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.

2007-2009 Salmon Crash Revisited

Are Shasta Dam Release Patterns Contributing to Low Sacramento River Fall-Run Salmon Runs and Escapement? Yes.

The 2007-2009 Sacramento River salmon crash (Figure 1) is well documented (Lindley 2009). The poor returns of brood years 2004-2005 in 2007-2008 from high 2004-2005 adult runs are particularly troubling. Lindley et al. looked closely at both the wild and hatchery components of brood years 2004 and 2005 to determine the potential causes of the crash. They focused on identifying “where and when in the life cycle abundance became anomalously low, and where and when poor environmental conditions occurred due to natural or human-induced causes.” Their review led to a conclusion that ocean conditions for brood years 2004-2005 was the primary cause of the crash: “all of the evidence that we could find points to ocean conditions as being the proximate cause of the poor performance of the 2004 and 2005 broods of SRFC.” They also came to the following conclusions:

  1. We recognize, however, that the rapid and likely temporary deterioration in ocean conditions is acting on top of a long-term, steady degradation of the freshwater and estuarine environment.
  2. The evidence pointed to ocean conditions as the proximate cause because conditions in freshwater were not unusual, and a measure of abundance at the entrance to the estuary showed that, up until that point, these broods were at or near normal levels of abundance.
  3. A broad body of evidence suggests that anomalous conditions in the coastal ocean in 2005 and 2006 resulted in unusually poor survival of the 2004 and 2005 broods of SRFC. Both broods entered the ocean during periods of weak upwelling, warm sea surface temperatures, and low densities of prey items.
  4. The cessation of net-pen acclimatization in the estuary in 2006 may have contributed to the especially poor estuarine and marine survival of the 2005 brood.

I revisited the information on the “crash” with the added information from the time of that crash, subsequent years, and the reoccurrence in what appears to be a 2016-2017 crash1. Lindley et al. only had limited information available for their 2009 report. A close look at Figure 1 provides several key clues:

  1. The crash involved both hatchery and wild fish production.
  2. The poor production of wild fish continued through 2011 and again in 2016.
  3. Brood year 2006 and 2013 wild fish had the poorest production, while brood year 2004 and 2005 production was actually higher than brood years 2006-2008.

Failure of Brood Years 2004 and 2005.

First a look at brood years 2004 and 2005. Both years’ 12 million hatchery-produced smolts were released at the hatchery from mid-April to early May. None were coded-wire tagged or trucked to Bay pens. Their success cannot be determined, other than being a contributor to poor hatchery adult runs from 2007-2009.

Brood year 2004 wild and hatchery smolts were subjected to low river flows (as low as 5000 cfs at Wilkins Slough in the lower Sacramento River) and high water temperatures (56-61oF) at Red Bluff and below in late April to mid-May. Such conditions are extremely poor and would have likely led to poor survival to the ocean. Keswick releases were very low in the winter-spring rearing and migrating period in 2005 (Figure 2), also likely contributing to low survival.

Brood year 2005 smolts had somewhat better conditions in wet year 2006, but still had to contend with high water temperatures (56-59oF) from Red Bluff and downstream in late April and early May. Brood year 2005 wild fish also were subjected to high late-December flood flows (Figure 2) that may have scoured redds in the spawning reach below Keswick Dam.

Both brood years had to contend with sharply falling flows during the fall spawning period (Figure 2) that likely led to redd stranding and poor embryo survival of the wild fish component. In addition, the Red Bluff Diversion Dam had closed gates after April 1, another low survival factor. Wild fish may have fared better overall because a majority of the juvenile salmon production for the year passed Red Bluff before the April 1 gate closure with generally better river conditions.

Failure of Brood Year 2006

Brood year 2006 appears to have fared worse than brood years 2004 and 2005, in both the hatchery and wild components (2009 escapement in Figure 1). Unlike brood year 2004 and 2005 hatchery production, a quarter of the 12 million hatchery smolts (again all released at the hatchery in mid- to late April 2007) were coded-wire tagged. Of these, only 0.00 to 0.09 percent survived (1% or higher is good survival). In other words, less than 100,000 adults were produced with only about 20,000 escapement (Figure 1). Most of these 12 million smolts were released at the hatchery in the last week of April under generally low flow (5000 cfs) and high water temperature conditions (68-72oF after May 1) in the lower Sacramento River (Figure 3). The Red Bluff Diversion Dam was closed after April 1, as in 2005 and 2006. Such conditions likely led to very poor survival.

