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.

San Joaquin Salmon Population Status – End of 2016

Posted on by

Recently, I wrote about the fall Chinook salmon runs on the San Joaquin River and its three major tributaries over the past six years.  Salmon counts in San Joaquin tributaries showed an increase in returning adults in 2012-2015 compared to the devastating returns in 2007-2009.  This increase occurred despite the five-year (2012-2016) drought in the San Joaquin watershed.  The number of spawners in 2012-2015 was still well below the returns in the eighties and nineties that corresponded to wet water year sequences.  See Figure 1.

A close look at recruitment per spawner in the population over the past 40 years (Figure 2) provides clear evidence that recruitment suffers in years with dry winter-springs or dry falls.  That relationship overwhelms the background relationship between spawners and recruits three years later.

  1. Recruitment is significantly depressed in drier years compared to wetter years. The major contributing factor is likely poor survival in winter-spring of juveniles in their first year.
  2. Recruitment is severely depressed for year classes rearing in critical years and returning as adults two years later in critical years (e.g., 88, 89).
  3. Recruitment can be depressed for year classes with good winter-spring juvenile rearing conditions but poor conditions when adults return (e.g., 05, 06).
  4. Recruitment can be enhanced for year classes with poor winter-spring young rearing conditions but very good fall conditions for adults returning (e.g., 81).
  5. Recruitment was enhanced in recent years likely as a consequence of increased flow requirements since 2009 (e.g., 09-13).
  6. There is an underlying positive spawner/recruit relationship, but it is overwhelmed by the effect on recruitment of flow-related habitat conditions.
  7. Poor ocean conditions in 2005-2006 likely contributed to poor recruitment.

Figure 1. Chinook salmon runs in the San Joaquin River as comprised by its three spawning tributaries from 1975-2015. Data source: CDFW.

Figure 2. Recruits per spawners relationship ((log10X)-2) for San Joaquin River fall run Chinook salmon 1976-2015. The year shown is the year that the salmon were rearing as juveniles in the rivers in their first year of life. (For example: year 13 represents the progeny of the fall 2012 spawn; these juveniles in 2013 would have spawned as 3-year-old adults in 2015). Red years are critical and dry water years. Blue years are wet water years. Green years are normal water years. Red circles represent years when fall conditions during spawning would have reduced recruitment (for example: year 13 red circle indicates poor fall conditions during the fall of 2015). Blue circles represent years when fall conditions were good when recruits returned. (For example: year 81 has blue circle because 1983 fall conditions were good/wet year). Note that year 14 is as yet unavailable for inclusion in the dataset because run counts for fall 2016 are not yet available.

Annual Runs in the Back Yard

Posted on by

Last week, the annual arrival of cedar waxwings hit my back yard near Sacramento. Each January, these magnificent birds fill my small back yard by the hundreds to feast for several days on the fermented fruit of three tall grape trees. The birds eat nearly every grape, likely a ton of fruit hanging from the branches. In several days the birds are gone, not to return for another year. I often wonder how important my little backyard piece of habitat is for this population of Cedar Waxwings, and how much of their winter energy comes from this small crop of fruit.

The birds remind me of another annual backyard run, the Cook Inlet Coho and Chinook salmon near Anchorage, Alaska, where I lived for three years in the mid-1980s. A large run of Coho showed up right on time each year at the end of summer in a creek that was literally in my back yard. Only kids were allowed to fish the city’s creeks for salmon, so I taught the neighborhood’s boys, including my 12-year-old son, how to catch and release the Coho. For a week or two, they could catch five or so bright ten-pounders in an hour or two a day. Me, I canoed down a tidal creek on the Kenai Peninsula side of the inlet and camp for a weekend to fish the fresh Coho run entering from the Inlet. I built a blind right on the creek within sight of the inlet. I could see the white backs of dozens of Beluga whales herding and feeding on the incoming salmon just a few dozen yards off the creek mouth. At night, the Coho approached the light of my Coleman lantern, even allowing a brief pet or two on my part, while maintaining steady and wary eye contact.

In the spring (late May), I often hitched a plane ride across the inlet (10 minutes and $40) to fish the spring Chinook run for a weekend of 24-hour daylight. At low tide, the small rivers were over 30-ft below the tule-lined channel. At high tide, the channel filled to the tules, along with seemingly bank-to-bank 30-lb spring-run salmon that obligingly hit any lure I put in front of them. This annual rush of spring Chinook lasted for a week or two before the fish moved upstream to await their late summer spawn.

Today, thirty years later, things are not so good. After 30 years of increasingly intense subsistence, personal use,1 sport, and commercial fishing pressure, and most importantly severe ecological drought, the salmon runs have sharply declined. No doubt global warming has hit Alaska worse than other parts of North America, with high temperatures and low precipitation.2

Many of the streams are now closed to fishing. Where open, the annual bag limit of Chinook is only one fish per year. The Cook Inlet Beluga that once numbered in the thousands are down to several hundred and were listed as endangered in 2008. This decline occurred despite the fact that much of the habitat remains virtually pristine and untouched by man, with little influence of hatcheries. Global warming, overfishing, natural cycles, or ocean conditions: no one knows the cause for sure. Regardless, Alaska’s fish agencies must now manage its fisheries very conservatively with intensive adaptive management science. If you asked these agencies, they would say they had already been doing that for decades. They would also admit they learned a hard lesson. For more on their situation see:
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=516 .

  1. Each state resident family could use a gillnet in the Inlet to catch 50 salmon per year for “personal use”. ↩
  2. https://nccwsc.usgs.gov/content/ecological-drought-alaska ↩

PG&E Withdraws License Application on Butte Creek: Future of Spring-Run Salmon Uncertain

Posted on by

By Chris Shutes (CSPA) and Dave Steindorf (American Whitewater)

In a surprise move, PG&E announced on February 2, 2017 that it was withdrawing its application to relicense the DeSabla – Centerville Hydroelectric Project on Butte Creek and the West Branch Feather River.  The reach of Butte Creek affected by the Project is home to the only remaining viable population of spring-run Chinook salmon in California’s Central Valley.

Spring-run salmon in Butte Creek have seen a resurgence over the last twenty years.  A substantial part of this was due to investments and improvements downstream of the Project. In addition, since 2003, PG&E and state and federal resource agencies have greatly improved the management of the Project for the fish.

From 2004 to 2009, PG&E went through a formal relicensing process with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to relicense the Project.  In 2016, the State Water Board issued a Water Quality Certification needed for a new license.  A new license from FERC was widely expected in 2017.

In a DeSabla – Centerville fact sheet and map that PG&E distributed with its announcement, PG&E describes the project as follows:

The Project diverts a portion of the natural flow of water from Butte Creek and West Branch of the Feather River (WBFR) into canals that carry the water for use in hydroelectric powerhouses. Once water is run through the powerhouses it is ultimately released to Butte Creek. During the summer, the natural flow of the WBFR is augmented by water releases from Round Valley and Philbrook reservoirs. Project diversions have provided additional flow to Butte Creek for more than 100 years. One of the beneficiaries of this additional flow has been the aquatic community in Butte Creek, including Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon.

While it is true that water from the Project augmented flows below Centerville Powerhouse for 100 years, it is only since 1980 that the Project benefited fish in the eight miles of Butte Creek between DeSabla Powerhouse and Centerville (see map).  The 2016 Water Quality Certification requires all the Butte Creek water and the imported water to remain in Butte Creek once it exits DeSabla Powerhouse.

The DeSabla – Centerville Project facilities are built around infrastructure that dates to 1900 and in some cases before.  Commissioned in 1900, Centerville Powerhouse has been offline since 2011, and ran only partially for the five years previous to that.  To function at all, it would need a complete rebuild.  The estimated cost to rebuild was $39 Million in the mid-1990’s; it is almost certainly now double that, or more.  DeSabla Powerhouse, nine miles upstream of Centerville, is relatively modern and in good condition, but the small reservoir that feeds it allows water to heat up too much passing through.

In California’s modern energy market, the capability to regulate the grid gives hydropower its greatest value.  But unlike many other hydropower projects, powerhouses in the DeSabla – Centerville Project run at a constant rate, day and night, regardless of when power demand is high or low.  They also have no ability to help regulate the power grid, especially to respond to short-term changes in supply from intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar.

The real value of the Project is the water it imports from the West Branch Feather River to Butte Creek: value for the fish and value for the farms that use the water further downstream.  The fish can’t pay for this service; the farms have never been asked to pay and never have.

PG&E’s decision not to relicense the Project does not lead to a path that is simple.  In the next few months, moving into the next few years, PG&E will need to establish a stakeholder engagement process to help determine the Project’s long-term disposition.  PG&E will need to engage resource agencies, downstream water rights holders, interested NGO’s, and local residents.  The DeSabla – Centerville Project has been part of the community for over a century.  Its resource values are enormous.  The water that it supplies downstream is essential to the irrigation of thousands of acres of crops.

On September 19, 2015, PG&E bought an advertisement on the editorial page of the San Francisco Chronicle entitled:  “Of Bees, Birds and Chillin’ Chinook: All in a Sustainable Day at PG&E.”  Mr. Tony Earley, CEO of PG&E at the time, started the ad by extolling PG&E’s work to keep salmon in Butte Creek cool.  His major theme stated: “The days are long past when energy companies could afford to think of their mission as separate from conservation, sustainability and good management of our natural resources.  Our view must be for the long term.  That’s why we live our commitment to conservation through a number of programs.”

We look forward to the opportunity to help PG&E maintain this well-stated goal.

Longfin Smelt – January 2017 Larval Survey

Posted on by

In a recent post on the status of the state-listed longfin smelt, I remarked on the dire straits of the population in the San Francisco Bay Estuary.  I noted that the first measure of a population collapse would be the lack of population response in wet year 2017 as determined by the larval longfin smelt catch in the January 2017 Smelt Larval Survey.  The January 2017 survey results are now in and indicate very low catch (15) relative to the first eight years of the survey.  Additional larval surveys in February and March and the spring 20-mm Survey will likely confirm these results.  The low larval count reflects the lack of adult spawners in the population.  Most of the winter 2017 spawners came from the winter 2015 brood.  The question remains whether the population can rebound under such low recruitment of juveniles into the population and whether juvenile survival (recruit per spawner) can increase under 2017’s favorable wet year conditions.

Catch of longfin smelt in January Smelt Larval Survey 2009 to 2017. Data Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/data/sls/CPUE_Map.asp .

Catch of longfin smelt in January Smelt Larval Survey 2009 to 2017. Data Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/data/sls/CPUE_Map.asp .

More on Delta Smelt Tidal Surfing

Posted on by

The last post about risk to Delta smelt was on January 9. Adult smelt migrate into the Delta from the Bay in winter to spawn. They take advantage of the flood tide to move upstream. However, with flood flows as high as 100,000 cfs entering the north Delta from the Sacramento River, the Yolo Bypass, and Georgiana Slough in mid- to late January 2017, there are no flood tides to ride into the north Delta spawning areas.

The only option for the adult smelt is thus to ride the incoming tide up the San Joaquin River into the central and south Delta (Figure 1). South Delta export pumping is currently at 14,000 cfs, near maximum capacity, using four rarely used auxiliary pumps. This pumping increases the pull of the incoming tide, reducing the effect of the inflow from the San Joaquin, Calaveras, Mokelumne, and Cosumnes rivers. While Delta inflow from these rivers is relatively high (Figures 2-5), it does not offset the influence of the incoming tide as does the inflow from the Sacramento.

Net tidal flows in lower Old and Middle Rivers (OMR flows) remain at the allowed limit of -5000 cfs, consistent with the smelt Biological Opinion. Several adult Delta smelt were salvaged at the export facilities in mid-January. 1 This scenario is considered a “high risk” to Delta smelt by the Smelt Working Group, because of the continuing risk that the pumps will draw or attract adult smelt into the central Delta and subsequently into the south Delta.

Under lower San Joaquin River flows, the maximum allowed export pumping is 11,400 cfs. High San Joaquin River inflow allows exports of 14,000 cfs that do not generate OMR flows more negative than -5000 cfs. The theoretical benefit of high San Joaquin River flows is that it should keep flow into the central and south Delta moving westward. But a large portion of that inflow is diverted south into the Head of Old River toward the pumping plants (Figure 6).

Figure 1. Approximate flood tide flow in cubic feet per second in mid to late January 2016. Blue arrows represent high Sacramento River, San Joaquin River and Mokelumne River flows (during flood tides). Red arrows depict negative flows of incoming tides. Note the south Delta incoming tide of -20,000 cfs would be less if not for the 14,000 cfs export rate at the south Delta pumping plants.

Figure 1. Approximate flood tide flow in cubic feet per second in mid to late January 2017. Blue arrows represent high Sacramento River, San Joaquin River and Mokelumne River flows (during flood tides). Red arrows depict negative flows of incoming tides. Note the south Delta incoming tide of -20,000 cfs would be less if not for the 14,000 cfs export rate at the south Delta pumping plants.

Figure 2. San Joaquin River flow at Mossdale at the head of the Delta upstream of Stockton and the Head of Old River. Note that on Jan 6 when flow reached about 6,000 cfs, the tidal signal dissipated when flow overcame the tidal forces.

Figure 2. San Joaquin River flow at Mossdale at the head of the Delta upstream of Stockton and the Head of Old River. Note that on Jan 6 when flow reached about 6,000 cfs, the tidal signal dissipated when flow overcame the tidal forces.

Figure 3: Flow from the Calaveras River, upstream of the Delta. The Calaveras enters the Delta at Stockton.

Figure 3: Flow from the Calaveras River, upstream of the Delta. The Calaveras enters the Delta at Stockton.

Figure 4. Release from Camanche Dam to the Mokelumne River. CDEC does not show flow values for the Mokelumne at gages further downstream. The Mokelumne enters the Delta near Jersey Point.

Figure 4. Release from Camanche Dam to the Mokelumne River. CDEC does not show flow values for the Mokelumne at gages further downstream. The Mokelumne enters the Delta near Jersey Point.

Figure 5. Cosumnes River flow well upstream of the Delta. Much of the high flow peaks enters the river’s connected floodplain, roughly between Lodi and Elk Grove, and does not flow immediately to the Delta. Flows in the Cosumnes enter the Mokelumne before passing into the Delta

Figure 5. Cosumnes River flow well upstream of the Delta. Much of the high flow peaks enters the river’s connected floodplain, roughly between Lodi and Elk Grove, and does not flow immediately to the Delta. Flows in the Cosumnes enter the Mokelumne before passing into the Delta

Figure 6. Flow entering the entrance to Old River from the San Joaquin River near Stockton.


Figure 6. Flow entering the entrance to Old River from the San Joaquin River near Stockton.

  1. https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/dsmeltsplitdly.pdf Note: website has changed to this new site. ↩