Fly fishers might be surprised to learn that California has 31 distinct types of native salmon, steelhead, and trout. There had been 32, but the bull trout in our state is now extinct and according to Status of the Salmonis II: Fish in Hot Water, a report released in May by California Trout and the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences, others face extinction within the coming decades. SOS II is a sobering, even alarm ing read (you can view and download it at www.caltrout.org/sos/), but it is not with out hope. We wanted to ask one of its authors, Patrick Samuel, about the findings presented in the report and particularly their implications for our state’s anglers.
Richard: You’re the conservation program – coordinator for California Trout, you co authored SOS II with Dr. Peter Moyle and Dr. Rob Lusardi, and you’ve also been a fly fisher for quite a while. What drew you to the sport, and how did you get involved with fisheries conservation and with the SOS project?
Patrick: I grew up fishing with conventional tackle on the East Coast. I was lucky enough to get a hand-me-down Orvis Rocky Mountain series 8-foot 5-weight rod from my uncle when I was 12. My dad and I got an inflatable boat to poke around in local bass ponds, and we realized we could catch more fish using flies. Getting to fish and explore new places with my dad drew me to the sport, but what got me hooked on fly fishing in particular is how mental it is and how it has brought me to some of the most beautiful, peaceful places.
Fishing with my dad has always been my favorite thing to do, and I knew since high school that I wanted to pursue a career in fisheries. It wasn’t until I worked for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Wild and Heritage Trout Program after college that I really could picture myself as a fishhead for the rest of my career. I went back to school for a graduate degree in New England, and after a stint studying how commercial fishing regulations get set by the feder al Fishery Management Councils, I was hired by CalTrout to coordinate the State of the Salmonids research and report with my colleagues, Dr. Peter Moyle and Dr. Rob Lusardi at UC Davis.
Richard: What is the purpose of SOS II? Can you summarize its findings?
Patrick: The purpose of this research is to provide a snapshot of how California’s native salmonids salmon, steelhead, and trout are doing statewide under present trends, discuss the major threats contributing to their general decline, and provide a scientifically based roadmap of actions we can take to reverse the trend. The three of us spent 18 months researching, speaking to experts, and writing to compile the latest information for each fish and to present that information in summary biological accounts. The report pulls together in one place research from various agencies and partners, and paints a picture of the plight of California’s sal monids as a whole.
The main finding of the report is that 74 percent of the remaining 31 kinds of salmon, steelhead, and trout will disappear from California’s waters in the next 100 years if present trends continue. Forty-five percent will be gone in 50 years.
Surprisingly, California, with its population of 39 million, has not lost a species since the bull trout was last seen a generation ago in the McCloud River in 1975. Our salmonids are incredibly resilient to change, which has allowed them to adapt and thrive through drought, volcanic activity, earthquakes, ice ages, and other threats in the past. Given half a chance, they can bounce back again.
Climate change is now the overarching threat to these species and is likely to reduce the availability of coldwater habitat that salmon, steelhead, and trout all depend on for survival. California is likely to get warmer and drier, with more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow.
This will negatively impact our salmonids by reducing the snowmelt that keeps cold water in streams during the summer and fall months.
Richard: Obviously, given that this report is titled SOS II, there has to have been an SOS I. What was that report about, and why the need for an update?
Patrick: In 2008, researchers from UC Davis and California Trout collaborated on a status review for California’s salmonids. In 2016, in the middle of the historic drought in California, obvious and significant changes in the landscape (drying streams, fish rescues, and so on) and the availability of significantly updated scientific information, especially in the genetics, range distributions, abundance, and other information for these species necessitated a second edition of the report. We didn’t feel that the status of all of California’s salmonids was being accurately portrayed, especially for those species not listed by federal or state endangered species acts or those without designations as species of special concern.
Richard: Who is the audience for this report, and how do you hope they’ll use it?
Patrick: The audience for the version of the report that was released in May is broad, including legislators, conservation and management partners, students, funders, and others. The hope is that this summary will educate these groups on how unique California’s species are – their general habitats, behaviors, life histories, and threats – plus raise concerns about their decline, and make the public aware of recommendation for what we can all do about it.