As a consequence, only about 5000 adult wild run fish contributed to the upper river mainstem escapement in 2009, compared to a range of 50,000 to 150,000 over the prior decade. The cause of the poor 2009 wild escapement (Figure 1) is best explained by a combination of factors: 1) poor numbers of spawners from brood year 2006; 2) poor egg/embryo survival from redd stranding in fall 2006 (Figure 2); 3) generally poor winter flows below Keswick Dam in drought year 2007 (Figure 2); and 4) generally poor ocean conditions outlined in Lindley et al. in years 2006-2008.

Brood Years 2007 and 2008

Brood years 2007 and 2008 had improved hatchery smolt survival and poor wild survival (years 2010 and 2011 escapement in Figure 1). Of the approximately 12 million hatchery brood year 2007 smolts released, approximately 1.5 million were trucked to the Delta or Bay pens with a subsequent survival of 0.10-0.14 %. The 10.5 million smolts released at the Coleman Hatchery had similar subsequent survival. Survival, though still poor, was about double that of brood year 2006, which led to double the hatchery fish escapement in the 2010 run over 2009 (Figure 1).

Brood year 2008 releases totaled approximately 15 million smolts, with about 10% trucked and released in San Pablo Bay pens. The Bay releases had a much improved survival of about 1%, as did the river releases (0.3-1.0%), leading to a doubling of the hatchery component in the 2011 run over 2010 (Figure 1). Installation of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam was delayed to late spring.

The wild fish contributions from brood years 2007 and 2008 remained poor (2010 and 2011 escapement in Figure 1). Poor runs (escapement) in 2007 and 2008 likely contributed to this; however, conditions were poor for eggs and fry in these brood years in the spawning reach in fall and winter (Figure 4).2 Hatchery river releases after April 1 had better conditions, with increased Keswick releases (Figure 4) and reduced operation of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam.

Brood Year 2009

Recovery from the 2007-2009 crash continued with the success of brood year 2009 (2012 escapement in Figure 1). The 12 million smolts, including 1.4 million released to Bay pens, had good survival rates of 1-4%. The Red Bluff Diversion Dam was decommissioned. In contrast, wild river escapement, though somewhat improved, remained poor. As for brood years 2007 and 2008, fall and winter conditions remained poor for wild fish (Figure 4). Redd stranding and low winter flows for rearing and emigration were significant problems.

Conclusions

  1. The Sacramento River fall-run salmon crash of 2007-2009 was caused by the combination of poor ocean conditions, fall redd stranding, poor winter Shasta/Keswick Reservoir releases, the December 2005 flood, upper river hatchery smolt releases in spring after Red Bluff Diversion Dam gates were closed, poor spring river flows and high water temperatures, and lack of Bay pen hatchery smolt releases.
  2. Recovery from 2010-2012 was mainly due to improved hatchery smolt survival from decommissioning of Red Bluff Diversion Dam, Bay pen releases, and improved ocean survival for brood years 2008 and 2009. Wild fish improvements were less marked because of poor spawner numbers and continuing poor river conditions (redd stranding and low winter flows), and poor Delta conditions (high exports and low inflow/outflow3).
  3. Over the past decade or so, there has been a concerted strategy to limit releases from Shasta Reservoir during the non-irrigation season (Nov-Mar), which has compromised survival of wild and hatchery salmon populations in the Sacramento River. This strategy, combined with drought and poor ocean conditions, led directly to population crashes of fall-run salmon in 2007-2009 and 2016-2017.4

Figure 1. Sacramento River fall-run salmon run escapement 1975-2016.

Figure 2. Shasta/Keswick reservoir releases spring 2003 through spring 2007, with emphasis on fall spawning and spring rearing periods for salmon brood years 2004 and 2005. Note sharp fall flow declines in both years (magenta circles), low spring 2005 flows, and late December 2005 flood (red circle).

Figure 3. River flow and water temperatures (daily high and low) in lower Sacramento River at Wilkins Slough Mar-Jun 2007.

Figure 4. Shasta/Keswick reservoir releases fall 2007 through spring 2010, with emphasis on fall spawning and spring rearing periods for salmon brood years 2007-2009. Note sharp fall flow declines in the three years (magenta circles) and low winter flows (red arrows).

