Department of Fish and Game

DFG Hatchery Operations
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) / Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

More information and FAQs about DFG's hatchery programs, related studies and the EIR/EIS

California hatcheries have been in operation since before 1867 in the Sierra Nevada. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has records going back to 1890 when trout (cutthroat) were imported from Colorado and stocked into water bodies in the Sierra Nevada.

Over the years, DFG has utilized a variety of delivery methods to stock fish in designated water bodies. From the early days through today, pack mules have been used to haul fish to lakes in remote areas of the state. Trucks, trains and later planes are also used to stock waters. The aerial planting program got its start in 1948. Different methods for aerially releasing the fish were tested and variations in fish size upon release were also studied.

Currently, DFG stocks approximately 1,000 bodies of water within the state. The DFG Hatchery Program utilizes more than 300 permanent, temporary and volunteer employees to operate, rear and stock the inland and anadromous fish reared at one of the 21 hatcheries or planting facilities located through out the state.

Two publications with additional information about California’s hatchery program:

Fisheries management in high elevation lakes in California’s Sierra Nevada has transitioned from the early days of stocking non-native trout for fishing to managing fisheries with a strong sensitivity for native species. This change in direction was met with public outcry from some stakeholders. Fisheries managers needed to find creative ways to balance fisheries, native species and stakeholder concerns.

Sierra Nevada fisheries management was initially based on the goal of improving fishing. This goal was widely supported by the public, but arguably potentially conflicted with the public trust responsibilities placed on DFG by the state Legislature. Initially, trout were moved by early settlers above natural fish barriers or across watershed divides, thereby extending the distributions of rainbow, cutthroat and golden trout. Eventually, high-country fish stocking was coordinated by game wardens, hatchery managers and fisheries managers. The result was that 89 percent of Sierra Nevada lakes larger than 7.5 acres and 10 feet deep have extant trout populations where there once were none. Thousands of additional smaller lakes and streams also support self-sustaining trout. Historically, little effort was applied toward evaluating fishery performance and management efficacy. Even less was known about the landscape-scale impact of introduced trout on native animals, especially amphibians and invertebrates.

Almost all high mountain lakes in the Sierra Nevada were fishless, but the term “barren” is hardly applicable. Native amphibians, aquatic invertebrates and their terrestrial predators were plentiful. For example, the two species of mountain yellow-legged frogs were once thought to be the most abundant aquatic vertebrates in numerous Sierra Nevada basins. These frogs are now a candidate species for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

Results of early plants of trout into high elevation lakes were impressive at producing legacy fisheries. Few anglers that experienced these fisheries are around today. However, there remains a strong expectation that fisheries managers can achieve similar results through increased trout stocking. Some anglers, and many stakeholders that depend on tourism, continue to judge the “quality” of fisheries management by the numbers of trout or lakes stocked, rather than on actual performance of fisheries.

Given an increasing awareness of the value of native species, high elevation fisheries management has evolved toward a more ecosystem-conscious approach that incorporates recreational interests, and conservation and protection of native fauna. A rift between those that believed introduced fisheries were benign and those that believed introduced trout exert an impact on native species developed. DFG, therefore, decided to develop comprehensive assessments of high elevation lakes and incorporate those results into basin-scale management plans. DFG increased funding for such assessments and management in 2001 leading to more than 90 percent (approximately 10,000 waters) of Sierra Nevada Wilderness lakes and ponds being surveyed by the end of 2008. Approximately one third of those waters are now included in 24 fisheries and aquatic biodiversity management plans. Additional management plans for several northern Sierra Nevada basins are currently in development, and eventually all remaining Sierra Nevada basins will be included in planning documents. Management plans follow and comply with guidelines set forth in DFG’s 2004 Strategic Plan for Trout Management (available for download at www.nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentVersionID=16987) which focuses on habitat and native species protection and management, as well as public education and involvement.

Most resource managers and scientists now agree that introduced trout can cause local extinctions of amphibians, such as the mountain yellow-legged frog. Other amphibians with shorter larval stages (i.e., Pacific tree frog) or anti-predator toxic skin glands (i.e., Yosemite and western toads) are less affected by non-native trout.