Using our scientifically based report, we are hoping to generate momentum among our partners and in Sacramento to redouble our efforts, focus on new, promising strategies, and direct funding and management of California’s salmonids.
A full scientific report on which the summary is based will be available on California Trout’s Website (www.caltrout.org/sos/) and the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences (www.ucdavis.edu/watershedsciences) in the coming weeks. This lengthy documents with references will target fisheries scientists, managers, and other partners who wish to dive deeply into the biological accounts, methods, and references.
Richard: The report notes that anadromous species — steelhead and salmon — “face a higher risk of extirpation from their range than inland native trout.” Why is this? Which anadromous species are particularly at risk, and are any of these species of particular interest to fly fishers?
Patrick: In general, our salmon and steelhead are at higher risk than our inland trout because their life histories — traveling from natal streams as juveniles, through the treacherous Delta, into a Pacific Ocean full of predators, then circling back to do it all over again — brings them in contact with far more threats throughout their lives than inland trout, some of which spend their entire lives in just a few kilometers of stream. Spring-run chinook salmon and summer steelhead, in particular, are at higher risk than other runs because they spend their summers maturing in fresh water when stream flows are lowest and water temperatures are highest. These fish have trouble surviving until rain and cooler temperatures allow them upstream access to spawning grounds in the winter. When fishing in waters that hold these species in the summer months, anglers should be aware that these fish seek refuge in the coldest pools available and should let these fish be.
The anadromous species most at risk in our assessment include Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon, which are cut off from 100 percent of their historical spawning habitat in the McCloud and upper Sacramento Rivers, California’s two types of coho salmon, and southern steelhead, which range from approximately San Luis Obispo to the U.S./Mexico border. These species are highly unlikely to be observed by fly fishers because there are so few fish remaining. The exception is the Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon, which migrates to the base of Keswick Dam.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has enacted seasonal fishing restrictions upstream of the Highway 44 Bridge in Redding on the Sacramento River in recent years to protect these fish while still allowing fishing opportunities downstream from where these fish are known to spawn. All anglers should familiarize themselves with how to tell the difference between a coho salmon and a chinook salmon, because all cohos must be released. A quick look inside the mouths of salmon can reveal which species is which: coho salmon have white mouths with white gums, while chinook salmon have black mouths with black gums.
Richard: What are the primary threats to anadromous salmonids? What actions need to be taken to reduce these threats?
Patrick: In general, the most pressing threats to our anadromous salmon, steelhead, and coastal cutthroat trout are dams, estuary alteration, agriculture, and logging. Dams block access to a majority of historical spawning and rearing habitat, while creating levees and draining
and converting margins of estuaries reduces suitable juvenile rearing habitat for all salmonid species that rely on them for rearing. Agricultural operations, which reduce water quantity and quality at key times of the year, threaten
our salmon and steelhead statewide. Finally, historical logging practices, especially in Northern California, have decimated many watersheds and fundamentally reduced the salmonid carrying capacity of rivers, as well changing how sediment, nutrients, and large woody debris that serves as habitat move through watersheds.
To address these threats, we need to work with partners and stakeholders to restore fish passage to historical habitat upstream of dams if we hope to recover our salmon and steelhead. We must work more closely with the agricultural community to balance the needs of business operations with those of the fish to ensure that cold water is available in rivers during critical portions of the year for salmonids. We need to rethink how we manage and use water in California if we are to have runs of salmon and steelhead in the future. We must restore estuaries and their habitat to the extent practicable. These critical habitats serve as the cafeterias and nurseries for our juvenile salmon and steelhead before they undertake their ocean migrations, and successful growth here can help ensure higher survival at sea to support commercial and recreational fisheries and strong runs in the future. While many legacy impacts of historical logging can still be seen across North Coast watersheds, timber harvest practices have improved, and habitat conservation plans are being implemented that decommission roads, replace barriers such as culverts on logging roads, and help to reduce sediment inputs that bury spawning habitat.
Richard: Does the commercial and incidental offshore harvest of salmon and steelhead represent a significant threat to these fish?
