Striped Bass Regulatory Proposal: The Staff Report

[Marty Gingras]

Hi all,

You know the regulatory proposal but we are only just now releasing the Staff Report in support of the proposal.

The California Fish and Game Commission has received the Staff Report (and memo on-topic) that I have posted at the links below:

ftp://ftp.delta.dfg.ca.gov/Adult_Stu...ned%20memo.pdf

ftp://ftp.delta.dfg.ca.gov/Adult_Stu...2012-05-11.pdf

The Commission's receipt of these documents is on the 'Consent Calendar' at their December 15 (2011) meeting but discussion is scheduled for the Commission's February 2 (2012) meeting in Sacramento.

Thanks

Marty Gingras
BDR-IEP Program Manager
California Department of Fish and Game
Bay Delta Region
4001 North Wilson Way
Stockton, California 95205

Phone (209) 948-3702
FAX (209) 946-6355
email mgingras@dfg.ca.gov

[Frank Alessio]

Looks like The Black Bass is second on the Hit list...

[Tony Buzolich]

This recommendation is so focused on striped bass other causitive factors seem downplayed.

Three things that I did pick up on was the mention that in years past when striped bass populations were at their highest so were the populations of delta smelt, longfin smelt, splittail, etc. Newer causitive factors like water diversions didn't get mentioned.

It also was brought up about" TOTAL KEEP AND KILL" of striped bass like that which was done to the pike population in Lake Davis, and, the consideration of even putting a "BOUNTY" on striped bass so as to again totally keep and kill every striped bass in the system. The report did say that both of these last considerations would result in a "nuclear" result to the population, but the fact that it was even considered shows how drastict this department thinks to achieve it's goal.
TONY

[Marty Gingras]

Three things that I did pick up on was the mention that in years past when striped bass populations were at their highest so were the populations of delta smelt, longfin smelt, splittail, etc. Newer causitive factors like water diversions didn't get mentioned.

In addition to our use of time-series information throughout (i.e., addressing changes over time), under alternatives at page 23 this statement addresses (I believe) your concern:

"The decline of listed species occurred only after striped bass had been established in California for many decades and the SWP and CVP were substantially implemented, which, given the timing and rate of development (e.g., water, timber, agriculture, roads, industry, etc.) in California, suggests the species could co-exist in a future where the impact of development was effectively mitigated. Although some have argued that habitat restoration and mitigation is being implemented to the fullest extent of the law, the status of the listed species has not improved. Recovering the listed species is an extremely urgent matter that must be attempted using all feasible means."

It also was brought up about" TOTAL KEEP AND KILL" of striped bass like that which was done to the pike population in Lake Davis, and, the consideration of even putting a "BOUNTY" on striped bass so as to again totally keep and kill every striped bass in the system. The report did say that both of these last considerations would result in a "nuclear" result to the population, but the fact that it was even considered shows how drastict this department thinks to achieve it's goal.

This report speaks to listed-fish stakeholders as well as to striped bass stakeholders (I know that many are in both camps), and some stakeholders support 'nuclear' options.

[Darian]

Read the report while trying to stay awake (late night ). Hope these thoughts make sense....

The inclusion of potential alternatives (even tho I'm not sure I like 'em) does tend to show there's consideration of the possibility that the unexpected can happen.

The report appears to cover everything relative to requirements of the settlement agreement. What is evident is the uncertainty of achieving desired outcomes of this proposal based on the incomplete information included in the report. I know this observation is, perhaps, a bit over the top but it seems to me that the proposal amounts to a SWAG as a result. In recognition, it's difficult to study/report everything under the dual constraints of limited time and resources....

The urgent tone of the proposal makes me curious. If fish from many or all of the listed species are being maintained in conservation hatcheries, why the urgency Are those populations in the Delta so low in numbers that they're in immediate danger of disappearing Are they unable to live/spawn in captivity successfully Isn't using a hatchery to support populations of listed species a form of mitigation as in the case of Salmon/Steelhead???

[Marty Gingras]

If fish from many or all of the listed species are being maintained in conservation hatcheries, why the urgency

As the abundance of listed species declines, so too does genetic diversity and resiliency. Hatcheries are a far-from-ideal measure of last resort.

Are those populations in the Delta so low in numbers that they're in immediate danger of disappearing

Yes.

Are they unable to live/spawn in captivity successfully

See my first reply.

Isn't using a hatchery to support populations of listed species a form of mitigation as in the case of Salmon/Steelhead???

No.

[Darian]

Marty,.... DFG conducts a trawl survey of listed species, what happens to the fish caught by that method If they're not to be used for the purpose of study's, are they counted and released or do they die

When conducting a trawl survey for Striped Bass, how often are listed species captured as by-catch

[Marty Gingras]

DFG conducts a trawl survey of listed species, what happens to the fish caught by that method If they're not to be used for the purpose of study's, are they counted and released or do they die

The take of federally-listed species during research in the delta --- even research intended to protect and recover the listed species --- is conducted under the terms of permits. I'm quite sure that's the same everywhere. Same for take of fish listed under CESA, except that DFG doesn't issue permits to ourselves. I'm quite sure that's the same everywhere. A lot of thought and effort goes into what amount to 'scientific collecting permits.'

For example: The permits that have controlled the studies I supervise have effectively necessitated a reduction in listed-species take, often via an adaptive management process. Those permits require protective handling and release of listed fish, unless the research requires something different. The permits also require weekly reporting of take.

When conducting a trawl survey for Striped Bass, how often are listed species captured as by-catch

There are no striped bass-specific trawl surveys. The closest we come to that are the large-mesh nets and traps --- which don't take the listed smelts --- used by the striped bass population study to collect adult striped bass for tag-and-release. That population study rarely encounters green sturgeon or listed salmonids, in large part because we select times of the year, locations, and gear that avoids them.

[matt johnson]

Thanks Marty, for this post and the many others.....

I found it interesting that the data in the staff report documents that populations of winter and spring-run Chinook, and to some extent Delta smelt, were actually increasing or enjoying a period of relative abundance during the period 1999-2006.

I understand that Chinook salmon are typically 3-4 years of age when they return as adults.

Subtracting 3-4 years off each year class of winter and spring run Chinook from the early to mid 2000's puts the juveniles in perilous intersection with a relatively robust late 90's to early 2000's striped bass population?

And what was up with that off the charts return of fall run in 2002?

Don't need an answer, just an observation. Thanks! Matt

[Darian]

Interesting observations.... If I recall my reading on Salmon from, admittedly non-scientific literature, that male Salmon return in larger numbers and at a wider variance in ages than females. Smaller males are called jacks and return earlier (in their second/third years) and in large numbers in order to supplement those of the older males. Thus, assuring enough males to guarantee mates for successful spawning. If my understanding is correct, wouldn't the 3 - 4 year return cited for typical Salmon be an overstatement of age or does typical mean an average (or some other measure) Of course, since not much is as it was when most of the literature I was reading from was written, maybe this return strategy has changed, too.

I note in the Staff Report that no mention of predation on other listed species or canabalism by Salmon/Steelhead is included in the report. Yet, it does occur.

Well, enough of this for now. I'm still digesting this stuff....