In addition to resource assessments, an analysis of public use of fisheries was included in basin management plans. This approach facilitated the development and protection of networked habitats for native species, and the maintenance and improvement of important fisheries. The goal was to implement balanced management between native fauna and historic recreation, stated as follows:
Manage high mountain lakes and streams in a manner which maintains or restores native biodiversity and habitat quality, will support viable populations of native species and provides for recreational opportunities, considering historical and future use patterns.

DFG fisheries managers presented draft management concepts that integrated comments from stakeholders, including county supervisors and commissioners, chambers of commerce, angling and environmental advocacy groups, professional societies, popular media, and attendees at Declining Amphibian Task Force conferences and stakeholder workshops. The public perception that all trout should be killed and that no effort was being made to protect native amphibians remained strong. The most directly affected stakeholders were the "pack stock operators," people whose livelihood depended on transporting anglers to mountain lakes. Pack stock operators were historically active in stocking many high mountain lakes and in some areas were still involved. From this relatively small, but intensely controversial segment of California’s fish stocking program, an opposition grew that questioned stocking impacts in nearly all waters of the state. DFG began working with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to disclose the impacts of its fish stocking program and establish mitigation measures to offset or reduce impacts.

Though changing the management approach to high mountain lakes by DFG has been difficult, it has been a success in many ways. Some key factors include:

  • A strong resource assessment program that generates pertinent data that is used by resource managers for adaptive decision- making and is shared with stakeholders
  • Development of basin-scale management plans that include detailed objectives for both sport fisheries and protection and recovery of native species
  • Early involvement of stakeholders to help refine basin plans to minimize conflict with recreation and native species recovery.
  • Successful implementation of plans with improvements in fisheries where that is the management direction and recovery of native species, especially mountain yellow-legged frogs.

Through more intensive resource assessment and management, DFG has improved fisheries where appropriate, and improved the stewardship of native species throughout the Sierra Nevada.

Frequently Asked Questions about DFG’s Hatchery Stocking Program, the Recent Court Order and Status of the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement

What is DFG’s position on the limitation of its stocking programs and the recent lawsuit?

DFG has all along, been sensitive to the many varied interests involved. There is a very delicate balance that must be struck between protecting the native fish and amphibian species and the habitat they depend on, and providing angling opportunities and stocking fish in communities that have come to rely on it. DFG created the Strategic Plan for Trout Management and started the EIR process before a lawsuit was filed. As the state agency responsible for the protection of all species, DFG has been working to protect those at risk while also focusing on increasing fishing opportunities and generally promoting all types of outdoor activity.

Why the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) now after 100 years of planting?

A primary reason why the Pacific Rivers Council and the Center for Biological Diversity (petitioners) filed a lawsuit in 2006 against DFG is the petitioners’ belief that DFG was not utilizing sound science to determine where hatchery-reared fish are stocked in California. Specifically, they alleged DFG was stocking hatchery-reared fish in areas where potential conflicts existed between hatchery-reared fish and threatened and endangered species.

Who are the plaintiffs?

The Pacific Rivers Council and the Center for Biological Diversity. To learn about the petitioners in this case, please visit their Web sites and read first hand who they are and what they represent.

As a result of the lawsuit, what kinds of hatcheries and fish are affected?

DFG owns or operates a total of 21 hatcheries and two planting bases throughout California. These hatcheries fall into two basic categories, anadromous (salmon and steelhead) or inland (trout, inland Chinook and kokanee). All hatcheries owned or operated by DFG are impacted by this lawsuit. As part of the Nov. 2008 court order, any fish that are required for mitigation will continue to be reared and stocked and all anadromous hatcheries will continue to operate and produce fish in this interim period while DFG completes the EIR/EIS. Inland hatcheries will continue to produce mitigation fish for any environmental actions or decisions as well as those required under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) agreements.

Is there any proof planting fish hurts other species?

Many studies have been conducted evaluating the potential impacts associated with stocking fish. Some of these studies indicate that stocking non-native fish in certain areas has the potential to negatively impact native species. The individuals who began stocking fish in California waters believed that they were doing what was best for the developing state. They used the best available science at the time to make their decisions to introduce and stock fish in the waters of California. Currently, DFG utilizes surveys and scientific studies to modify stocking practices and locations in California to protect native resources, while still giving the angler the opportunity to fish. DFG has been conducting high mountain lake surveys identifying water bodies, species composition and potential barriers to migration. This information is being used to make sound decisions with regard to stocking fish and reestablishing amphibian populations.