Spring Hatchery Salmon Releases – Feather River

Hatchery fall-run salmon smolts being released into the Sacramento River at the mouth of the Feather River at Verona on May 2, 2018. SacBee photo.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife released spring-run and fall-run salmon smolts raised at the Feather River Hatchery into the lower Feather River from late March to early May 2018. The initial spring-run releases were accompanied by a flow pulse up to 14,000 cfs into the lower Feather River.1 The early May release2 of fall-run was made without the benefit of a flow pulse.

Past performance of hatchery spring-run smolt releases is shown in Figure 1. The 2011 successful smolt release was accompanied by 8,000-17,000 cfs Oroville Dam flows (Figure 2) and wet year conditions in the Bay-Delta. The 2012 modestly successful smolt release was accompanied by a 3000 cfs flow pulse. The 2007 to 2009 smolt releases also had an accompanying 3000-5000 cfs flow releases, but flows that followed fell to 1000-2000 cfs. There was no flow pulse in 2010.

The early April 2018 flow pulse in the Feather River was followed by falling flows (14,000 cfs in early April down to 1000 cfs flow in late April – Figure 3). The latest release of fall-run smolts on May 2 was made near the mouth of the river because of low Feather River flows. Flows in the Sacramento River were also low (less than 10,000 cfs – Figure 4), and water temperatures were marginal at 65°F. The evidence summarized in Figures 1 and 2 suggests that smolts should be trucked to the Bay in non-wet years without strong flow pulses. Survival would be further increased if the smolts are barged from the mouth of the river.3

We can expect good survival from the earlier releases that were accompanied by flow pulses and poor survival from the early May release without a flow pulse. The latter release should have been trucked to the Bay.

Figure 1. Survival (% return) of spring-run salmon tag-release groups from 2007-2013 spring smolt releases. Source of data: http://www.rmpc.org/

Figure 2. Flow (cfs) in the lower Feather River at Gridley in Apr-May 2007-2013.

Figure 3. Flow (cfs) in the lower Feather River at Gridley in Mar-May 2018.

Figure 4. Flow (cfs) in Sacramento River just below mouth of Feather River at Verona in Mar-May 2018.

Sacramento River Salmon Passage Projects

Several years ago I wrote a post on the loss of fish in the Sacramento River floodplain. Last year marked the completion of the Knights Landing Outfall Gates (KLOG) and Wallace Weir screening projects that will hopefully keep adult salmon from entering the Colusa Basin Drain. In the coming years, the Fremont Weir Passage Facility will allow adult salmon to escape the Yolo Bypass back to the Sacramento River. That is progress, but there is more to do.

We now need to focus on the Sutter Bypass and Butte Basin to the east of the Sacramento River. Like the Fremont Weir, the Colusa, Moulton, and Tisdale weirs need fixing. Adult salmon are blocked at these weirs. Young salmon pass over the weirs into the Butte Basin and Sutter Bypass and become stranded or die in the bypass. Like the Knights Landing Outfall Gates (KLOG), the Butte Slough Outfall Gates (BSOG) need fixing. In March, many adult spring-run salmon died (photo above) at the BSOG1 as Butte Basin floodwaters exiting the BSOG attracted salmon migrating up the Sacramento River. The salmon died in passing through the flap gate from direct physical damage or from low oxygen. Hopefully, the planned upgrade of the BSOG by the state will fix the problem.

Though much progress has happened on the Butte Creek/Slough and Sutter Bypass to correct fish passage problems,2 more needs to be done, especially in the Sutter Bypas3. Weir #1 hinders spring-run salmon passage to Butte Creek. CalTrout is planning a fix for that weir.

Sacramento River Salmon and Water Right Order 90-5

Operation of the Central Valley Project’s Shasta-Trinity Division is governed in part by the State Water Board’s Water Right Order (WRO) 90-5. Issued in 1990, this Order prescribes reasonable protection for Sacramento River salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon even under today’s conditions. The problem in recent years is that “requirements” are not being met by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Even in the past three non-drought years, including record wet 2017 and this year’s normal classification, Reclamation has not met requirements. This has caused significant impacts to salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon, which I have documented in prior posts. In the past three years, Reclamation has used its poor performance during the 2013-2015 drought and global warming as excuses to prioritize preserving water storage in Lake Shasta over meeting water temperature requirements for the Sacramento River under WRO 90-5. But while Reclamation has argued it must preserve Shasta Reservoir’s cold-water pool, Reclamation has maintained full deliveries to its Sacramento Valley contractors.

