Yuba Reservoir Management Team Meeting Minutes Nov 2016

Yuba Working Group Fall Meeting 2016 Minutes

November 30, 2016

Salt Lake DNR Office

In Attendance: Jackie Watson, Mike Slater, Chris Crockett, Lee Rasmussen, Cheston Slater, Craig Walker, Dustin Carlson, George Sommer, Brad Cutler, Ray Schelble

Please Note:  Meeting minutes are intended to capture key questions, discussion points, and action items and aren’t intended to be verbatim to the meeting discussion.  If you feel like the minutes have missed a key point, question or suggestion, please provide appropriate edits/additions. 

Welcome (by Jackie Watson) and Group Introductions

Yuba Working Group Fall 2016 Meeting Powerpoint Presentation by Jackie Watson (see pdf version for reference).  Only Key Presentation Points, relevant discussions and Questions (Q) are included.  Please see pdf version of presentation for more detail. 

Slide 1-Title Slide, Yuba Working Group, Fall 2016 Meeting

Slide 2-Fishery Update

·         Little sign of success of yellow perch stockings

·         Fish community dominated by common carp

·         Q-were stocked Walleye fertile?

·         Q-Would you expect to see yellow perch in the fall gill nets?  A-they might not be as prevalent as in the spring gill nets (spawning) but given the numbers stocked and our experience with other waters we would expect to see some Yellow Perch in the fall gill nets if the stockings were successful

Slide 3-Fall Netting Update-Walleye

·         Low sample size

·         No apparent change in average size, 2016, 16 inches (n=3)

Slide 4-Fall Netting Update Northern Pike

·         Absence of recruitment in 2016 (previous years show similar trend)

·         No northern pike observed smaller than 800mm (31 inches)

·         Population currently comprised of relatively few large pike but no recruitment.  Pike population is NOT sustainable

Slide 5-Fall Netting Update Northern Pike continued

·         Trend of unhealthy relative weights for smaller pike the past few years – stomachs tend to be empty

·         Larger pike (35+in) show healthy relative weights – carp found in stomach contents

·         Reservoir is composed of relatively few large pike, but with no recruitment crash is inevitable

Slide 6-Fall Netting Update continued

·         Review of management plan biomass objective

·         Discussed possibility of revising “prey, non-sportfish” metric to incorporate carp component given carp are a primary prey item at Yuba

·         The group discussed that some of the biomass objectives were set using relatively little data and that we may wish to reevaluate them in the fall of 2017 when the management plan is revised.

Slide 7-Creel Update

·         Slight reduction in 2015 from 2008 total hours (34,078 vs 36,842)

·         2008 hours greatly influenced by anglers targeting yellow perch through the ice (high perch numbers and good ice drove 2008 hours).  2015 data indicates heavy use in March, likely attributable to anglers targeting Northern Pike immediately after ice off during the spawn. 

·         Group discussion that original goal of 4,200 hrs/month may be unrealistic given even with a healthy perch/walleye fishery seen in 2008 we didn’t go above 3,100 hrs/month.  This metric may need to be reevaluated in fall of 2017.

·         Q-The group requested creel information prior to 2008

·         Q-How does 2008 vs 2015 Yuba State Park visitation numbers compare?  Cheston Slater commented that the data isn’t comparable because they no longer measure “traffic” but instead monitor the number of day use and camping permits.  The group discussed that “angling” use at the state park may be difficult to distinguish from use by other groups (water skiers for example) by examining permits and that low water and subsequently exposed beaches may have led to an increase in visitors to the state park but not an increase in anglers. 

·         Group discussion about “good” years for rainbow trout around 2006-2009 and options for rainbow trout opportunities where compatible with other species and water levels

Slide 8-Creel Update continued

·         2008 anglers primarily targeting yellow perch (very few in 2015 targeting yellow perch)

·         2015 anglers primarily targeting northern pike (very few in 2008 targeting northern pike)

·         Group discussion about how water levels and ice conditions impact angling trends in addition to shifts in fish populations

·         Group discussion about how to catch rates of northern pike compare to Esox catch rates at other waters such as Joes Valley and Pineview.  UDWR will compile catch rates for future meeting. 

Slide 9-Creel Update continued

·         No Yellow Perch caught in 2015

·         Increased walleye and northern pike catch rates in 2015

Slide 10-Creel Update continued

·         Yellow perch catch removed from 2008 data for comparison

·         With Yellow Perch removed, 2008 estimates of catch rates were very similar to 2015

Slide 11-Creel Update continued

·         1.9% of anglers in 2015 were non-resident compared to 4.7% in 2008

·         Group discussion that working group members were surprised at this relatively low value considering many of them had heard/known of individuals coming from surrounding states to fish for northern pike.  Dustin mentioned that the reservoir saw heavy fly angler use from out of state anglers in the spring and that it provides an earlier fishing opportunity than Pineview (i.e. ice off and spawn happens sooner).

