Delta low-salinity (brackish) water from the North, Central, and West Delta. Sacramento River inflow includes flows from the Feather, Yuba, and American rivers, as well as many smaller rivers.
The already inadequate protections that apply to “normal” export water don’t apply to transfer water. Transfers increase the flow towards the Delta pumps, pulling fish with them. But the ratio of inflow to outflow that generally limits exports doesn’t count transfer water; there are no restrictions in moving transfer water through the Delta other than carriage water requirements. Transfer water can make up 25% or more of Delta inflow.
Transfer water exported thus takes water with fish from many Central Valley habitats. Most prominently is the taking of Delta Smelt from the brackish and freshwater zones of the North, Central, and West Delta. Transfer water essentially must pass through the Delta’s designated critical habitats to get to the South Delta export facilities (Figure 2).
When water quality standards for inflow, outflow, and salinity are relaxed, the process is further aggravated. Adding transfers during drought conditions with barriers, DCC open, low exports, low inflows, and low outflows worsens the effects of transfers by bringing in added warm, fresh, low turbidity water to the Low Salinity Zone from the north, while exporting turbid, brackish, higher turbidity, more biologically productive water from the south (Figure 2).
Delta Smelt are highly vulnerable in the summer of drought years because the entire population is within the Delta (figure 3), where water temperatures are near or above lethal levels.

Figure 1. Water temperature of Keswick Dam releases in summer 2014. Chart depicts rapid rise in water temperature in early September as Shasta cold-water pool was exhausted. (Chart Source: NMFS)

Figure 2. Freshwater inflows to the Delta (blue arrows) including transfer water must mix first with many other source waters including brackish waters (green lines) from San Francisco Bay. South Delta exports draw water across the Delta (red arrows).

Figure 3. Catch distribution of Delta Smelt in CDFW Summer Townet Survey, July 2014. (Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/data/townet/ )

See http://www.water.ca.gov/watertransfers/issues.cfm for non-ecological issues ↩

CDFW proposes to close the Sacramento River above Redding to sport fishing from April 27 to July 31

Posted on April 4, 2015 by Tom Cannon

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife proposes to close fishing in the 5.5 miles of the Sacramento River above Hwy 44 Bridge from April 27-July 31 this year.¹ These upper few miles of the river below Keswick Dam provide a world-class sport fishery for rainbow trout (salmon fishing in this river reach is permanently closed). The premise of the ban is to reduce mortality on endangered Winter Run Chinook Salmon. The reach is where most of the Winter Run spawn, eggs incubate, and fry emerge in gravels from late spring through early fall (Figure 1). Last summer 95% of the 2014 Winter Run brood year perished from redd dewatering and high water temperatures.

The proposed closure would inappropriately place the drought-management burden on sport anglers when the problem is poor water management in the present drought. The low flows and high water temperatures in 2014 were caused by depletion of Shasta Reservoir’s cold-water pool to meet water demands of Central Valley Project Settlement Contractors in the Sacramento Valley. These senior water rights holders received 1.3 million acre-ft of Shasta storage during 2014. An additional 110,000 acre-ft released was sold to south of Delta contractors via water transfers from July through November. Shasta Reservoir storage peaked last year near 2.4 million acre-ft in early May, then declined to 1.1 million acre-ft in October.

Shasta Reservoir releases were over 6000 cfs from early May through August (Figure 2). Most of the Winter Run spawned in June and July at flows in excess of 8000 cfs. During the August through September incubation period, flows fell to near 4000 cfs, resulting in the dewatering of many salmon redds. Redd dewatering coupled with high water temperatures resulted in the loss of 95% of the brood year production during September, according to CDFW and NMFS.

Closing the fishery this summer implies that sport fishing activities would otherwise contribute to Winter Run mortality when there is no scientific evidence to support this assumption. Boat traffic is mainly drift boats, which minimally disturb fish. The most obvious risk from fishermen would be trampling redds in the low water period in the August-September incubation period, which is not included in the proposed ban. Even that risk is low, since few anglers wade the spawning reaches.

DFW’s blog states: “Given the gravity of the current situation, it is imperative that each and every adult fish be given maximum protection.”²
The “maximum protection” standard would be much better applied if the Department unequivocally supported measures to protect all life stages of Winter Run. Instead of burdening sport fishermen with the proposed ban, the solution is for the State Water Board to reduce deliveries from Lake Shasta to water contractors this summer. If releases had been cut by a third from May-July last year, the Winter Run could have been saved. Yes, this would have come at a substantial cost to state’s agricultural production (Settlement contractors were already cut 25%), but the drought is unprecedented. Winter Run salmon extinction should not be the price paid to keep rice production high this year in the Sacramento Valley.

Figure 1. Water temperature (degrees F) in Redding reach below Keswick Dam (KWK) in 2014, along with percent of Winter Run life stage present. Red line shows water temperature where egg/alevin survival is less than 50%. Source: NMFS

Figure 2. Shasta Reservoir releases from April through October 2014.