The State Board has a whole website dealing with the issue and problems dealing with Reclamation on the issue: (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/sacramento_river/ ).

In a March 14, 2018 letter to Reclamation, the State Board’s Deputy Director for Water Rights wrote to Reclamation on compliance with WRO 90-5,1 stating:

As you know, Order 90-5 requires Reclamation to maintain a daily average temperature (DAT) of 56 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in the Sacramento River at Red Bluff Diversion Dam during times when higher temperatures will be detrimental to fish, unless factors beyond Reclamation’s reasonable control prevent it from maintaining such temperatures. If Reclamation is unable to meet the temperature requirement at Red Bluff Diversion Dam throughout the temperature control season, Reclamation must develop an operations plan for approval by the Chief of the State Water Board’s Division of Water Rights (Deputy Director). The plan, which is required to be developed in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively fisheries agencies), and the U.S. Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), must designate a location upstream of Red Bluff Diversion Dam where the temperature requirement will be met. Order 90-5 includes specific monitoring and reporting requirements in addition to a general requirement (Condition 3) that Reclamation conduct such monitoring and reporting as is required by the Deputy Director to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of Order 90-5.

Given potential concerns with temperature management this year and the degraded status of the winter-run Chinook salmon population following the drought, Reclamation should be aware that operational changes may be needed beyond those proposed by Reclamation in their TMP to minimize impacts to winter-run Chinook salmon and avoid redirected impacts to other native species. Reclamation should acknowledge those needs in its TMP and provide for a process for continually evaluating conditions and operations to ensure that needed adjustments to temperature control operations are considered in a timely manner.

On April 2, 2018, Reclamation responded2:

This response not only states that Reclamation will not meet WRO 90-5 water temperature requirements at Red Bluff (river mile 243), but also that it will not meet these requirements at Balls Ferry (river mile 276), 30 miles upstream and half way to Keswick Dam. In fact, Reclamation to date has blatantly kept the promise of not meeting requirements (Figure 1), despite the fact that Shasta Reservoir is full of cold water. It is not even May yet!

The Coleman Fish Hatchery just stocked 4 million fall-run salmon hatchery smolts at Battle Creek upstream of Red Bluff, with another 2 million soon to follow.3 The recently released hatchery fish (and their wild counterparts) are being subjected to highly stressful conditions in their 200-mile journey to San Francisco Bay (Figures 2 and 3).

There is plenty of cold water in Shasta Reservoir (Figures 4 and 5) to meet the flow and temperature needs of salmon in the lower Sacramento River through the summer, as required by WRO 90-5. It would take a total release of about 6000 cfs from Shasta to meet WRO 90-5 requirements at this time just at Balls Ferry. Reclamation increased releases in the past several days to 5300 cfs to meet water contractor demands. The problem remains that this water is not reaching the lower river, where water temperatures now hit 70°F and exceed the WRO 90-5 limits of 68°F (Figure 3). It will take an added 2000-3000 cfs at Wilkins Slough to keep the lower river below its 68°F limit This added release would represent about one foot of Shasta Reservoir water-surface elevation per week (Figure 4).

Sacramento Valley contractors have been given a 100% water allocation. South of Delta San Joaquin CVP contractors have been allocated only 40%. Reclamation is fully capable of meeting WRO 90-5 requirements, as it did historically. It is up to the State Board to enforce the CVP permit requirements. Given the state of the salmon populations, there should be no compromise on the permit requirements.

Figure 1. Reclamation report on Sacramento River temperatures through 24 April, 2018. Source: https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/sactemprpt.pdf

Figure 2. Water temperature at Red Bluff (RM 243), April 2018. Red line is limit requirement in WRO 90-5. Source: cdec.

Figure 3. Water temperature at Wilkins Slough (RM 118) April 2018. WRO 90-5 limit is 68°F. Water temperatures in excess of 65°F are highly stressful to juvenile salmon. Source: cdec.

Figure 4. Shasta storage characterization for water at the dam’s temperature control device (TCD), March 23 – April 22, 2018. Source: https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/ShastaTCD2018.pdf (See link for updates.)

