feather-yuba river interactions and management implications yuba river... · 6/12/2013 · dpd...

Feather-Yuba River Interactions and Management Implications

June 12, 2013

Yuba Accord River Management Team 5th Annual Symposium

CALIFORNIA’S CENTRAL VALLEY Historic and Current Available Habitat

Source: NMFS 2009

2

Historic

2,183 stream miles

Current

1,126 stream miles

Feather-Yuba Interactions

Data Deficient

Extinct Low Risk

Moderate Risk

Not an Independent Population

Source: Lindley et al. 2007

LOWER YUBA RIVER Daguerre Point Dam and the Goldfields

3 Feather-Yuba Interactions

Fixed Date Approach

4

CHINOOK SALMON PASSING DAGUERRE POINT DAM

Vaki Counts 2004-2010


5

CHINOOK SALMON PASSING DAGUERRE POINT DAM

Vaki Counts 2011

7/14


Variable Date Approach 2004-2005 8/1/04

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1

No. o

f Fish

Date

2004 Chinook SalmonPassing Daguerre PointDamSpring-run ChinookSalmon PredictedLogisticFall-run ChinookSalmon PredictedLogistic

Chinook salmon = 5,927 fish

8/24/05

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1

No. o

f Fish

Date

2005 Chinook SalmonPassing Daguerre PointDam

Spring-run ChinookSalmon PredictedLogistic

Fall-run ChinookSalmon PredictedLogistic


6

CHINOOK SALMON Spring- and Fall-run Differentiation



0

50

100

150

200

250

3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1

No. o

f Fish

Date

2006 Chinook SalmonPassing Daguerre PointDam


Fall-run Chinook SalmonPredicted Logistic


9/4/07

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1

No. o

f Fish

Date

2007 Chinook SalmonPassing DaguerrePoint Dam




7




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1

No. o

f Fis

h

Date





7/9/09

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1

No. o

f Fis

h

Date





8




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1

No. o

f Fis

h

Date





9/7/11

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1

No. o

f Fis

h

Date





9



Because there is no hatchery on the Yuba River, the population is

composed of wild fish

?

SPRING-RUN CHINOOK SALMON Wild Population

10

Feather River Hatchery


DWR and CDFW 2009

Digital photography

Videography

Determination of adipose fin clips

11



12


Total Ad-Clipped Not Ad-Clipped

2004 8/1/04 5,927 738 72 666

2005 8/24/05 11,374 3,592 676 2,916

2006 9/6/06 5,203 1,326 81 1,245

2007 9/4/07 1,394 372 38 334

2008 8/10/08 2,533 521 15 506

2009 7/9/09 5,378 723 213 510

2010 7/6/10 6,469 2,886 1,774 1,112

2011 9/7/11 7,785 1,159 323 836

Chinook Salmon Passage Upstream of Daguerre Point DamAll Chinook

SalmonSpring-run Chinook SalmonDemarcation

DateYear

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

No.

of F

ish

Year

Spring-run Chinook Salmon Upstream of Daguerre Point Dam

Ad-Clipped Fish Not Ad-Clipped Fish

r2 = 0.104P = 0.437

r2 = 0.056P = 0.571

% Ad-Clipped10196103296128


13


• Ad-clipped fish comprise up to

60+% of the annual run

• Of 43 genetic samples taken during May 2009 from upstream migrating Chinook salmon, 28 were FRFH spring-run and 15 were CV fall-run

Because there is no hatchery on the Yuba River, the population is

composed of wild fish

?

Feather River Hatchery

Yuba River


Do differences in flows and temps attract fish from the Feather

into the Yuba River?

SPRING-RUN CHINOOK SALMON Hatchery Straying - Attraction to the Yuba River



15

Modeled weekly averages of daily proportions of ad-clipped phenotypic spring-run 2004-2011

• 136 average weekly proportions

Explanatory variables

• Weekly averages of the daily ratios of Yuba flows & temps to Feather flows & temps

• 10 combinations of flow and temperature attraction variables


R2 = 0.72 P < 0.0001



17


Differences in flows and temps attract fish from the Feather

into the Yuba River

?