Patrick: Commercial fisheries, which are managed carefully by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, are carefully regulated. Their regulations are generally designed to protect the most imperiled species: in our case, Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon (federally designated as endangered) and Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon (federally designated as threatened). If too many fish of these runs are captured at sea, time and area closures go into effect to protect them and to allow more targeted harvest of the Central Valley fall and late fall-run chinooks.
Richard: Fly fishing has typically focused on trout species that are resident to inland waters and don’t swim to the sea. Which trout species does the report cover, and which of these are most at risk of extinction?
Patrick: California had 11 trout species or subspecies, but the bull trout went extinct in 1975. The others included in this report are Goose Lake redband trout, McCloud River redband trout, Eagle Lake rainbow trout, coastal rainbow trout, coastal cutthroat trout (which can have both anadromous and resident life histories), Lahontan cutthroat trout, Paiute cutthroat trout, Kern River rainbow trout, California golden trout, and Little Kern golden trout. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has a fantastic Web site for those interested in learning more about our native trout species, www.wildlife.ca.gov/fishing/inland/HTC. The inland trout species most at risk currently are McCloud River redband trout, which remains in only a handful of streams near Mount Shasta, and the Kern River rainbow trout, which faces hybridization threats with golden and rainbow trout in its native habitat.
Richard: Why aren’t you also examining brook trout and brown trout?
Patrick: We examined California’s native salmonids — those that evolved to adapt to California’s unique geology, climate, and diverse habitats, not invasive species of trout such as brown and brook trout. We did evaluate the impact that these popular, but nonnative trout species have on native species. In general, historical stocking of rainbow trout and well-meaning introductions of brown and brook trout to boost fishing opportunities have fueled the decline of our native trout species through hybridization, which leaves mostly rainbow-troutlike descendants where pure native cutthroat, redband, golden, and rainbow trout once thrived. Brown trout and brook trout also directly prey on and generally outcompete native trout species for holding lies, spawning and rearing habitat, and food.
Richard: What are the three most important threats to nonanadromous trout? What actions need to be taken to reduce these threats?
Patrick: Alien species, grazing, fire, and hatchery operations all pose serious threats to our inland trout species. The introduction of alien species such as brook and brown trout, while fun to catch, has driven the decline of many of our native trout species through direct predation and competition in their habitat. By removing these alien species from critical habitat needed for our native fishes, and by wisely using barriers to keep them separated, we can allow native fish to recolonize historical habitat.
For a long time, the grazing of livestock was common on national forest land in the Sierra Nevada. Cattle and sheep have trampled and degraded meadows throughout the Sierra and reduced riparian vegetation that stabilizes stream banks, helps to provide shade and food for trout, and keeps the meadows functioning as high-elevation sponges that slowly release cold water throughout the summer and fall, a critical ecosystem service for our cold-water species.
Catastrophic fires, which are more likely in the future under a changing climate, can decimate entire populations of several species of native trout that are restricted to just a few streams in a watershed. By utilizing controlled burns and allowing smaller, more frequent fires, we can reduce the likelihood of large, catastrophic fires significantly impacting our salmon, trout, and steelhead.
Finally, historical stocking of various strains of rainbow trout has established the species across the Sierra Nevada, to the detriment of native trout. Rainbow trout readily hybridize with the closely related native golden, redband, and cutthroat trout species, reducing the population of “pure” native species and leaving behind hybrid swarms that only resemble rainbow trout.
These threats to California’s inland trout are not unique, and Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and other states struggle with these same threats to native trout. Most stocking of rainbow trout has ceased in watersheds with native trout species in their historical habitat, but management of hybridized fish through deployment of barriers and removal of fish remain the best approaches to allow native trout to regain footholds in their historical habitat. Somewhat ironically, conservation hatcheries — those used to store individuals to protect genetic integrity and to provide fish for reintroduction to historical habitat after alien species are removed — remain a promising tool to restoring our inland trout.
Richard: What is the anticipated influence of climate change on the health of our salmonid species. Are any at particular risk from a warming climate?
Patrick: Climate change is the biggest and most pressing environmental issue of our time, and our cold-water salmon, steelhead, and trout are like the canaries in the coal mine. Most of our anadromous species are at the southern end of their worldwide distribution and as such are on the front lines of climate change. In general, climate change will reduce the amount of cold water available to these species at critical times, leading to constrictions in suitable habitat by increasing stream temperatures. The problem is, our fishes can’t migrate upstream past dams to access cold springs and headwater tributaries, as they once could. These places can offer refuge and help buffer the impacts of climate change in streams and are seen as critical in the recovery of many of our salmonids.