·         Group discussion that we may need to reevaluate the goal of 5% non-resident anglers in the fall of 2017

Slide 12-Status of Fishery

·         Despite efforts to increase yellow perch population there is little evidence of survival.  Yellow perch were an important component of the 2008 creel and are an important prey resource for walleye and northern pike.

·         Angler catch of walleye increased in 2015 but is still below management plan goals

·         Lack of walleye in fall netting isn’t encouraging (i.e. concern this component of the fishery has crashed)

Slide 13-Status of Fishery continued

·         Current northern pike fishery is not sustainable.

o   Lack of smaller individuals indicates lack of recruitment.  Without recruitment this population will crash.

o   Poor relative weights observed in pike under 29 inches.  This indicates the population is out of balance with prey resources (i.e. skinny, underweight smaller pike)

·         Carp are the only prey items observed in northern pike stomachs collected in the fall and are only utilized by larger northern pike (stomachs of pike under 29 inches are usually empty)

Slide 14-Future Work

·         Revise management plan in the fall of 2017, reevaluate metrics/goals as appropriate

·         The group doesn’t anticipate the primary goals changing significantly.  We still plan on pursuing a stable fishery, increase angler use, increase angler satisfaction, and increase catch rates

Slide 15-Future Work continued

·         Evaluate options to reset the fishery.  The current fishery doesn’t meet management objectives and is not sustainable

·         Options for reset including mechanical removal, chemical removal, options to drain the reservoir.

·         Determine future fishery species.  The current management plan indicates support for a walleye, yellow perch, Esocidae fishery but we still need to evaluate options utilizing sterile walleye, saugeye, tiger muskie, and sterile northern pike as well as consider options for other compatible species (possible rainbow trout).  UDWR biologists will develop fishery/stocking scenarios and discuss these options with the working group at future meetings with the goal of establishing a more specific strategy in the fall of 2017. 

Slide 16-18 Box Canyon Reservoir mechanical removal case study

·         Similar size to Yuba

·         Removal of northern pike using Spring Pike Index Nets (SPIN), a variable mesh size gill net

·         Significant investment of effort over 6 years (3,960 net sets) to remove 15,731 northern pike

·         Suppression/maintenance netting needed after removal

·         Group discussion regarding options for mechanical removal of northern pike at Yuba.  Some concerns that mechanical removal may be less efficient than chemical removal.  Low catch rates at Yuba would mean a significant investment in time.  It was also pointed out that without an accurate population estimate of northern pike its very difficult to know how much time is required for mechanical removal (Box Canyon drastically underestimated its pike population)

·         Q-How much effort would be required to remove 1,000 pike at Yuba?

Slide 19-Chemical removal options

·         Meet with water managers/users to discuss several issues

o   Options for manipulating water levels to support chemical/mechanical treatment of the reservoir

o   Determine water level outlook to better understand anticipated water levels at Yuba to help guide fisheries management.  Anticipated low levels may impact our investment in stocking and treatment (i.e. if we aren’t confident the reservoir will be able to support a fishery then we may have limited management options).  Discuss options for a conservation pool and/or addition of habitat/fish attractors.

·         Implement outreach strategies to evaluate support for chemical and/or mechanical removal of northern pike options through social media, online surveys, public meetings, meetings with angling groups.

·         Implement NEPA to provide public comments, enhance our options for funding, and evaluate other options.  UDWR will initiate a contract for NEPA analysis unless meetings with water managers and/or public input show little potential for a chemical treatment of the reservoir.

 Slide 20-Chemical removal continued

·         Treat at 2ppm rotenone

·         Discussed the estimated cost relative to different water levels.  Top threshold for treatment is anticipated to be at 11% of less but a final decision will depend on public support, options for lowering the reservoir, outlook of water levels to sustain a fishery, etc.

·         Some concern that funding and available rotenone may hamper the project.  It was also discussed that other treatments being proposed by UDWR may take priority over Yuba.

Slide 21-Drain Reservoir

·         UDWR to meet with water managers in spring of 2017 to discuss options and feasibility

Slide 22-Questions/Comments

Further Group Discussion

·         Working group will update management plan in the fall of 2017 and discuss more detailed plan for determining future species guidelines

·         Group discussion regarding relative merits of tiger muskie vs sterile northern pike.  Some interest in both species, more discussion to follow in future meetings.  UDWR to determine production availability (pros/cons) for these two options and discuss at future meeting

·         Cheston Slater said the best time to treat Yuba from the state park’s perspective would likely be early September after use drops off.  This would coincide with anticipated low water levels as well.

·         Timeline for Next Steps

o   UDWR to meet with water users/managers in spring of 2017

o   Start NEPA process, evaluate information from water users before committing resources, and apply for funding through UDWR enhancement process (spring of 2017).  NEPA is anticipated to take 6-12 months to complete

o   Develop outreach strategy Yuba (spring workplan meetings with Outreach section)

o   Give progress report at late summer 2017 meeting

·         Other Action Items

o   Were 2016 stocked Walleye fertile?

o   Include previous creel data in 2015 creel report.  Provide previous creel reports if possible.

o   Provide Esox catch rates from other regions for comparison