More Hatchery Strays

SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31

May

Higher Yuba Flows

+

Lower Yuba Temps

=

Lower Feather Flows

+

Higher Feather Temps

4 Weeks Later SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

June


SPRING-RUN CHINOOK SALMON Introgressive Hybridization


Gene flow movement from one run into the gene pool of another by repeated back-crossing of a hybrid with one of its parental genotypes

The phenotypic spring-run Chinook salmon in the lower Yuba River actually represents hybridization

Between Yuba River spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon

With Feather River spring-run Chinook salmon

With Feather River fall-run Chinook salmon

With FRFH fall-run Chinook salmon

With FRFH spring-run Chinook salmon • Which itself represents a hybridization between Feather

River spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon

CWT Recoveries

Vaki Ad-Clipped

Fish

NMFS & UC Santa Cruz

SPRING-RUN CHINOOK SALMON Lack of Reproductive Isolation


Both “spring-running” and “fall-running” Chinook salmon are restricted to the lower Yuba River below Englebright Dam

SPRING-RUN CHINOOK SALMON


1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Spring-run virtually disappeared by 1959c

Straying from the Feather River and stocking from FRFHa

DPD fish ladders rebuilt in 1938 – but ineffectivea

Construction of New Bullards Bar 1970 – higher, colder flowsd

Debris dams 1900 to 1941- intermittently blocked migration

DPD fish ladders built in 1911a

Englebright Dam built in 1941

Adequate DPD fish ladders built 1950-52a

A remnant spring-run population persisted in the lower Yuba River as of 1991a

Extirpation and Recolonization

d YCWA et al. 2007

a CDFG 1991 b Mitchell 1992 c Fry 1961

Drought 1928-1934: high temps, likely extirpated spring-runb

DPD fish ladders destroyed 1927/28a

There is an independent, genetically distinct

population of spring-run Chinook salmon in the lower

Yuba River

?

21

Yuba and Feather flow and temp ratios influence

hatchery strays

Yuba River spring-run extirpated by 1959

• FRFH fish planted in 1970s • Re-colonized by FRFH

strays in 1970s

Hatchery straying rates up to 61%+

No genetic differentiation between Feather and Yuba

Chinook salmon

Lack of reproductive isolation

Introgressive hybridization

SPRING-RUN CHINOOK SALMON Feather-Yuba River Interactions

Likely no pure ancestral genome

There is NOT an independent, genetically

distinct population of spring-run Chinook salmon

in the lower Yuba River


Reservoir Management ?

Should reservoir management consider attraction of spring-run Chinook salmon to the Feather and Yuba rivers?

FEATHER-YUBA RIVER INTERACTIONS Management Implications/Considerations

22



Feather River Fish Hatchery Management

?

How do FRFH management practices affect the proportional distribution of spring-run Chinook between the Feather and Yuba rivers?

Sources: Fishery Foundation of California; California Department of Fish and Wildlife

http://www.sportfishingmag.com/files/imagecache/enlarged_image/_images/201205/picture-401_0.jpeg�



ESA Consultations

?

How would ESA consultations address the fluid, intermixed populations of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Yuba and Feather rivers? How would viability or extinction risk be evaluated in river-specific spring-run Chinook salmon ESA consultations?

Source: National Marine Fisheries Service



NMFS Recovery Planning

?

How do fluid, intermixed populations affect the short-term and long-term recovery goals for Yuba and Feather River spring-run Chinook salmon? How would recovery of spring-run Chinook salmon populations be defined and measured in the Feather and Yuba rivers?



Re-introduction into Upper Yuba

?

What would be the appropriate goals of a re-introduction program? How do you address donor (source) issues?

Source: Yuba County Water Agency

Yuba River spring-run not an independent, genetically distinct

population

27


Reservoir Management

? Feather River Fish

Hatchery Management

?

Re-introduction into the Upper

Yuba Basin ? NMFS Recovery

Planning ?

ESA Consultations

?


CONCLUSIONS

www.yubaaccordrmt.com

M&E Program - The Next Few Years

• Further evaluate regional population structure

• Continue to explore in-basin and out-of-basin influences on population dynamics

• Final M&E Report in 2016

28

What have we learned so far?

M&E Draft Interim Report Conclusions

Draft M&E Interim Report available at:

CONCLUSIONS

29 M&E Draft Interim Report Conclusions

www.yubaaccordrmt.com

CONCLUSIONS

30 M&E Draft Interim Report Conclusions

Implementation of the Yuba Accord…

Maintains Physical Habitat Attributes that Provide the Opportunity for “Good Condition” of Aquatic Resources and Viable Salmonid Populations in the Lower Yuba River

Is the Yuba Accord Protective of the Aquatic Resources of the Lower Yuba River?

The RMT Does Not Recommend Any Changes to the Yuba Accord Flow Schedules At This Time

M&E Program Draft Interim Report Conclusions

June 12, 2013

Yuba Accord River Management Team 5th Annual Symposium

feather-yuba river interactions and management implications yuba river... · 6/12/2013 · dpd...

Documents