What does DFG science say about fish stocking effects on native fish populations?

Since the early stocking events were made on top of existing populations of wild fish, genetic mixing and introgression of fish populations with closely related species has been documented. In addition, predation on native fish species and competition for resources has also been documented.

Has DFG tracked a decline in fish or amphibians that is related to fish planting necessitating meeting standards of state or federal laws?

In 2001, DFG increased high mountain lake surveys to look at and identify amphibian, reptile and fish populations in those areas. This information is currently being used to develop area specific management plans or to otherwise guide DFG stocking efforts in order to eliminate or greatly reduce potential conflicts between the stocking of hatchery-reared fish and at-risk fish or amphibian species. Since these surveys began, DFG has reduced the number of high mountain lake stocking sites and made strides in restoring native populations of amphibian species. Notes: Adjustments to HML stocking allotments have been made to benefit fisheries and native species for decades – it was an ongoing process based on summer surveys by regional fisheries biologists. The first HML management plan that specifically addressed fish and amphibian management was implemented in 1999, after several years of resource assessment work in the planning basin. The process developed for that planning effort set the stage for the larger resource assessment and management planning project that was initiated in 2001 and continues today.

Why do the environmental groups get to set the agenda for where to plant?

The Nov. 20,2008 court order allows DFG to stock more fish than would have been allowed under the Nov. 6, 2008 tentative decision by the Superior Court judge. The judge believed the petitioners’ argument that irreparable harm could happen to certain species if DFG continued to stock fish without additional restrictions in the short term.

Why did DFG miss the deadline for completing the EIR/EIS?

There were essentially three reasons that resulted in DFG not being able to meet the original court-ordered timeline for completing the EIR/EIS:

  1. Budget short-falls within DFG have rendered our funding source short of the estimated $1.8 million dollars needed to complete the EIR/EIS
  2. the analysis has been expanded to include USFWS partial funding of some DFG hatchery operations, necessitating a change in the document to now be a combined EIR/EIS rather than only an EIR, and
  3. numerous delays with getting the contract approved by the Department of General Services (DGS).

Where can I find out about the court decision?

The Sacramento Superior Court Web site at www.saccourt.com. The Nov. 2008 court decision of Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette has been posted there.

What are the 25 species that are so important?

The 25 species that are listed on Attachment A to the Nov. 20, 2008 court order was created solely by the plaintiffs.

Why X River/Lake but not Y River/Lake?

There is a list of parameters that explains why particular lakes/rivers are being stocked or not. DFG did not choose any of these lakes or rivers, our data indicates that some fit the parameters and others don't. If X River/Lake is on the NOT to be stocked list, there must be DFG evidence to indicate the presence/impact of one or more of the 25 species, or one of the other parameters. If Y River/Lake is on the TO be stocked list, there must be DFG evidence to indicate the lack of presence/impact of one or more of the 25 species, or one of the other parameters. The list was not chosen by region, the list was not chosen by DFG - the list was prepared based on the parameters contained in the Nov. 20, 2008 court order.

Can a water body be taken off the Not to Be Stocked list?

A water body could only be taken off the Not to Be Stocked list if surveys indicate none of the species are present there. If a water body in your area is on the Not to Be Stocked list, there is either some evidence that one or more of the 25 species in the court order is present in the area or that surveys have not been conducted to document the presence or absence of the 25 species listed in the court order. DFG continues to receive requests and petitions for continued stocking at some of these water bodies listed on the Not to Be Stocked list. It is important to note that only evidence that none of the species are present there can remove it from the list.

How much will the EIR/EIS cost?

DFG has secured $1.8 million to complete the DFG Hatchery EIR/EIS. $1.4 million was received as a grant from the Sport Fish Restoration Act overseen by the authority of USFWS. DFG operates but does not own several hatcheries that provide mitigation for a particular development or project. DFG will seek additional funding for the EIR/EIS from those owners.

How long before this is finished?

DFG and USFWS are scheduled to complete the EIR/EIS in Jan. 2010. A draft EIR/EIS is expected to be released in May 2009. Those interested in following the progress of the EIR/EIS can access available draft documents as well as information about upcoming public meetings and document reviewing opportunities at www.dfg.ca.gov/news/pubnotice/hatchery.

