The Anadromous Fish Restoration P

CVPIA Section 3406 (b)(1)

http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/afrp/

1
ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATIO

OBJECTIVES

• Improve habitat for all life stages of anadromous fish throu

provision of flows of suitable quality, quantity, and timing, improved physical habitat; 

• Improve survival rates by reducing or eliminating entrainm

juveniles at diversions;

• Improve the opportunity for adult fish to reach their spawn

habitats in a timely manner;

• Collect fish population, health, and habitat data to facilitate 

evaluation of restoration actions; 

• Integrate habitat restoration efforts with harvest and hatch

management; 

• Involve partners in the implementation and evaluation of re

actions.

2
San Joaquin River Merced River

Sacramento River

Mokelumne River

Tuolumne River

Stanislaus River

Calaveras River

Cosumnes River

American River

Bear River

Yuba River

Butte Creek

Stony Creek

Big Chico Creek

Thomes Creek

Elder Creek

Deer Creek

Mill Creek

Shasta Lake

Antelope Creek

Battle Creek

Paynes Creek

Bear Creek

Cow Creek

Clear Creek

Cottonwood Creek

Feather River

T. ParkerJ. IcanberryJ. WikertC. MesickC. Blanco

FWS DFG

P. BratcherI. Drury

I. Drury

D. HuD. HuR. Burmister

P. BrantleyP. Brantley

Habitat Restoration Coord

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATIO

3
• AFRP continues to be well coordinated wi

(avoids redundancy, insures scientific and technical review to determine the best anhighest priority projects and utilizes the mefficient use of limited funds)

• AFRP Staff Members are currently particip

CBDA’s ERP Database Quality Assurance C

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATIO

LEVERAGING and PARTN

WITH CALFED

4
• Lower Butte Creek, stakeholder facilitation for But

Sink/Sutter Bypass restoration project developme

AFRP- $95,000; CALFED- $5,300,000

• Lower Butte Creek, east side Sutter Bypass, develo

pump screening needs: 

AFRP- $420,000; CALFED-$4,790,000

• Lower Butte Creek, White Mallard Dam Diversions 

construction : 

AFRP- $885,000; CALFED- $750,000

• Lower Butte Creek, Sanborn Slough Bifurcation Str

fish passage engineering designs: 

AFRP-$70,000; CALFED- $1,000,000

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATIO

PROJECT EXAMPLES OF C

LEVERAGING

5
• AFRP continues to communicate and coordinate with other 

Program Sections A Few Examples:

AFRP and CAMP collaborated to develop a paper on “S

Procedures for Detecting the CVPIA Natural Chinook 

Production Doubling Goal and Determining Sustainab

Production Increases” (by Ken Newman and Dave Ha

AFRP and Screens Program collaborated on developin

passage project on Antelope Creek which is currently 

competitive bidding

• AFRP is working with CVPIA partners and CVPIA Program 

to organize two AFRP workshops: a “Salmon Worksho

“CVPIA Salmon Doubling Programs Workshop”

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

WORKING WITH OTHER C

PROGRAMS

6
Progress towards meeting AFRP Doubling Go

• Winning streams- where most of the identified limit

factors have been addressed with restoration a

examples, Butte and Clear creeks

• Losing streams- the identified limiting factors have 

addressed with enough restoration actions:

examples, Tuolumne and Stanislaus rive

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

PROGRAM STATUS

(where are we in this prog

7
0

5000

100001500020000250003000035000400004500050000

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 '00 

Butte Creek spring-run Chinook salmon

1967-1991

Average

1,032

Production

Doubling Goal

2,000

1992-2004

Average

11,554

Estimated Annual Natural Production

8
0

20000400006000080000

100000120000

52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 

1967-1991 

Average

19,044

Production

Tuolumne River fall-run Chinook salmon

Doubling Goal 

38,000

1992-2004 

Average

10,383

Average Annual Flow at Ripon (offset 2-years)Estimated Annual Natural Production

9
Big Picture

Approximately $40 million have been spent on almprioritized and implemented AFRP restoration and research projects in 26 Central Valley watersheds 1995 and 2005.