The species most at risk to climate change include our summer-run steelhead, as well as winter-run and springrun chinook salmon. By ensuring that our salmonids have access to cold water and diverse habitat types (many of which are now behind dams or highly degraded), we can build resilience to climate change in our populations.
Richard: The report indicates that Central Valley steelhead once inhabited a huge range of watersheds, from Fresno north to Mt. Shasta, but dams now prevent these fish from reaching between 80 and 95 percent of their historical spawning, rearing, and migration habitat. Yet your report lists the level of concern for these fish only as “moderate.” Is this perhaps overly optimistic, particularly given the current reliance on hatcheries to support the steelhead population?
Patrick: The answer here is complicated. In a nutshell, the steelhead and resident rainbow trout that are thriving in the tailwaters of dams there, for example in the Sacramento River, are one and the same population: these fish are capable of having offspring that become anadromous if conditions are favorable, but conditions currently select against anadromy in most Central Valley watersheds. This is presumably because of the high mortality of migrating fish, especially juveniles in the Delta. Fish that do undertake these migrations are much less likely to survive and successfully pass on their genes than fish that take up a resident life history. As a juvenile rainbow trout in the Central Valley today, the potential benefit of getting big and having more offspring by spending time at sea just isn’t worth the risk of being eaten in the Delta and Pacific Ocean. Instead, most fish happily live their entire lives downstream of a dam that releases cold water year-round.
As a consequence of the current highly altered state of most of the Central Valley rivers, the steelhead life history is largely supported by hatcheries, which do select for anadromy in their practices and in how they choose fish for spawning, although even here, some of the “steelhead” selected are apparently large resident rainbows moving upstream to spawn. Recent research indicates that a few wild steelhead still contribute to the Central Valley population on the whole, suggesting that if conditions for the steelhead life history improved (better habitat, increased growth opportunities, increased survival through the Delta and to adulthood), wild steelhead could return in higher numbers.
Richard: The report’s maps of habitat range for each species are fascinating and will surely lead fly fishers to explore more of the waters in our state. But they are also disturbing, graphically illustrating the amount of habitat that our salmonids have lost over the decades. In reading the report, though, it quickly becomes clear that some watersheds, such as the Klamath River and, near Red Bluff, Battle Creek, have importance for a number of salmonid species. Is anyone creating an overlay of these maps to identify particular rivers or watersheds where conservation actions might be prioritized?
Patrick: Yes, the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences used special software called PISCES that is tailor-made to map fish species distributions to generate the beautiful maps in the report. We wanted to highlight that work through our partnership on this project: https://watershed. ucdavis.edu/project/pisces-fish-distribution-tracking-modelling-and-analysis.
One of the important findings of this research is that by investing in and protecting strongholds — watersheds with intact and diverse habitats that retain the potential to support abundant wild fish, for example, the Smith and Eel Rivers, and Butte, Deer, and Mill Creeks — we can support several species with targeted conservation actions.
Richard: I notice in your discussion of Eagle Lake rainbows (a “high” level of concern in the SOS II report), the harvesting of trophy fish is one of the factors harming their population. Would it be helpful for fly fishers to push for changes in sportfishing regulations, and if yes, for which waters? Or are sportfishing regulations relatively unimportant in the menu of actions that need to be taken to protect our fish?
Patrick: At this point, the biggest and most pressing threat to Eagle Lake rainbow trout is the fact that they are unable to spawn in their single historical spawning tributary, Pine Creek, due to invasion by nonnative brook trout. The entire spawning population is supported by a hatchery on the lake, which means that until the brook trout are removed (efforts are currently underway) and Eagle Lake rainbows have access past the fish weir on the creek, they will rely on humans for their continued existence.
The sportfishing harvest piece is a relatively minor one in the bigger picture of the conservation of this species, because they are so imperiled, but it is one that will take on more importance for their long-term management. In general, the harvesting of larger “trophy” fish over time reduces the average size of the fish in the population, which leaves smaller fish that are less fecund — they can’t have as many young.