What happens after the EIR/EIS is done?

Once the EIR/EIS has been completed and adopted, DFG will begin implementing the preferred alternative and any options that may be recommended to offset potential impacts that have been identified through the EIR/EIS process. As with any adopted EIR/EIS, the lead agency will be responsible for implementing the mitigation, monitoring and reporting program that is developed in conjunction with the EIR/EIS. At this time we do not know what monitoring will be done, since the EIR/EIS is in the development stage. It is too early to make any statements on the findings of the EIR/EIS. DFG will be developing a document that analyzes all impacts for the project alternatives.

Will DFG continue to stock or not stock the same water bodies after the EIR/EIS is done?

At this time, DFG does not plan on using the court order as the preferred alternative in the EIR/EIS. The conditions of the court order were largely created by the petitioners. The EIR/EIS will contain a more complete analysis of DFG’s hatchery and stocking operations and their potential impact on native fish and amphibian populations.

How long has DFG been planting fish?

DFG began stocking fish in the 1870s and has continued stocking fish ever since. In addition, the stocking of fish was undertaken by the federal government, local counties and private citizens. Shortly after World War II, DFG stepped up the production and stocking of catchable trout to meet the demand of the public.

How many fish does DFG plant and how many will be affected?

A conservative estimate of how many stocking locations will be impacted by the lawsuit is less than 200. This number can change if DFG or others conduct surveys to evaluate the presence or absence of 25 species of interest as defined by the petitioners and listed in the Nov. 2008 court order. DFG plans to stock roughly seven million hatchery-reared trout in 2009. DFG does not anticipate any changes in the numbers of steelhead and salmonids that are being reared for release at or operated hatcheries. DFG also stocks 1.1 million fingerling Kokanee and half a million inland Chinook salmon in larger reservoirs. Catfish are also planted under the Fishing in the City program.

How do I find out about my area and planting changes?

A table, broken down by DFG region, county and body of water is available at www.dfg.ca.gov/news/stocking [no longer available]. The suspension in stocking is an interim order and is anticipated to be changed once DFG has completed the EIR/EIS in Jan. 2010.

Can private contractors plant fish?

Yes. The private entity will have to work with their DFG regional office to see if it meets the criteria necessary to be issued a private stocking permit. If an existing permit is in place, the individual may continue to stock fish meeting the criteria established in their permit.

Will plantings be redirected?

Yes. Fish stocks that will not be planted will be redirected to other areas where stocking is allowed.

Will fish be dumped out to die?

No, DFG does not anticipate “dumping” fish. All fish currently in the hatcheries will be placed in waters that have been identified as acceptable for stocking under the Nov. 2008 court order.

How many lakes, streams and rivers does DFG plant?

In any given year, DFG can and has stocked approximately 1,000 bodies of water.

Are there lakes that had no fish before we stocked?

Historically, there were bodies of water that were stocked that did not contain fish species. DFG may, sometime in the future, stock currently fishless waters that have been evaluated and proposed for stocking. Historically, there was no trout population in either the Owens or Mono basins and currently the largest portion of hatchery stocking occurs in these areas.

How many recreational licenses does DFG sell? How much money does that bring into DFG’s budget?

Information on license sales and revenue can be found at www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/statistics/statistics.html.

How much goes back into the stocking program?

As defined in Fish and Game Code 13007, one-third of all resident fish license sales are assigned to the Hatchery and Inland Fisheries Fund (HIFF). Also included in this is the Heritage and Wild trout program which legislation mandates $2 million be given to implement those programs.

Does DFG have bass hatcheries?

DFG does not rear bass. DFG only rears steelhead, salmon, trout and char species. DFG does issue permits to individuals to stock warmwater species in California. These permits can be obtained from the local regional office where the stocking is proposed to take place.

Can hardheads and trout co-exist in the Kern River?

DFG believes that hardhead and trout can co-exist in the Kern River and any other areas where the hardhead and DFG stocking activities overlap. Within the Kern River are other potential predators (pikeminnow, black bass and various species of catfish) that DFG believes pose a greater threat to hardhead than the stocking of hatchery-reared trout.

 
fish graphic