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATIO

ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO D

10
Planning Accomplishments

• Cottonwood, Paynes, Antelope and Elder creeks, su

watershed assessment RFPs to Grants.gov for compselection process

• Stanislaus River, field tested Alaskan Weir and Vaki 

fish counter to count fall-run Chinook escapement

• Stanislaus River, completed the fisheries summary o

plan to restore anadromous fish habitat

• Tuolumne and Merced rivers and Clear Creek, comp

Adaptive Management Forum reports

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATIO

ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO D

11
ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO D

Alaskan Weir and Vaki infrared fish counter, Stanislaus 

12
Restoration Actions (examples)

• Lower Butte Creek, White Mallard reach, comple

and fish ladder designs. Construction to begin s2005 

• Lower Butte Creek, Butte Sink, constructed five 

, c

control structures

• Lower Butte Creek, Butte Sink, constructed two 

, c

barriers

• Lower Butte Creek, west side of the Sutter Bypa

constructed three weirs

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATIO

ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DAT

13
ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO D

Weir Five- one of three fish passage modifications to Sutter Side, Lower Butte Creek

Before construction Completed

14
Restoration Actions (more examples)

• Yuba River, constructed a permanent “leaky dike” bar

prevent migration of salmon and steelhead into the G

• Stanislaus River, Mohler Tract, completed riparian rev

and floodplain restoration

• Tuolumne River, 7/11 materials restoration site, cont

channel and floodplain restoration

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATIO

ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DAT

15
ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO D

“Leaky dike” fish barrier, Yuba Gold Fields, Yuba 

16
ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO D

Riparian revegetation and floodplain restoration, MoStanislaus River

Before After

17
• Funding ongoing projects

• Funding 2 to 4 new projects• Participating in conferences and workshops• Developed salmon production and flow data for Cen

watersheds and submitted exhibit to SWQCB

• Developing two AFRP workshops, “Salmon Worksho

“CVPIA Salmon Doubling Programs Workshop”

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATIO

2005-2006 ACTIVITIE

18
Low Funding Levels- “AFRP could potentially spend a

$18 million over the next three-year period (FY2005

$0

$2,000,000$4,000,000$6,000,000$8,000,000

$10,000,000$12,000,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Anadromous Fish Restoration Program

 Funding Over Time

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATIO

PROGRESS TOWARDS MEE

OBJECTIVES

19
• Continue to leverage for CBDA funding

• Continue the RFP and independent evaluation proc• Implement the results of two AFRP led workshops 

(“Salmon Workshop” and the “CVPIA Salmon DPrograms Workshop”)

• Continue on-the-ground restoration, applied resea

planning and building the partner collaboratioprocess

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATIO

FUTURE ACTIONS

20
Although salmon population survival mechanisms are not 

absolutely clear, the literature suggests that naturally functioning watersheds are the ultimate source of insurance, in the face of changing ocean conditions 

and human activities, to insure the 

persistence of wild salmon populations (Hare et al., 1999; Lawson, 1993).

Ph
Butte Creek spring-run Chinook salmon

SUPPORTING SLIDES

SUPPORTING SLIDES
0

5000

1000015000200002500030000

52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 83 86 89 92 95 

Clear Creek fall-run Chinook salmon

1967-1991

Average

3,835

Production

Doubling 

Goal

7,100

1992-2004

Average

12,072

Estimated Annual Natural Production
0

500

100015002000250030003500400045005000

O ND J FM A M J J A 

Tuolumne River flows, ‘DRY’ year

FERC MINIMUM FLOWS 109,953 109,953 af 11%

Flow

(cfs)
0

500

100015002000250030003500400045005000

O ND J FM A M J J A 

Tuolumne River flows, ‘DRY’ year

AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER 129,144 af 13%FLOW AT LA GRANGEFERC MINIMUM FLOWS 109,953 af 11%

Flow

(cfs)
0

500

100015002000250030003500400045005000

O ND J FM A M J J A 

fall pulse

rearing & spawning

ripve

outmi& floo

Tuolumne River flows, ‘DRY’ year

AFRP 2005 RECOMMENDED 381,430 af 38%AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER 129,144 af 13%FLOW AT LA GRANGE