Richard: One of the strategies promoted in the report is “reconciliation ecology,” which involves integrating wild fish into “working landscapes.” What does this mean, why is it important, and do we have experience in using this strategy in California?
Patrick: Reconciliation ecology is an approach to management that recognizes that human beings are an integral part of the landscape, and that we’re not trying to restore ecosystems back to some pristine, pre-European California in most cases. Rather, reconciliation means that we can put working lands, such as farms and pastures, back to work for species. This concept has been applied with great success to boost waterfowl populations in the
Central Valley, and work by California Trout, the California Rice Commission, and myriad other partners is now showing exciting promise to boost the size and survival of juvenile salmon in the Central Valley by allowing them onto flooded rice fields for a few weeks during winter in a win-win-win for the fish, the farmers, and all Californians who depend on secure water sources.
Richard: Although it’s easy to view the report pessimistically — many of our salmon, steelhead, and trout populations are mere decades from vanishing forever — would it be fair to say that the message of SOS II is really one of optimism, that we can indeed protect these fish so that their populations remain viable?
Patrick: Absolutely. It is incredible that California has not lost more of our salmonids over time. They are incredibly resilient. These fish have been through a lot recently, with five years of historic drought now behind the majority of the state (but not some pockets of Southern California near Santa Barbara). With our help, they retain the genetic material and resiliency to bounce back, if given the chance. While our research paints a gloomy future for California’s salmonids under present trends, that future is not a certainty. There is still time to help these species bounce back, and our work helps to highlight promising approaches to do just that.
We recommend using science-based approaches such as reconciliation ecology, increasing opportunities for f-ish passage to historical spawning and rearing habitat, and reducing the negative impacts of hatcheries on the genetics of our well-adapted wild fish. If we employ these strategies in three key areas, we believe our salmonids will thrive once again. These areas are our strongholds, which are the best remaining habitats we have left in California, our source waters, such as springs and Sierra meadows, and once-productive, but now highly altered critical habitats for multiple salmonid species such as estuaries, lagoons, and floodplains that shelter and feed juveniles.
Richard: What should we as fly fishers be doing?
Patrick: This is a really important question. If anglers don’t stand up to protect our salmon, steelhead, and trout, then elected officials are much less likely to be interested.
There are a few simple things all anglers can do, based on the findings in our report. We can all make simple choices in the way we fish, such as practicing catch and release, bringing fish to hand quickly, rather than playing them to exhaustion, and keeping them wet to the extent possible during unhooking and release. Being informed about the species you are after — where they live, their habits, and a bit about their general populations — is another aspect of this. Knowing what populations are sensitive and vulnerable to angling pressure is important. And we can all serve as eyes and ears on the water by being observant and sharing information with club members, local biologists, and others, noting drying reaches of stream or low observed numbers of fish. By staying informed, we can make conscious decisions about our own fishing trips.
There is an ethical aspect that plays into the choices we make as fishers. For example, several steelheaders I know did not pick up their rods last season, understanding that the low numbers of wild steelhead returning to our rivers already had an uphill battle after years of drought. We know that the status of some fishes has declined drastically since 2008, such as the McCloud River redband trout (genetically pure fish are now found in only a handful of McCloud tributaries, not the main stem) and the Kern River rainbow trout. These fish are especially vulnerable and could use a break from angling pressure in the short term until they can bounce back. These kinds of “to fish, or not to fish” choices are entirely personal, but having the information to choose which species to target and when is a good first step for all anglers. The SOS II report provides a lot of that information.
Anglers also can consider supporting groups that are doing the work to protect our wild fish or can get involved in local clubs to stay informed and become active. Writing letters to your elected officials to share just how lucky we are to have so many kinds of salmon, steelhead, and trout left in our state and how important that bounty and heritage is to you is especially important as the number of anglers stagnates or declines nationwide.
Richard: Here we are at the traditional Silly Tree Question: If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?
Patrick: If I were a tree, I would be the Monterey cypress. They are resilient, lonely soldiers shaped by wind and waves and fog at the edge of the continent and are native to my favorite part of California.