Figure 5. Shasta Reservoir storage as of April 24, 2018.
Source: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/ResDetail?resid=SHA

  1. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/sacramento_river/docs/2018/03142018_sac_temp_plan_ltr.pdf
  2. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/sacramento_river/docs/2018/04022018response_90_5.pdf
  3. Note that Coleman Fish Hatchery on Battle Creek normally stocks 12 million fall-run smolts, but brood year 2014 salmon did not provide sufficient spawners (eggs for hatchery), and the hatchery thus produced only 6 million smolts in 2017. Hopefully, the 2 million smolts that have not yet been released will be trucked to the Bay.

More on Coleman Hatchery Salmon Straying

There appears to be little doubt that trucking Coleman (Battle Creek) Hatchery fall run salmon smolts to San Pablo Bay pens for release during the recent 2013-2015 drought provided near five-fold higher survival (and fishery catch) than releases at the hatchery (Figure 1). Standard late April to early May releases to the Bay net pens resulted in returns of about 1%, as compared 0.1-0.3% for releases at the hatchery. With Coleman Hatchery smolt releases at 10-12 million per year, the difference in release strategy amounts to tens of thousands of adult salmon produced in critical drought years.

The problem with Bay releases is it results in considerable straying of returning Coleman hatchery adult salmon to other Central Valley rivers and hatcheries. Comparison of returns from several groups of brood year 2013 releases from Coleman and the Bay is shown in Table 1. A four-to-five- fold higher return to the fisheries is evident for the Bay releases, as is a 90% reduction in Coleman Hatchery returns. The return of Coleman fish to other hatcheries is an added problem in that the Coleman fish returned earlier. This was fortunate for Coleman hatchery, because some of the eggs from these fish were shipped to Coleman. It also indicates there may be some environmentally-derived genetic differences in the fall run of Central Valley rivers.

Table 1.  Comparison of Coleman Hatchery tag recovery numbers from 400,000 smolts released at the hatchery and trucked to the Bay for brood year 2013 fall run salmon.  Data source: http://www.rmis.org/.

RECOVERY LOCATION COLEMAN RELEASES
(400,000 tags)
BAY RELEASES
(400,000 tags)
Nearby San Francisco Ocean 68 279
Central Valley Rivers 25 138
Coleman Hatchery 629 76
Other Hatcheries 3 204

These results beg some real questions.  Can the Coleman Hatchery get enough eggs to meet production goals?  Is the straying to other rivers and hatcheries a problem or perhaps a benefit?  Is the greater return to fisheries from Bay releases worth the effort and problems resulting?  Are there other actions that might resolve some of the problems, and perhaps increase survival to the 3-to-5 % level of wetter years?

It appears that Coleman was able to raise only 6 million fall-un smolts to release in April-May 2018 (normal release is 12 million) because of the shortage of eggs.  These smolts are likely slated for release at the hatchery to minimize future egg shortages.

With the irrigation season starting, storm and snowmelt flows declining, and the arrival of warm, dry weather, these hatchery smolts will need a boost to help them get over two hundred miles from Battle Creek near Redding to the Bay and ocean.  With flows already too low (Figure 2) and water temperatures too high (Figure 3), the young salmon need a pulse of cold Shasta Reservoir water.  There is plenty of water in Shasta Reservoir for this.  Shasta will fill (4.5 million acre-feet) in a few weeks.  It is filling at a rate of more than 10,000 acre-feet per day in mid-April.  A pulse of three thousand added cfs to the Sacramento River for ten days amounts to 60,000 acre-feet.  The added water should be passed through the Delta to the Bay.  I hope this is an element of the plan to recover the Sacramento River fall-run salmon from the 2016-2017 crash.

Figure 1. Survival rates (% return) of Coleman Hatchery smolts (brood years 2012-2014) released at various locations in April-May of 2013-2015 drought. “SPB” denotes San Pablo Bay. Data source: http://www.rmis.org/.

Figure 2. Lower Sacramento River flow at Wilkins Slough (river mile 125), April 12-22, 2018. Flows below 8,000 cfs lead to excessive lower river water temperatures (>65°F).

Figure 3. Lower Sacramento River water temperature at Red Bluff, April 12-22, 2018. The water temperature maximum-daily-average standard at Red Bluff (river mile 243) is 58°F.