FERC MINIMUM FLOWS 109,953 af 11%

Flow

(cfs)
0

500

100015002000250030003500400045005000

O ND J FM A M J J A 

fall pulse

rearing & spawning

ripve

outmi& floo

Tuolumne River flows, ‘DRY’ year

AVERAGE UNIMPAIRED 1,004,265 af 100%FLOW AT LA GRANGE

AFRP 2005 RECOMMENDED 381,430 af 38%

AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER 129,144 af 13%FLOW AT LA GRANGEFERC MINIMUM FLOWS 109,953 af 11%

Flow

(cfs)
fall pulse

rearing & spawning

ripve

out& fl

Tuolumne River flows, ‘WET’ year

AVERAGE UNIMPAIRED 2,992,236 af 100%FLOW AT LA GRANGE

AFRP 2005 RECOMMENDED 674,815 af 23%AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER 1,385,355 af 46%FLOW AT LA GRANGE

FERC MINIMUM FLOWS 300,879 af 10%

0

2000400060008000

1000012000

O N D J FM A M J J A 

Flow

(cfs)
0

2000400060008000

1000012000

O ND J FM A M J J A 

Tuolumne River flows ‘WET’ year

FERC MINIMUM FLOWS FERC MINIMUM FLOWS 300,879 300,879 af 10% Flow

(cfs)
0

2000400060008000

1000012000

O ND J FM A M J J A 

Tuolumne River flows ‘WET’ year

AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER 1,385,355 1,385,355 af 46%

FLOW AT LA GRANGE

FERC MINIMUM FLOWS FERC MINIMUM FLOWS 300,879 300,879 af 10% Flow

(cfs)
0

2000400060008000

1000012000

O ND J FM A M J J A 

fall pulse

rearing & spawning

ripve

out& fl

Tuolumne River flows ‘WET’ year

AFRP 2005 RECOMMENDED 674,815 674,815 af 23%

AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER 1,385,355 1,385,355 af 46%

FLOW AT LA GRANGE

FERC MINIMUM FLOWS FERC MINIMUM FLOWS 300,879 300,879 af 10%

Flow

(cfs)
0

100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000

1952 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 

1967-1991 

Average

10,977

Production

Stanislaus River fall-run Chinook salmon

Doubling Goal 

22,000

1992-2004 

Average

7,888

Average Annual Flow at Ripon (offset 2-years)Estimated Annual Natural Production
Stanislaus River flows ‘DRY’ year

AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER 290,405 290,405 af 53%

FLOW AT RIPON

Flow

(cfs)

0

500

1000150020002500

O N D J FM A M J J 
0

500

1000150020002500

O N D J FM A M J J 

fall pulse

rearing & spawning

ripve

outmi& floo

Stanislaus River flows ‘DRY’ year

AFRP 2005 RECOMMENDED 369,879 369,879 af 68%

AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER 290,405 290,405 af 53%

FLOW AT RIPON

Flow

(cfs)
0

500

1000150020002500

O N D J FM A M J J 

fall pulse

rearing & spawning

ripve

outmi& floo

Stanislaus River flows ‘DRY’ year

AVERAGE UNIMPAIRED AVERAGE UNIMPAIRED 542,861 542,861 af 100%

FLOW AT GOODWIN DAMAFRP 2005 RECOMMENDED 369,879 369,879 af 68%

AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER AVERAGE ACTUAL INRIVER 290,405 290,405 af 53%

FLOW AT RIPON

Flow

(cfs)
• Stanislaus River Gravel Replenishment Project:

AFRP- $139,744; CALFED- $561,000

• Merced River, Robinson Reach spawning habitat 

assessment: 

AFRP- $149,440; CALFED- $4,132,860

• Tuolumne River, MJ Ruddy Segment: AFRP-

$3,145,000; CALFED- $4,425,430

• Tuolumne River, Warner-Deardorff Segment: 

AFRP- $518,670; CALFED- $11,749,486

Totals: AFRP, $5.4 million; CALFED, $32.7 million

PROJECT EXAMPLES OF C

LEVERAGING, cont’

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION 

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATIO