Working Paper 

on Restoration Needs

Habitat Restoration Actions to Double 

Natural Production of Anadromous Fish

in the Central Valley of California

Volume 3
WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

HABITAT RESTORATION ACTIONS 

TO DOUBLE NATURAL PRODUCTION OF ANADROMOUS FISH

IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA

Volume 3

Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

under the direction of the

Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Core Group

May 9, 1995
ORGANIZATION OF THIS WORKING PAPER

This is Volume 3 of three volumes that comprise the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) 

Working Paper on Restoration Needs. The contents of the three volumes are as follows:

Volume 1 describes how the WORKING PAPER was developed, explains the process 

envisioned for completing a final Restoration Plan, and summarizes the production goals, 

limiting factors, and restoration actions sections developed by the AFRP technical teams. 

Interested parties should read the letter from Dale Hall and Wayne White that appears at 

the beginning of Volume 1.

Volume 2 provides descriptions of Central Valley rivers and streams, summarizes 

information on historic and existing conditions for anadromous fish, identifies the problems 

that have led to the decline of anadromous fish populations, and identifies roles and 

responsibilities of state and federal agencies in managing anadromous fish. It also includes 

two key documents that were used by the AFRP Core Group and technical teams to 

develop the WORKING PAPER.

Volume 3 includes the complete production goals, limiting factors, and restoration actions 

sections as submitted by the AFRP technical teams and edited by USFWS staff. Volume 3 

also includes citations for all three volumes of the WORKING PAPER.

To request copies of this Working Paper, call the AFRP=s information line at (800) 742-9474 or (916) 

979-2330 and dial extension 542 after the recorded message begins. You may also obtain copies by 

calling Roger Dunn, CVPIA Public Outreach, at (916) 979-2760 or by sending e-mail requests to 

roger_dunn@fws.gov. The Working Paper is available to be viewed and downloaded on the Internet at 

http://darkstar.dfg.ca.gov/usfws/fws_home.html.

This document should be cited as:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Working Paper on restoration needs: habitat restoration actions to 

double natural production of anadromous fish in the Central Valley of California. Volume 3. May 

9, 1995. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services under the direction of the Anadromous 

Fish Restoration Program Core Group. Stockton, CA. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 3

SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS.........................................3-X-1

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................3-X-1

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD.........................................................3-Xa-1

Baseline Natural Production and Goals.............................................................3-Xa-1

Chinook salmon...................................................................................3-Xa-1

Steelhead.............................................................................................3-Xa-4

Upper Mainstem Sacramento River..................................................................3-Xa-4

Limiting factors and potential solutions ..................................................3-Xa-4

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xa-14

B. UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER TRIBUTARIES ................................................3-Xb-1

Clear Creek.....................................................................................................3-Xb-1

Limiting factors and potential solutions ..................................................3-Xb-1

Restoration actions...............................................................................3-Xb-2

Cow Creek....................................................................................................3-Xb-10

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xb-10

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xb-12

Bear Creek....................................................................................................3-Xb-15

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xb-15

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xb-15

Cottonwood Creek........................................................................................3-Xb-16

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xb-17

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xb-17

Battle Creek ..................................................................................................3-Xb-19

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xb-19

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xb-21

Paynes Creek ................................................................................................3-Xb-33

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xb-33

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xb-33

Antelope Creek .............................................................................................3-Xb-34

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xb-34

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xb-35

Elder Creek...................................................................................................3-Xb-37

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xb-37

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xb-37
ii WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Mill Creek .....................................................................................................3-Xb-39

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xb-39

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xb-40

Thomes Creek...............................................................................................3-Xb-44

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xb-44

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xb-46

Deer Creek....................................................................................................3-Xb-51

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xb-51

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xb-53

Stony Creek ..................................................................................................3-Xb-58

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xb-58

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xb-62

Big Chico Creek............................................................................................3-Xb-70

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xb-70

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xb-73

Butte Creek...................................................................................................3-Xb-80

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xb-80

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xb-84

Colusa Basin drain .......................................................................................3-Xb-114

Limiting factors and potential solutions ..............................................3-Xb-114

Restoration actions...........................................................................3-Xb-115

Miscellaneous small tributaries......................................................................3-Xb-117

Limiting factors and potential solutions ..............................................3-Xb-117

Restoration actions...........................................................................3-Xb-118

C. LOWER SACRAMENTO RIVER AND DELTA TRIBUTARIES........................3-Xc-1

Approach........................................................................................................3-Xc-1

Feather River...................................................................................................3-Xc-2

Limiting factors and potential solutions ..................................................3-Xc-2

Restoration actions...............................................................................3-Xc-5

Yuba River....................................................................................................3-Xc-12

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xc-12

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xc-14

Bear River.....................................................................................................3-Xc-30

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xc-30

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xc-31

American River..............................................................................................3-Xc-37

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xc-37

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xc-40

Mokelumne River...........................................................................................3-Xc-60

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xc-60

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xc-64
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

Cosumnes River.............................................................................................3-Xc-80

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xc-80

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xc-80

Calaveras River..............................................................................................3-Xc-86

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xc-86

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xc-88

D. SAN JOAQUIN BASIN.......................................................................................3-Xd-1

Development of Flow Recommendations..........................................................3-Xd-1

Vernalis flow........................................................................................3-Xd-1

Tributary flow recommendations...........................................................3-Xd-3

Merced River...................................................................................................3-Xd-5

Limiting factors and potential solutions ..................................................3-Xd-6

Restoration actions...............................................................................3-Xd-8

Tuolumne River..............................................................................................3-Xd-18

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xd-18

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xd-21

Stanislaus River..............................................................................................3-Xd-31

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xd-31

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xd-33

Mainstem San Joaquin River...........................................................................3-Xd-42

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xd-42

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xd-46

E. SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ..........................................................3-Xe-1

General Approach............................................................................................3-Xe-1

Limiting factors and potential solutions ..............................................................3-Xe-5

Restoration actions.........................................................................................3-Xe-10

F. STRIPED BASS.....................................................................................................3-Xf-1

Baseline Natural Production and Goals..............................................................3-Xf-1

Goals....................................................................................................3-Xf-2

Outflow, export, and stocking considerations.........................................3-Xf-2

Restoration Actions...........................................................................................3-Xf-7

G. AMERICAN SHAD...............................................................................................3-Xg-1

Baseline Period Production and Production Goals.............................................3-Xg-1

Goal....................................................................................................3-Xg-2

Basis for flow recommendations ...........................................................3-Xg-2

Sacramento River Basin - Upper Mainstem Sacramento River..........................3-Xg-3

Limiting factors and potential solutions ..................................................3-Xg-3

Restoration actions...............................................................................3-Xg-4

Lower Sacramento River and Delta Tributaries.................................................3-Xg-6

Limiting factors and potential solutions ..................................................3-Xg-6
iv WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Restoration actions...............................................................................3-Xg-6

Feather River...................................................................................................3-Xg-7

Limiting factors and potential solutions ..................................................3-Xg-7

Restoration actions...............................................................................3-Xg-8

Yuba River......................................................................................................3-Xg-9

Limiting factors and potential solutions ..................................................3-Xg-9

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xg-10

American River..............................................................................................3-Xg-12

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xg-12

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xg-12

Mokelumne River...........................................................................................3-Xg-13

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xg-13

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xg-14

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.......................................................................3-Xg-15

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xg-15

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xg-16

San Joaquin River..........................................................................................3-Xg-18

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xg-18

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xg-19

Lower San Joaquin River Tributaries - Stanislaus River ..................................3-Xg-21

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xg-21

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON.....................................................................3-Xh-1

Baseline Natural Production and Goals.............................................................3-Xh-1

White sturgeon tagging and data analysis...............................................3-Xh-1

Green sturgeon tagging and data analysis...............................................3-Xh-2

Approach........................................................................................................3-Xh-3

Research Needs...............................................................................................3-Xh-5

Sacramento River.............................................................................................3-Xh-6

Limiting factors and potential solutions ..................................................3-Xh-6

Restoration actions...............................................................................3-Xh-7

Feather River.................................................................................................3-Xh-15

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xh-15

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xh-16

Bear River.....................................................................................................3-Xh-25

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xh-25

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xh-26

San Joaquin River..........................................................................................3-Xh-32

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xh-32

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xh-33

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.......................................................................3-Xh-42

Limiting factors and potential solutions ................................................3-Xh-42
TABLE OF CONTENTS v

Restoration actions.............................................................................3-Xh-43

SECTION XI. CITATIONS..................................................................................................3-X-1

PRINTED REFERENCES ............................................................................................3-X-1

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS .........................................................................3-X-43
LIST OF TABLES v

VOLUME 3

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3-Xa-1 Escapement, harvest, and production data and preliminary estimated 

restoration goals for chinook salmon based on doubling of 

natural production.............................................................................................3-Xa-2

3-Xa-2 Limiting factors and potential solutions.............................................................3-Xa-13

3-Xa-3 Minimum recommended Sacramento River flows (cfs) at Keswick Dam

for October 1 to April 30 based on October 1 carryover storage in Shasta

Reservoir and critically dry runoff conditions (driest decile runoff of 2.5 maf)

to produce a target April 30 Shasta Reservoir storage of 3.0-3.2 maf for

temperature control........................................................................................3-Xa-16

3-Xa-4 Water temperature control points for winter chinook salmon in the upper

Sacramento River as a function of operational environment (carryover + Shasta

inflow from October 1-February 1 and on April 1) related to Bend Bridge 

RM258) and Jelly=s Ferry (RM 267) ..............................................................3-Xa-24

3-Xa-5 Percent of adult and juvenile chinook salmon runs and steelhead passing

RBDD from September 15 to May 15 (DFG 1991)........................................3-Xa-26

3-Xb-1 Key factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in Clear Creek and 

potential solutions.............................................................................................3-Xb-2

3-Xb-2 Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in Cow Creek

and potential solutions to those problems.........................................................3-Xb-12

3-Xb-3 Limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in Bear Creek

and potential solutions to those problems.........................................................3-Xb-15

3-Xb-4 Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in Cottonwood

Creek and potential solutions to those problems..............................................3-Xb-17
WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS vi

3-Xb-5 Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in Battle Creek

and potential solutions to those problems.........................................................3-Xb-21

3-Xb-6 Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in Paynes Creek

and potential solutions to those problems.........................................................3-Xb-33

3-Xb-7 Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in Antelope

Creek and potential solutions to those problems..............................................3-Xb-35

3-Xb-8 Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in Elder Creek

and potential solutions to those problems.........................................................3-Xb-37

3-Xb-9 Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in Mill Creek

and potential solutions to those problems.........................................................3-Xb-40

3-Xb-10 Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in Thomes Creek

and proposed corrective actions .....................................................................3-Xb-45

3-Xb-11 Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in Deer Creek

and potential solutions to those problems.........................................................3-Xb-52

3-Xb-12 Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in Stony Creek

 and potential solutions to those problems........................................................3-Xb-58

3-Xb-13 Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in Big Creek

and potential solutions to those problems.........................................................3-Xb-72

3-Xb-14 Limiting factors for chinook salmon in Butte Creek and potential solutions

to those problems...........................................................................................3-Xb-80

3-Xb-15 Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in small

tributaries and potential solutions to those problems.......................................3-Xb-118

3-Xc-1 List of team members and additional authors assigned to writing

sections for each of the lower Sacramento River and Delta tributaries................3-Xc-1

3-Xc-2 Key limiting factors for chinook salmon production in the Feather

River and potential solutions..............................................................................3-Xc-3

3-Xc-3 Factors limiting chinook salmon and steelhead production in the lower

Yuba River and potential solutions ..................................................................3-Xc-12
LIST OF TABLES vii

3-Xc-4 Limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in the Bear River

and potential solutions.....................................................................................3-Xc-31

3-Xc-5 Estimates of numbers of chinook salmon that spawned in the lower

Bear River for selected years..........................................................................3-Xc-32

3-Xc-6 Minimum instream flow and maximum temperature regimes for wet

and normal water-year types to facilitate doubling production of

chinook salmon and steelhead in the Bear River...............................................3-Xc-33

3-Xc-7 Estimated Bear River mean monthly unimpaired flow at Wheatland for

the 63-year period 1921-1983, actual flow at Wheatland gage for the

1964-1990 period, and proposed minimum flow regime at Wheatland.............3-Xc-34

3-Xc-8 Limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead production in the lower

American River and potential solutions............................................................3-Xc-37

3-Xc-9 Instream flow regimes recommended to facilitate doubling of chinook

salmon and steelhead production in the lower American River under

four year types...............................................................................................3-Xc-42

3-Xc-10 Limiting factors for fall-run chinook salmon on the Mokelumne River

and potential solutions.....................................................................................3-Xc-61

3-Xc-11 Instream flow regimes recommended to facilitate doubling of chinook

salmon and steelhead production in the lower Mokelumne River under

three year types..............................................................................................3-Xc-65

3-Xc-12 Limiting factors for fall-run chinook salmon on the Cosumnes River

and potential solutions.....................................................................................3-Xc-80

3-Xc-13 Escapement estimates and monthly total flow for October and May 

during the baseline period for the Cosumnes River...........................................3-Xc-81

3-Xc-14 Limiting factors and potential solutions for Calaveras River 

chinook salmon..............................................................................................3-Xc-87

3-Xc-15 Instream flow regimes recommended to facilitate doubling production

of winter-run chinook salmon in the Calaveras River for each of

three water-year types....................................................................................3-Xc-89
WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS viii

3-Xd-1 Allocation of total combined Delta exports (CVP and SWP) by percent

occurrence of total unimpaired runoff (1922-1990) ...........................................3-Xd-2

3-Xd-2 Allocation of San Joaquin River flow at Vernalis based on percent

occurrence of total unimpaired runoff (1922-1990) ...........................................3-Xd-2

3-Xd-3 Limiting factors and potential solutions for San Joaquin Basin fall-run 

chinook salmon in the Merced River.................................................................3-Xd-6

3-Xd-4 Existing and AFRP-generated flow (cfs) schedules, Merced River

Crocker-Huffman Diversion to San Joaquin River confluence 

by year type.....................................................................................................3-Xd-9

3-Xd-5 Limiting factors and potential solutions for San Joaquin Basin fall-run

chinook salmon in the Tuolumne River.............................................................3-Xd-18

3-Xd-6 Existing and AFRP-generated flow schedules for the Tuolumne River

from LaGrange Dam to the San Joaquin River confluence (cfs) 

by year type...................................................................................................3-Xd-22

3-Xd-7 Limiting factors and potential solutions for San Joaquin Basin fall-run

chinook salmon in the Stanislaus River.............................................................3-Xd-31

3-Xd-8 Existing and proposed flow schedules for the Stanislaus River from

Goodwin Dam to the San Joaquin River confluence (cfs) by year type .............3-Xd-34

3-Xd-9 Limiting factors and potential solutions for San Joaquin Basin fall-run

chinook salmon in the San Joaquin River.........................................................3-Xd-42

3-Xd-10 San Joaquin River flow (cfs) at Vernalis ..........................................................3-Xd-46

3-Xd-11 Combined maximum exports (cfs) at SWP and CVP pumping facilities............3-Xd-48

3-Xd-12 Existing and AFRP-generated flow schedules for the San Joaquin

River at Stevinson (cfs) by year type...............................................................3-Xd-49

3-Xe-1 Formulas used in the models to calculate mortalities...........................................3-Xe-2

3-Xe-2 Assumed temporal distributions, by percent, of fall-, late fall-, and

winter-run chinook salmon for the Sacramento, Mokelumne, and

San Joaquin rivers. Distributions were input to survival models..........................3-Xe-3
LIST OF TABLES ix

3-Xe-3 Key limiting factors in order of importance and potential solutions

for chinook salmon and steelhead in the Delta....................................................3-Xe-5

3-Xe-4 Survival indices of CWT fall-run chinook salmon molts released at

several locations in the Delta from 1983 to 1986 and recovered by

trawl at Chipps Island.....................................................................................3-Xe-10

3-Xe-5 Release dates, mean fork length (FL) of release groups, survival index (S),

survival ratios, and expanded numbers of fish counted at federal (CVP)

and state (SWP) salvage facilities from studies conducted with CWT 

fall-run and late-fall-run (LF) chinook salmon, April 6, 1992

through December 2, 1993.............................................................................3-Xe-12

3-Xe-6 Comparisons of the survival indices (ST) for CWT chinook smolts

released in the Sacramento River above and below the DCC and

Georgiana Slough diversion channels between 1983 and 1989.........................3-Xe-15

3-Xe-7 Ocean recovery rates for fall-run CWT chinook salmon smolts

released above and below the DCC and Georgiana Slough from 

1983 to 1989 and ratios of survival indices for smolts released

above and below these channels .....................................................................3-Xe-16

3-Xe-8 Survival indices of smolts migrating through the Bay from Port Chicago

to the Golden Gate Bridge ..............................................................................3-Xe-22

3-Xe-9 Sacramento River fall run (April-June).............................................................3-Xe-22

3-Xe-10 Sacramento River late fall-run and spring-run yearlings

(November-January)......................................................................................3-Xe-23

3-Xe-11 Sacramento winter-run salmon (February-April)..............................................3-Xe-24

3-Xe-12 San Joaquin fall-run salmon (April-May).........................................................3-Xe-25

3-Xe-13 Mokelumne River fall-run salmon (April-June).................................................3-Xe-27

3-Xf-1 Estimated abundance of adult striped bass in the

Central Valley, 1967-1991................................................................................3-Xf-1

3-Xf-2 Monthly Average Delta Outflow (cfs) required to meet 15 December 1994 
WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS x

Delta Accord X2 salinity standards as projected by DWRSIM...........................3-Xf-3

3-Xf-3 Combined CVP/SWP exports (cfs) under the 15 December 1995 

Delta Accord X2 as projected by DWRSIM.....................................................3-Xf-3

3-Xf-4 Limiting factors and potential solutions for striped bass.......................................3-Xf-5

3-Xf-5 Required Delta outflow (cfs) at Chipps Island to sustain a 2.0 million 

population of striped bass..................................................................................3-Xf-8

3-Xg-1 Young-of-the-year and adult American shad abundance estimates 

in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system.....................................................3-Xg-1

3-Xg-2 Limiting factors and potential solutions for American shad in the 

upper Sacramento River (Colusa to Red Bluff)..................................................3-Xg-3

3-Xg-3 Instream flow regime believed necessary to double natural production 

of American shad in the Sacramento River for five water year types...................3-Xg-4

3-Xg-4 Limiting factors and potential solutions for American shad in the 

lower Sacramento River (Hood to Colusa)........................................................3-Xg-6

3-Xg-5 Limiting factors and potential solutions for American shad in 

the Feather River..............................................................................................3-Xg-7

3-Xg-6 Instream flow regime believed necessary to double natural production 

of American shad in the Feather River for five water year types.........................3-Xg-8

3-Xg-7 Limiting factors and potential solutions for American shad in 

the Yuba River...............................................................................................3-Xg-10

3-Xg-8 Instream flow regime believed necessary to double natural production 

of American shad in the Yuba River for five water year types...........................3-Xg-10

3-Xg-9 Limiting factors and potential solutions for American shad in 

the American River.........................................................................................3-Xg-12

3-Xg-10 Instream flow regime believed necessary to double natural production 

of American shad in the American River for five water year types....................3-Xg-12

3-Xg-11 Limiting factors and potential solutions for American shad in 
LIST OF TABLES xi

the Mokelumne River.....................................................................................3-Xg-13

3-Xg-12 Instream flow regime believed necessary to double natural production 

of American shad in the Mokelumne River for five water year types.................3-Xg-14

3-XG-13 Limiting factors and potential solutions for American shad in 

the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta..................................................................3-Xg-15

3-Xg-14 Delta inflow required to double natural production of American shad 

in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers.............................................................3-Xg-16

3-Xg-15 Limiting factors and potential solutions for American shad in the 

San Joaquin River...........................................................................................3-Xg-18

3-Xg-16 Instream flow regime believed necessary to double natural production 

of American shad in the San Joaquin River for five water year types.................3-Xg-19

3-Xg-17 Limiting factors and potential solutions for American shad in the 

Stanislaus River..............................................................................................3-Xg-21

3-Xg-18 Instream flow regime believed necessary to double natural production 

of American shad in the Stanislaus River for five water years types...................3-Xg-21

3-Xh-1 Catch and natural production (abundance at age 15) for white sturgeon

in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary during the baseline period .....................3-Xh-2

3-Xh-2 Green sturgeon abundance estimates in the Sacramento-San Joaquin

Estuary during the baseline period ..................................................................33-Xh-3

3-Xh-3 List of team members and additional authors assigned to writing

sections for each of the listed drainages.............................................................3-Xh-3

3-Xh-4 Limiting factors and potential solutions for white and green

sturgeon in the Sacramento River......................................................................3-Xh-6

3-Xh-5 Mean monthly February-May discharge (cfs) at Grimes (USGS station

11390500 and Verona (USGS station 11425500) on the 

Sacramento River.............................................................................................3-Xh-7

3-Xh-6 Limiting factors and potential solutions for white and green sturgeon

in the Feather River........................................................................................3-Xh-15
WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS xii

3-Xh-7 Mean monthly February-May discharge (cfs) at Gridley (USGS station

11407140) and Nicolaus (USGS station 11425000) on the 

Feather River.................................................................................................3-Xh-17

3-Xh-8 Limiting factors and potential solutions for white and green sturgeon 

in the Bear River.............................................................................................3-Xh-25

3-Xh-9 Limiting factors and potential solutions for white and green sturgeon in 

the mainstem San Joaquin River......................................................................3-Xh-32

3-Xh-10 Mean monthly discharge (cfs) for February-May at Newman (USGS

Hydrologic Unit 19040002, located 650 feet downstream of the Merced

River) and Vernalis (Unit 18040003, located 2.6 miles downstream of

the Stanislaus River) on the San Joaquin River.................................................3-Xh-35

3-Xh-11 Limiting factors and potential solutions for white and green sturgeon

in the Delta.....................................................................................................3-Xh-42
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

INTRODUCTION 3-X-1

SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS

INTRODUCTION

This section consists of the reports from the eight technical teams. Five of these teams addressed chinook 

salmon and steelhead in each of the following areas: (1) mainstem upper Sacramento River, (2) upper 

Sacramento River tributaries, (3) lower Sacramento River and Delta tributaries, (4) San Joaquin basin, and 

(5) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Three additional teams addressed (6) striped bass, (7) American shad, 

and (8) white and green sturgeon. The teams that addressed chinook salmon and steelhead, American 

shad, and white and green sturgeon organized their reports according to river systems. 

Each report is presented in at least two sections, "Limiting factors and potential solutions" and "Restoration 

actions". The first of these sections describes factors potentially limiting the production of the species and 

gives an overview of potential solutions for each factor; the second section lists specific actions and 

describes the objective, location, and predicted benefits and provides details of implementation for each 

action. 
SECTION VI. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-1

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD

Baseline Natural Production and Goals

Chinook salmon - The procedures described in Volume 2, Section IX, AGuiding Principles and 

Assumptions,@ were used to estimate restoration goals for chinook salmon (Table 3-Xa-1). The Core 

Group defined the restoration goal to be equal to, at least, twice the mean estimated natural production for 

the baseline period (1967-1991). It defined natural production during the baseline period to be that portion 

of production not produced in hatcheries and defined total production to be the sum of harvest and 

escapement. Only rough estimates of hatchery production and ocean and inland harvest exist for the 

baseline period, and then only for some Central Valley rivers and streams. Where estimates were not 

available or where they were known to be inaccurate, values for these parameters were assigned. The proportion of production produced in hatcheries was assigned based on available estimates (Dettman and 

Kelley 1985, 1986; Cramer 1990) and on the opinion of fishery biologists. Ocean harvest of Central 

Valley chinook salmon was assumed to be equal to the Central Valley Index. Inland harvest values were 

assigned as a proportion of escapement based on available harvest data (Mills and Fisher 1994, draft 

summaries of California Department of Fish and Game [DFG] 1991-1993 angler survey data) and the 

opinion of fishery biologists. In general, escapement estimates were taken from Mills and Fisher (1994). 

More specific sources of information considered for each river are listed as notes associated with

production spreadsheets in Appendix A at the end of this subsection.

Opportunities exist to improve estimates of most of the parameters used to estimate the restoration goal, 

especially estimates of the proportion of production produced in hatcheries and ocean and inland harvest. 

The goals listed in Table 3-Xa-1 should be considered preliminary estimates.
3-Xa-2 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Table 3-Xa-1. Escapement, harvest, and production data and preliminary estimated

restoration goals for chinook salmon based on doubling of natural production.

Harvest Production

Race and rivera Escapement Instream Ocean Total Natural Goalb

All races combined 280,000 53,000 410,000 740,000 500,000 990,000

Fall run 220,000 40,000 340,000 610,000 370,000 750,000

Late fall run 15,000 5,500 24,000 34,000 22,000 68,000

Winter run 23,000 4,600 26,000 54,000 54,000 110,000

Spring run 13,000 2,400 19,000 34,000 34,000 68,000

Sacramento River

Fall run 77,000 7,700 110,000 190,000 120,000 230,000

Late fall run 14,000 2,800 20,000 37,000 22,000 44,000

Winter run 23,000 24,000 26,000 54,000 54,000 110,000

Spring run 11,000 2,200 16,000 29,000 29,000 59,000

Clear Creek 1,600 160 2,700 4,500 3,600 7,100

Cow Creek 1,400 140 1,400 2,900 2,300 4,600

Cottonwood Creek 1,600 160 1,900 3,700 3,000 5,900

Battle Creek

Fall run 18,000 1,800 31,000 50,000 5,000 10,000

Late fall run 1,000 200 1,500 2,700 270 550

Paynes Creek 90 10 110 200 160 330

Antelope Creek 190 20 240 450 360 720

Mill Creek

Fall run 1,100 110 1,400 2,600 2,100 4,200

Spring run 800 80 1,300 2,200 2,200 4,400

Deer Creek

Fall run 410 40 510 950 760 1,500

Spring run 1,300 130 1,800 3,300 3,300 6,500

Miscellaneous creeks 300 30 350 680 550 1,100

Butte Creek

Fall run 420 40 490 951 760 1,500

Spring run 360 40 620 1,000 1,000 2,000

Big Chico Creek 240 20 230 500 400 800

Feather River 49,000 9,700 80,000 140,000 86,000 170,000

Yuba River 13,000 1,300 19,000 33,000 33,000 66,000

Bear River 100 10 110 220 220 450

American River 41,000 18,000 75,000 130,000 81,000 160,000

Mokelumne River 3,300 300 4,100 7,800 4,700 9,300

Cosumnes River 760 80 800 1,600 1,600 3,300

Calaveras River

Winter run 410 480 590 1,100 1,100 2,200

Stanislaus River 4,800 240 5,800 11,000 11,000 22,000

Tuolumne River 8,900 450 9,500 19,000 19,000 38,000

Merced River 4,500 230 5,100 9,900 9,000 18,000
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-3

a Data for rivers without a race designation are for fall-run chinook salmon.

b Because of rounding errors, goal category numbers do not add up to twice the natural production 

category numbers.
3-Xa-4 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Steelhead - Insufficient data are available to estimate natural production of steelhead in the Central Valley 

other than upstream of Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD). The restoration goal for steelhead spawning 

upstream of RBDD is 13,000 steelhead per year (refer to Appendix B at the end of this subsection).

Upper Mainstem Sacramento River

Limiting factors and potential solutions- Population levels of chinook salmon and steelhead in the upper 

Sacramento River are at historically low levels. The winter-run salmon is listed as endangered; spring-run 

populations in the mainstem are less abundant than winter-run populations, but occur in tributaries to the 

upper Sacramento River at low levels. The commercial fisheries that depend on Sacramento River stocks 

have been curtailed to a considerable degree.

Actions that are needed include seasonal opening of dam gates at RBDD, releases of cold water from 

Shasta and Trinity dams from levels below the powerhouse intakes, removal of acid and metal from the 

worst portion of the discharge from Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Site, and avoidance of entrainment of 

juveniles at Glen-Colusa pumps and other diversions.

There is historical evidence that the salmon fishery was compatible with the basic components of the water 

projects during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. During the 1950s, the combined population of all salmon 

runs on the upper Sacramento River probably exceeded one-half million salmon. Over the last two decades 

salmon escapements and harvests have declined. As water demands increased, the CVP grew, becoming 

less operationally flexible in providing water-related benefits to fish, wildlife, and associated habitats, 

especially during dry periods. This trend continued even with increased regulation.

By restoring operational flexibility to water projects, a reasonable balance can be achieved among 

competing demands for use of CVP water, including the requirements of fish and wildlife, agricultural, 

municipal and industrial, and power contractors. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) 

calls for several fish and wildlife restoration activities, some of which are structural changes to the existing 

facilities. These changes (e.g., addition of a structural temperature control device at Shasta Dam) are 

especially valuable because they provide structural operational flexibility, allowing more needs to be met 

with the same amount of water.

With limited water supplies and high demand requirements for fish and wildlife, agriculture, municipal and 

industrial, and power production, complex water management solutions are needed. For fish and wildlife 

and associated habitat protection, the Central Valley Project (CVP) should attain operational flexibility to 

protect the salmon and steelhead populations. In drought situations, the salmon and steelhead runs should 

be protected at least 2 out of 3 successive years, thus ensuring the populations' maintenance, recovery, and 

resiliency and avoiding the decade-long recovery periods from cumulative mortality rates produced by the 

present water management operations.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-5

Existing habitat conditions - The Sacramento River is the largest river system in California. The 

river's water resources yield 35% of the state's supply and the river's salmon and steelhead resource 

supplies the largest portion of the state's catch. The upper Sacramento River supports one of the largest 

contiguous riverine and wetland ecosystems left in the Central Valley even though the remaining riparian 

habitat is only 5% of the historical amount. The river ecosystem supports several federal- and state-listed 

endangered and threatened species and several species of special concern.

The flow of the Sacramento River is regulated by Shasta Dam where as much as 4.5 maf of water are 

stored during the wet season. River flow is augmented in average years by up to 1 maf of Trinity River 

water transferred by tunnel to Keswick Reservoir. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) owns and 

operates the Shasta and Trinity divisions of the CVP, which also includes Spring Creek Debris Dam, which 

is used for metering out toxic wastes from the Iron Mountain Mine, and RBDD, which diverts into the 

Tehama-Colusa Canal and the Corning Canal.

The upper Sacramento River extends from Keswick Dam to the confluence of the Feather River, a distance 

of 215 river miles. Other alterations of the river affecting this reach include: the Glen-Colusa Irrigation 

District's (GCID's) pumps, which divert approximately 1 maf of water per year; the Anderson Cottonwood 

Irrigation District's (ACID's) seasonal dam, which diverts approximately 150,000 af, May to October; 

hundreds of small riparian diversions; and displaced riparian forests along selected sections of the bank that 

have major flood-control and bank protection works from Red Bluff to the Feather River.

Habitat needs- The upper Sacramento River supports four races of chinook salmon and steelhead. 

 Other native anadromous fish include white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), green sturgeon (A. 

medirostris), Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata), and river lamprey (L. ayresi). Nonnative 

anadromous fish include striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and American shad (Alosa sapidissima).

This subsection addresses six primary limiting factors affecting salmon and steelhead in the upper mainstem 

Sacramento River: 1) changes in the natural frequency, magnitude, and timing of flows; 2) water 

temperature changes; 3) passage at artificial migration barriers; 4) toxic discharges; 5) effects of hatchery 

stocks on natural stocks; and 6) loss of riparian forests and associated rearing habitat and water 

temperature moderation capacity. Specific issues for achieving restoration follow:

Changes in the natural frequency, magnitude, and timing of flows- Reservoirs have 

changed the natural flow regimes of the Sacramento River by changing frequency, magnitude, and timing of 

flow. Flows need to be established that support the life history needs of all four races of salmon and 

steelhead: spawning flows, stable flows for early life stages, outmigration flows, and flushing flows for 

sediment transport.

The Sacramento River functions as a water delivery canal for the CVP. Flows are regulated in large part by 

CVP water delivery operations. During the irrigation season, flows released to satisfy project purposes 
3-Xa-6 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

generally exceed flows needed to satisfy spawning and temperature control requirements. Critical periods 

for coordinating flows between fishery needs and water delivery needs include fall and early winter months 

to ensure that incubation conditions are adequate, late winter when there may be a need to reduce flows and 

increase storage for temperature control later in the year, and spring when temperature control plans and 

water contracting decisions are made for the next season.

The runoff and storage conditions in the project vary widely, requiring different types of operation. USBR 

generally operates the project in accord with a CVP Operations Criteria and Plan (USBR 1992) and the 

Biological Opinion for winter-run chinook salmon (National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] 1993).

The flow allocation process is now coordinated with the CVPIA (CVPIA; P.L. 102-575). Each year there 

is coordination among the fishery trustees (DFG, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], and NMFS) 

and the CVP operators to select the flow regimes and flow changes meeting habitat requirements within the 

available water supply. Habitat considerations include prevention of stranding and isolation of redds and 

juveniles due to flow fluctuations, attainment of temperature objectives, and provision of experimental 

spring-time releases for facilitating outmigration. Consideration is given to balancing reservoir carryover 

storage needs for temperature control with flow needs for habitat. The project operators provide monthly 

forecasts to the fishery trustees and further coordination occurs throughout the year as hydrologic conditions 

change.

The benefits of pulsed flows need to be accurately determined to facilitate juvenile outmigration. This flow 

requirement can consume enormous quantities of water from supplies dedicated to fish and wildlife. 

Because of the high water cost, it is necessary to define the benefits through carefully designed studies of 

experimental spring-time outmigration flows. There may be a need for flushing flows for channel

maintenance (e.g., to remove the harmful effects of sedimentation or growths of nuisance algae and 

oligochaetes that destroy salmon eggs). Presently, there is insufficient information to determine the timing 

and amount of the flushing flow. Until the recent drought, carryover storage was sufficient to produce spills 

from Shasta Dam at adequate intervals.

Water temperature changes - Reservoirs have changed the natural cycle of water 

temperature and blocked access to historical spawning areas. The temperature regulation is important to 

the restoration of winter-run, spring-run and, to a lesser degree, fall-run salmon. Late fall-run salmon, 

steelhead, and other anadromous fish are not threatened by temperature problems. Past instances of 

temperature-induced mortality caused major year class failures and losses, especially when poor runoff 

conditions were combined with heavy reservoir drawdowns.

The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), on behalf of the fishery trustees, requires 

CVP operations to provide the best temperature control attainable for all races of salmon and steelhead. In 

addition, it requires eventual installation of temperature control devices at Shasta Dam and at Whiskeytown 

Reservoir. The NMFS, under the Endangered Species Act, prescribes measures for temperature control 

for winter-run salmon.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-7

Permanent remedies are needed to resolve the temperature problem through the installation of structural 

devices on all reservoirs releasing to the river, in combination with prudent reservoir management practices 

that leave sufficient carryover storage to maintain cold water reserves the following year. In the interim, the 

reservoir operations are reviewed by a temperature task force and recommendations are made to avoid 

possible losses of salmon and steelhead by the optimum budgeting and delivery of cold water reserves via 

the coldest available reservoir outlets. These actions are consistent with the intent of the Clean Water Act 

(Water Rights Order 90-5), Federal Endangered Species Act, and the CVPIA. Uncontrollable factors, 

such as extreme drought, will limit the ability to control temperatures even with temperature control devices.

The temperature regime of the middle Sacramento River below Tehama County is not significantly 

influenced by reservoir operations due to its distance downstream from the dam. The objectives of 

restoration activities that affect the temperature regime in the middle river include rerouting major agricultural 

drainwater discharges from the river into flood bypass channels and reestablishing large-tract riparian forests 

that increase humidity and moderate air temperatures. Further study and analyses are needed to quantify 

the benefits of these two actions. However, it may not be necessary to precisely quantify these benefits if 

these actions are taken for the overriding benefits of restoring riparian forest for wildlife and directing large 

pesticide and herbicide discharges away from the river.

Passage at artificial migration barriers -

Red Bluff Diversion Dam - Opening the RBDD gates eliminates delay in passage 

and blockage of adult salmon and steelhead, which can result in reproductive failure if the fish are unable to 

reach additional spawning habitat and the coldest available water. The open gates also eliminate 

concentrations of piscivorous fish (their upstream movement is blocked by the dam), which prey on juvenile 

salmonids disoriented by passage under the dam gates. A needed partial remedy to fish passage problems 

is installation of USBR's proposed research pumping plant, which will allow the diversion dam gates to be 

open from mid-September through mid-May. A final remedy will depend on results of pilot studies, 

evaluations of the research pumping plant, and further feasibility studies focusing on different sizes of 

pumping stations and/or ladder-type passage facilities.

Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District - The ACID's 75-year-old seasonal 

dam needs an updated fish passage facility and a water control device that adjusts the head on the canal 

without flash-board removal and related drastic stream flow reductions. The ACID's dam has several 

effects on salmon and steelhead: (a) adjustments to the flashboard dam according to stipulations in a USBR 

contract allow the district to order rapid and drastic changes in the river flow, thus causing fish stranding and 

redd dewatering; (b) high volume water releases from canal waste gates can attract and strand spawning 

adult salmon and steelhead; (c) there are occasional discharges of toxic herbicides to tributaries crossing the 

canal; and (d) inadequate fish ladders at the dam impair upstream fish passage.
3-Xa-8 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Fishery restoration remedies are proceeding on a cooperative basis. The ACID is developing the necessary 

information to better operate and improve the facilities necessary to exercise its water right with minimum 

biological impacts, consistent with various litigation settlement agreements. A setting for the flashboards and 

canal drum gates was recently and successfully tested at river flows of 4,000-14,000 cubic feet per second 

(cfs). The setting can deliver the full water demand in the canal without requiring mid-season adjustment of 

the flashboards and not exceeding the safety of dam water surface elevation in the diversion pool at the main 

dam.

The canal system operating procedures have been revised to prevent major biological problems. Once the 

ACID has determined the level of remediation possible from operational changes and structural

modifications, appropriate agreements need to be completed.

Keswick Dam - Keswick Dam routinely spills during powerhouse problems and 

floods. The spill attracts all races of salmon and steelhead into a stilling basin, isolating them from the river 

when spills cease. A more effective escape passage can be provided by installing a small stream channel 

through the bedrock at the outside corners of the basin. The spills occur intermittently with turbine load 

rejections, required safety checks of the gates, and rare flood releases. The basin also receives oil-laden 

discharges from the internal dam works.

Unscreened diversions - There are more than 300 separate irrigation, industrial, 

and municipal water supply diversions along the Sacramento River between Redding and Sacramento, 

diverting nearly 1.2 maf of water annually from April through October. These unscreened diversions may 

cause significant losses of juvenile salmon and steelhead rearing in these sections of the river during the irrigation and nonirrigation seasons. Flooding of rice fields during the nonirrigation season is presently under 

consideration, which would expose more rearing salmon and steelhead to unscreened pumps. According to 

The Resources Agency of California (1989), 10 million juvenile salmon and steelhead are lost to unscreened 

diversions annually.

Glen-Colusa Irrigation District - The GCID was organized in 1920 to take over 

the Central Irrigation District's diversion project, which had operated since 1905. Significant hydraulic 

changes have occurred in the river since installation of the existing fish screens in 1972. The entrance to the 

diversion has dropped about 3 feet in elevation, lowering water depths in the oxbow and decreasing the 

effective surface area of the screens. Decreasing surface area increases water velocity through the screens, 

killing juvenile salmon, steelhead, and other small fishes by impingement.

Bypass flows needed to allow juvenile fish to return to the river are insufficient, and reverse flows occur 

when drawdown in the intake channel exceeds the natural flow of the main channel of the river. Most fish 

entering the diversion during these periods are believed to be lost to predation.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-9

Original screen design criteria did not call for screening out salmonid fry (less than 1.75 inches in total 

length). It is now recognized that these screens were never completely effective. DFG estimates an average 

annual loss of 7 million downstream migrating salmonids at this diversion.

Restoration of anadromous salmonid populations above Keswick Reservoir - The 

amount of chinook salmon and steelhead habitat lost upstream from Keswick and Shasta dams was 

enormous. Hanson et al. (1940) determined from extensive gravel surveys that more than 2.4 million square 

feet of spawning habitat in 187 miles of accessible rivers and streams capable of supporting a maximum run 

of 188,000 salmon were blocked to anadromous fish by the project. This area once provided substrate for 

natural spawning for approximately one-half of the total Sacramento River salmon run (Calkins et al. 1940, 

Van Cleve 1945, Azevedo and Parkhurst 1958). Restoration of fish access to historical spawning and 

rearing habitat currently blocked by Keswick and Shasta dams would provide an opportunity to augment 

natural production of anadromous salmonids and could extend the current reduced geographical ranges for 

chinook salmon and steelhead. If restoration is successful, anadromous salmonids would have access to 

historical spawning ranges above Keswick and Shasta dams, providing additional restoration opportunities.

Restoration of habitat above the dams would be a secondary objective explored if it proves unfeasible to 

double the natural production in Central Valley streams below Keswick and Shasta dams. Elements of a 

feasibility study to determine the potential for restoration would include, but not be limited to, a survey for 

suitable or restorable habitat above Shasta Dam; a survey for suitable or restorable habitat between 

Keswick and Shasta dams; examination of Keswick Dam fish trap to move adults above Keswick Dam; 

survivorship of juveniles through Keswick Dam turbines; and analysis of volitional fish passage, including fish 

bypass systems and trucking of fish to facilitate adult and juvenile migration past Keswick and Shasta dams. 

Toxic discharges - The Sacramento River receives a variety of discharges that have 

created contamination and increased toxicity to fish and other aquatic life.

Metals - Due to waste from the Iron Mountain Mine, the Sacramento River has 

impaired water quality according to standards for metals established under the Clean Water Act (SWRCB 

1992). The Iron Mountain Mine discharges a complex mixture of toxic metals from abandoned mine 

workings. The discharge enters the Sacramento River approximately 1 mile above Keswick Dam, polluting 

the river with dissolved metals and forming large deposits of chemical sediments.

Historically, fish toxicity is managed to the extent possible by metering waste from the Spring Creek waste 

reservoir and diluting it with releases from Whiskeytown and Shasta reservoirs. Dilution does not solve the 

problem. Normally, dilution capability is large in what is the largest reservoir and river complex in the state; 

however, during drought or operations at Shasta Dam to prevent downstream flooding, little or no dilution 

water exists. High concentrations of toxic metals have caused more than 40 documented kills of salmon and 
3-Xa-10 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

steelhead and more undocumented damage. Lower concentrations of metals that are fairly common in the 

river can result in reduced growth, disease resistance, and physiological problems.

During the last decade, the Iron Mountain Mine site has been on the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA's) Superfund program. The main objectives of EPA and the fishery trustees in the Iron 

Mountain Mine clean-up include: (a) eliminate the water demand that the dilution of the toxic discharge 

places on the Shasta-Trinity Project of the CVP and (b) attain water quality objectives for toxic metals and 

contaminated sediments to protect the fishery resources of the Sacramento River from acute and chronic 

toxicity.

Protection of the Sacramento River fishery has been greatly improved by the actions completed to date 

under the EPA program, including diverting uncontaminated waters away from contaminated areas, capping 

an open pit mine, disposing of numerous large tailings piles, and piping the drainage from the portals to the 

major underground workings to a lime treatment plant that removes 98% of the metals and acid. The 

remaining necessary remedial actions still in the planning process include controlling pollution from the diffuse 

sources of copper still in the watershed, which causes pollution during large rainfall events, and cleaning up 

the chemical sediments in Keswick Reservoir (EPA 1994). Fifty years of discharging the metal-laden 

waste, which has a pH of 3, into Keswick Reservoir produced a deposit estimated to be 109,000 cubic 

meters in size and to contain metal levels exceeding those designated for hazardous waste and toxic to 

salmon fry and invertebrates in small amounts (DFG 1995). The location of a large portion of the deposits 

near the Spring Creek Powerhouse can mobilize deposits into the river under certain types of operations.

Bioaccumulative substances - Monitoring of dibenzofuran and dioxin

concentrations in resident fish and pulp mill effluent should ensure compliance with the Central Valley 

Regional Water Control Board's (CVRWQCB's) basin plan (CVRWQCB 1990) and suitability of different 

fish species for sport and commercial uses.

Biostimulatory substances- Monitoring of nuisance algae growths and Hydrilla, 

with the possible use of infrared technology, is needed to determine when the river has reached its capacity 

to assimilate nutrients. Large sources of biostimulatory substances include nitrogen from municipal waste, 

pulp mill effluent, and trace elements such as iron from Iron Mountain Mine.

Effects of hatchery stocks on natural stocks - Effects of hatchery stocks on natural 

spawning stocks is unknown. There is a potential for competition to occur between hatchery-released and 

wild/natural juveniles in the Sacramento River. Biological interactions of hatchery-released fish with wild fish 

may include direct competition for food and space during the freshwater rearing phase (Steward and Bjornn 

1990).

The extent of transmission of diseases or parasites from hatchery-released salmonids to wild stocks is 

largely unknown. Although disease outbreaks and epizootics are fairly common in hatcheries, direct transfer 

of these diseases to wild fish has not been clearly demonstrated. Steward and Bjornn (1990) state that 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-11

there is little evidence of transmittance of diseases or parasites from hatchery to wild salmonids, although 

research on this subject is limited and the full impact of disease on supplemented stocks is probably 

underestimated.

Loss of riparian forests and associated rearing habitat and water temperature 

moderation capacity - Riparian forests have been removed because of bank stabilization projects that 

reduce rearing habitats and increase heat gain along the river.

Riparian forests- The continuing fragmentation of the remaining riparian ecosystem 

has been implicated in the decline of salmon and steelhead populations in the upper mainstem of the 

Sacramento River. The riparian habitat along the river is an integral part of this system, affecting erosion, 

deposition, and channel morphology.

The riparian ecosystem along the Sacramento River consists of a mosaic of habitat types of different age, 

species composition, and vegetative structure. From grasses, forbs, and willows sprouting on newly 

deposited point bars to thick stands of cottonwood, sycamore, and black walnut to high terrace valley oak 

woodland, the system is inextricable from the geomorphological processes of erosion and deposition. The 

vegetation structure in turn affects river morphology by promoting sedimentation during floodflows and 

influencing erosion rates and channel cutoffs. The resulting channel and floodplain configuration has a 

diverse array of instream habitat conditions that benefit salmon and steelhead populations.

Loss of riparian forest has many deleterious effects on salmonid populations. These include the loss of 

configurations suitable for creating spawning riffles; gravel from eroding banks for the creation of spawning 

riffles; wood debris that provides habitat for juvenile fish; and organic material for aquatic invertebrates, -

cover, and shade.

Many factors have resulted in considerable reduction in the amount of riparian habitat along the Sacramento 

River. Conversion of riparian forests to agriculture is the principal reason for the decline. Completion of 

Shasta Dam fostered further conversions of habitat to agriculture as decreasing flood risks allowed the 

planting of orchards and row crops in the historical floodplain. Bank protection also fostered conversion of 

forests by reducing bank erosion and meandering. The CVP altered the river's natural flow regime and 

sediment transport characteristics, changing patterns of forest regeneration. Operation of flood control 

projects, primarily south of Chico, with their associated systems of weirs, levees, bypasses, and bank 

protection precludes the reestablishment of a dynamic riparian ecosystem. Other current and historical 

factors contributing to the degradation of the riparian system include timber and fuel harvesting and urban 

and residential development.

For most of the length of the river, many of these factors currently preclude the reestablishment of an active 

meander zone. North of Cottonwood Creek, for example, lack of flooding has disrupted the historical 

pattern of vegetative succession, resulting in a reduction in early successional stages of riparian forest. The 
3-Xa-12 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Sacramento River Flood Control Project directs floodflows away from the leveed main channel, leaving 

only small remnants of riparian habitat south of Colusa.

Between Chico Landing and Red Bluff, conditions still exist that could eventually support the

reestablishment of a relatively continuous and viable riparian system. Unregulated tributary flows contribute 

to a hydrology that still bears some resemblance to the natural system. Active erosion and deposition is still 

occurring in many places, and remnants of the vegetation mosaic remain. Both USFWS and The Nature 

Conservancy have targeted this reach for riparian habitat acquisitions.

The riparian forest moderates temperature in shallows along the water's edge and in the sloughs and side 

channels that are preferred rearing habitat because of lower water velocities.

Another contribution of the riparian system to the health of fisheries is the spatial heterogeneity created by 

woody debris and overhanging vegetation (Schlosser 1991). Such habitat components may provide escape 

cover for salmon and steelhead fry.

Cut banks, regardless of the presence of overhanging vegetation, may be preferred by salmon and steelhead 

fry. A DFG study compared three pairs of natural cut bank and artificial rock revetment sites, finding about 

three times as many salmon and steelhead fry near the cut banks (DFG 1982). The survey also found a 

higher diversity of fish species not characteristic of salmon and steelhead streams at the rock revetment sites, 

suggesting increased salmon smolt predation and competition for food. 

Spawning substrate - Gravel recruitment to salmon and steelhead spawning beds 

has been halted by Shasta Dam. The problem is most acute in the uppermost 15 miles of the river where 

there is an absence of tributary streams capable of providing gravel to the river. Many tributaries have been 

mined for decades, reducing bedload replenishment to the river.

To date, two basic types of gravel restoration projects have been conducted: direct engineered placement 

of gravel in the river bed by heavy equipment and stockpiling gravel on the banks where it can replenish the 

bedload under high flows. The gravel placement projects have demonstrated the following problems: (a) 

engineered riffles are placed during lower flow conditions, making them unstable at high flows and 

potentially causing mortality to the early life stages in the shifting gravel; (b) placements contain large 

depressions and unnatural irregularities that isolate and strand juveniles when the flows are ramped down to 

elevations below the constructed gravel deposit; and (c) the operation of heavy equipment in the river, while 

placing gravel, discharges sediment above protection standards of downstream municipal water supplies and 

natural spawning areas.

Placing gravel in areas where it will be distributed naturally by floodflows costs less and does not create 

biological and water quality problems. Because the gravel is replenished at high flow, the river has the 

capacity to dilute fine sediment and prevent it from depositing on downstream spawning riffles or exceeding 

water quality criteria. The gravel used for bedload replenishment at high flow does not have to be washed. 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-13

Tracer rock placed into stockpiles indicates significant distribution with flows of 20,000 cfs and complete 

distribution when the 1993 flows ranged between 30,000 cfs and 40,000 cfs.

To ensure sufficient gravel supplies for the river, aggregate management plans should be in the counties that 

have streams that are mined for gravel (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] 1994). Gravel 

mining operations have to be modified to prevent formation of migration barriers, destruction of spawning 

habitat, and removal of spawning sized-gravel that would otherwise recruit to the river. Mitigation measures 

include stopping all instream gravel mining or requiring the spawning-sized gravel to be reserved for fishery 

projects. Streams that need aggregate management plans include Clear, Cow, Cottonwood, Thomes, and 

Stony creeks.

Gravel surveys have been conducted near Keswick Dam to estimate the available gravel from the ACID's 

dam to Keswick Dam (Vogel and Taylor 1987, Bigelow 1994). Good spawning substrate is predominately 

composed of gravel and cobble (90-100%), 1-6 inches in diameter, with most 2-4 inches with scarce 

boulders or fines (Vogel and Taylor 1987). Bigelow's estimate of good gravel between Keswick and Jelly's 

Ferry was 1,149,000 ft2 and Vogel and Taylor's was 1,170,000 ft2. This suggests that at the current 

salmon and steelhead population levels, spawning habitat probably is not limiting.

Table 3-Xa-2. Limiting factors and potential solutions.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Instream flows 1. Regulate CVP flow releases to provide adequate 

spawning and rearing habitat

2. Avoid flow fluctuations to avert dewatering redds or 

stranding or isolating adults and juveniles

3. Consider all effects of flow on ecosystem

Water temperatures Maintain water temperatures at or below 56 F to at least 

Bend Bridge to Keswick Dam except in extreme water 

years

Passage at artificial impairments is 

inadequate

1. Correct migration problems at RBDD

2. Correct fish passage and other problems at the 

ACID's diversion dam

3. Avoid entrapment of adults at Keswick Dam stilling 

basin

o
3-Xa-14 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factors Potential solutions

4. Correct unscreened pump diversions

5. Correct problems at the GCID water diversions

Contaminants Remedy water quality problems associated with Iron 

Mountain Mine and other toxic discharges

Effects of hatchery stocks on natural 

spawning stocks is unknown

1. Evaluate competitive displacement between hatchery 

and natural stocks

2. Evaluate displacement of natural stocks by hatchery 

stocks

3. Maintain genetic diversity in hatchery stocks

4. Evaluate disease relationships between hatchery and 

natural stocks

Loss of riparian forests Restore and preserve riparian forests

Restoration Actions -

Action 1: Develop and implement a river regulation plan that balances carryover storage needs with 

instream flow needs based on runoff and storage conditions.

Objective: Actively regulate river flows and reservoir storage in the upper mainstem Sacramento River 

system to provide necessary habitat for the production of all races of chinook salmon, steelhead, and other 

anadromous fish, consistent with sound ecological management principles.

Location: Shasta-Trinity Unit of the CVP.

Narrative description: These flow recommendations balance instream flow needs for habitat with carryover 

storage needs for temperature control. They are also intended to stabilize flows during important winter-run 

chinook rearing and spring-run and fall-run chinook spawning periods immediately after the irrigation 

season. Recommendations are listed in Table 3-Xa-3

1

.

 

1

 The algorithm described here does not account for the ramping down of flows at the end of the irrigation 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-15

The algorithm for flow is built on the minimum flow and carryover requirements established in the Biological 

Opinion (BO) for CVP and State Water Project (SWP) effects on Sacramento River winter-run chinook 

salmon (NMFS 1993) and Water Rights Order 90-5 stipulating minimum instream flows. The BO also 

requires a minimum instream flow of 3,250 cfs from October 1 to April 30 and temperature control 

operation from May 1 to September 30 (NMFS 1993).

 

season in early October or the ramping up at the beginning of the irrigation season in late April.

The recommended flows are based on runoff from a critically dry year and on maintaining a stable release 

throughout the period. However, water project operations will require flow increases under wet runoff 

conditions to control downstream flooding, and flow decreases if the runoff is less than critically dry to 

produce conservation storage. The recommended time to address concerns with runoff drier than critically 

dry is January 15 when approximately 40% of the wet season runoff has occurred. The recommended flow 

reduction is 275 cfs to make up for the increment of lost runoff between a critically dry and extreme 

critically dry water year (driest 5% of record), thereby producing reservoir storage sufficient to reach the 

3.0 to 3.2 maf target by April 30. Reducing the flow during the wet season can cause reductions in the 

wetted perimeter of the spawning grounds and result in stranding and dewatering of the salmon in immobile 

early life stages that cannot follow the receding water. Managing flow reduction at mid-January produces 

the least amount of stranding risk during the wet season; but there are still 10% of the late fall-run salmon 

and 40% to 60% of the fall-run salmon at immobile early life stages (Vogel and Marine 1991).
3-Xa-16 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

target April 30 Shasta Reservoir storage of 3.0-3.2 maf for temperature control 2

Carryover storage (maf) Keswick release (cfs)

1.9 3,250 

2 3,250 

2.1 3,250 

2.2 3,500 

2.3 3,750 

2.4 4,000 

2.5 4,250 

2.6 4,500 

2.7 4,750 

2.8 5,000 

2.9 5,250 

3 5,500 

 2

carryover - 3.2 maf (target) + 2.5 maf (inflow)

Flow = 211 days , 

1.98x10-6 maf/day

The flow recommendations are based on historical operations of the water project. Future changes in water 

project operations could become an obstacle to implementing flow recommendations, especially changes 

that increase in the transfer of storage from Shasta Reservoir to off-stream reservoirs (e.g., San Luis 

Reservoir and other proposed projects). The transfer of storage during the early part of the wet season 

would reduce the probability of attaining the Shasta Reservoir storage target in April needed to provide 

temperature control. Even without changes in operations, the actual implementation of the flow regime is 

expected to vary from that proposed due to uncontrollable factors such as the quantity and timing of runoff. 

 However, by basing the flow recommendations on critically dry runoff conditions, the proposed operation 

Table 3 Xa 3. Minimum recommended Sacramento River flows (cfs) at Keswick Dam 

for October 1 to April 30 based on October 1 carryover storage in Shasta Reservoir 

and critically dry runoff conditions (driest decile runoff of 2.5 maf) to produce a
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-17

should be able to maintain the balance between instream habitat and reservoir storage for temperature 

control.

Discussion: The river regulation program for Keswick and Red Bluff dams, during the May through 

September irrigation season, generally does not need to be integrated with any of the habitat requirements 

other than temperature and outmigration flows. The seasonal irrigation releases from the Shasta Trinity Unit 

of the CVP provide the flows needed for temperature control for winter-run chinook salmon, as described 

below for Action 5, upper mainstem Sacramento River.

The source of the flows on an annual basis includes Shasta and Trinity reservoirs and, to a smaller extent, 

Whiskeytown Reservoir. During the wet season, Shasta Reservoir supplies approximately 80% of the 

water (with the exception of Trinity Reservoir flood control releases) because most of the Trinity basin 

water export is concentrated in the dry season when the needs and financial returns are greater. During 

drought cycles, Trinity River water exports are reduced during the wet season such that it generally 

approximates 10% of the Sacramento River flow. During the dry season, the Shasta Reservoir still 

contributes an average of 75% of the Sacramento River flow with the balance coming from Trinity and 

Whiskeytown Reservoirs.

No algorithm exists that combines water year type, previous year carryover, and other variables such as 

weather and project operations to provide an end of water year carryover target. The decision-making 

process for allocating the water supply available to CVP contractors involves comparing the forecasted 

conditions resulting from drawing on storage during the existing water year with the risks of potential impacts 

in the following water year or years (USBR 1992). No current set rule curve or formal risk analysis has 

been established to make that comparison and decision. However, the current process, which has evolved 

through 6 years of continuous drought, forms a basis for the allocation decision.

An algorithm to provide reservoir storage targets is not recommended. Rather, as suggested in the BO, 1.9 

maf should be the minimum carryover in critical operational conditions (NMFS 1993). The methodology 

used for determination of minimum carryover storage needs was an empirical, exploratory seasonal irrigation 

release from the Shasta Trinity Unit of the CVP to provide the flow needed for temperature control for 

winter-run chinook salmon, as described below for Action 5, upper mainstem Sacramento River.

It may be impossible to maintain a minimum carryover storage of 1.9 maf in the driest 10% of water years. 

If the 90% probability of exceedance runoff forecast projects critical or extremely critical hydrological 

conditions and the CVP operations forecast projects carryover storage levels in Shasta Reservoir below 1.9 

maf at the end of the water year, USBR must reinitiate consultation with NMFS prior to the first water 

allocations announcement.

The river flow should be actively regulated to meet the ecological requirements of all the anadromous fish 

that coexist in the Sacramento River, especially species that have suffered the greatest declines. In addition, 
3-Xa-18 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

there is a goal of managing the river system at an ecosystem level, which includes all organisms that interact 

in those environments located throughout the Central Valley that are influenced by the Sacramento River 

and its reservoir system.

Minimum flow requirements should allow salmon and steelhead to successfully interact with the overall river 

environment. Justifications for the recommended minimum flows are described below.

Releases of 5,500 cfs would provide a stable river environment throughout the wet season when restricted 

to water years having high runoff and storage conditions. As poorer runoff and storage conditions occur, 

flows are reduced toward a minimum of 3,250 cfs (Table 3-Xa-3) to increase conservation storage for 

future temperature control.

Compared to lower flows, 5,500 cfs provides good spawning conditions in the reach directly below 

Keswick Dam, reduces the risk of redd superimposition, and increases the length of river with suitable 

spawning temperature. This flow also generally wets the width of the river channel, providing extensive 

rearing habitat to the riparian growth bordering the river and optimum cover for juvenile fish and increasing 

aquatic insect production. 

A flow of 5,000 cfs is the lowest release that produces comparatively little change in wetted perimeter with 

increasing flows, which tends to reduce the risk of stranding juveniles and dewatering redds if flows are 

temporarily raised and then reduced.

At 5,000 cfs, salmon and steelhead are generally discouraged from placing redds in the thalweg because 

water velocities are too high. Locating the sensitive embryos in the thalweg can expose them to flood 

control releases that could scour them out of the redds or crush them in the bedload.

The downstream migrant salmon include fry and larger juveniles. Outmigration cues may include turbidity, 

flow, and smoltification. During dry low flow years, there is an observed tendency for juveniles to delay 

downstream movement in the river above Red Bluff (USFWS 1988).

The effects of flow on outmigration is uncertain. Experiments are needed to empirically develop the most 

effective pattern of springtime flows. One possible practice is to artificially augment and intensify turbid river 

flows produced by small to moderate natural runoff events that occur between January 15 and May 15. 

The river would be regulated in a pattern that produced by the storm to yield augmented test flows ranging 

between 20,000-40,000 cfs as measured at Bend Bridge for a duration of 3-4 days. The total volume of 

water allocated for these flow experiments would vary between 60-120 thousand acre-feet (taf) depending 

on water supply. The natural flow recession curve should be mimicked to avoid stranding; however, if it is 

prolonged, the river flow should be ramped down as specified in Water Rights Order 90-5 (SWRCB 

1990).
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-19

Flood control operations are another feature of river regulation that may be altered to meet ecological

requirements of the river if they do not interfere with the protection of life or property. To the extent 

possible, flood control operations should attempt to produce this range of flows to facilitate transportation of 

stockpiled gravel for spawning gravel replenishment. For example, operational flexibility may allow higher 

releases for shorter time periods to produce flows in the target range. These stockpiles should be replaced 

so they can wash into the river during high flows.

The loss of late fall-run chinook redds during certain types of flood control operations may be minimized by 

shortening flood release periods. When flood control releases extend for weeks beyond a storm period, 

late fall-run chinook begin to spawn on river flood terraces above the normal river channel where their redds 

become stranded when flood control operations cease. Flood control operations may, in some cases, be 

able to use a higher release for a shorter period of time that tracks closer to natural storm events, if it is the 

operational equivalent to lower releases for a longer period. However, this recommended approach 

recognizes the potential for increased orchard seepage throughout the lower Sacramento River (drowning of 

tree roots), which is normally controlled with lower releases for longer time periods.

Predicted benefits: The proposed plan provides the most productive and stable environment that can be 

attained under the reservoir storage, runoff, and project operation conditions during the water year. 

Action 2: Develop a flow regime that imitates natural flow changes and avoids dewatering redds or 

isolating or stranding juveniles on monthly and daily rates of change. 

Objective: Avoid flow fluctuations to avert dewatering redds or stranding or isolating adults and juveniles.

Location: Keswick Dam (river mile [RM] 307) to Princeton (RM 164).

Narrative description: Reducing the flows rapidly or during months when a large portion of any race is 

incubating can result in significant fish losses due to stranding and isolation. Small juvenile fish have limited 

ability to follow receding waters back to the river and the early life stages are completely immobile. The 

types of channel morphology that produce the largest losses are large flat terraces, shallow side channels, 

and shallow nearshore areas, all preferred rearing habitat for fry. Repeated flow fluctuations in these 

shallow habitats can cause significant cumulative mortality.

Water project operations require two basic types of flow reductions throughout the year: 1) short-term 

adjustments to accommodate changes in water demands and 2) seasonal adjustments that reduce the flows 

at the end of the irrigation season to begin storing wet season runoff (USBR 1992). There is a special 

problem associated with operation of the ACID's dam when flow reductions are made at Keswick Dam to 

accommodate adjustments of the flashboards (see action item for the ACID). To control damages to the 

fishery, different operational measures must be taken for the different types of flow reductions.
3-Xa-20 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

The short-term flow adjustments are limited to 15% in a 12-hour period (2.5% per hour) under the water 

rights for Shasta Dam (Water Rights Order 90-5) and the BP (NMFS 1993). In the years following the 

1977 drought, low fluctuating flows between 3,000 and 6,000 cfs became a common occurrence during the 

wet season for the first time in the history of the project. Monitoring of these flow fluctuations revealed 

serious reductions in wetted perimeter of the spawning and shallow nearshore areas requiring slower 

ramping rates. The recommended ramping rates are 200 cfs per night when river flows are between 6,000 

and 4,000 cfs and not more than 100 cfs per night at flows below 4,000 cfs where the largest rate of wetted 

perimeter reduction occurs (DFG 1992 and stipulations of NMFS BO). Salmon fry have been shown to be 

less susceptible to loss if the waters are receding during the night (Olsen and Metzgar, Draft) when there is 

reduced predator efficiency.

The seasonal flow adjustments are generally characterized by a flow reduction in fall at the end of the 

irrigation season when the weather cools and also during the time when temperature control releases are no 

longer needed. The best management practice to avoid significant reductions in the wetted perimeter of the 

spawning area during fall and winter is to maintain a flow above 5,000 cfs without any fluctuations (other 

than flood control). When limited reservoir water supply requires lower flows (Table 3-Xa-3 flow section) 

the best management practice is to establish as early as possible a flow that is the minimum that can be 

maintained throughout the incubation period without any fluctuation. This is similar to the Agreement 

concerning the Operation of the Oroville Division of the SWP (1963). Because the recommended flow 

schedule for the wet season is based on critically dry runoff, it ensures that the selected flow can be 

maintained throughout the incubation period in 90% of the water years.

Scheduling seasonal flow reductions to occur in the first week of October ensures that approximately 90% 

of the fall-run spawning activity occurs at a stable flow. Spring-run salmon are the only race consistently 

incubated at flows much less than they are spawned at because they all spawn during high irrigation releases 

and incubate at lower post-irrigation season flows, making their redds susceptible to dewatering at flows 

less than 5,000 cfs. After the irrigation season resumes in spring, the flows steadily increase to levels three 

to four times that during the normal wet season releases, eliminating risks to early life stages of late- fall-run, 

winter-run, and steelhead present at that time.

Predicted benefits: By integrating measures into the water project operation, losses due to stranding and 

isolation can be avoided for all of the races of salmon and steelhead except for spring-run chinook. 

Avoiding flow reductions during incubation prevents reductions in the interchange of surface flow to the 

intergravel environment of the redd, yielding larger healthier fry from the spawning effort (Reiser and White 

1990). Stabilizing flows in the nearshore areas and side channels maintains the best rearing habitat available 

in the river.

Action 3: Complete an integrated instream flow incremental methodology study (IFIM) to refine a river 

regulation program that actively balances fishery habitat with the flow regime, including needs for adequate 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-21

temperature, flushing flows, outmigration, channel maintenance, attraction flows, and maintenance of a 

riparian corridor.

Objective: Regulate CVP releases to provide adequate spawning and rearing habitat for salmon and 

steelhead and to minimize flow fluctuations to avoid dewatering redds and stranding or isolating adult and 

juvenile fish.

Location: Upper Sacramento River from Keswick Dam to Hamilton City.

Narrative description: Between 1985 and 1990, DWR and DFG carried out a cooperative study (Phase I 

report) to collect the hydrologic and physical data for an IFIM study of the upper Sacramento River 

between Keswick Dam and Hamilton City (DWR 1993). This study, together with other evaluations, 

represented the first phase of a process that should ultimately lead to a multiagency recommendation for 

modified flow releases from CVP projects to the upper Sacramento River.

The primary objective of the Phase I report was to present an estimate of the amount of habitat for fall-run 

chinook salmon available at various streamflows.

The fish habitat versus streamflow relationships developed in the Phase I report provide only part of the 

information needed to make flow decisions. Further work should integrate the following additional topics 

with the habitat model in order to make appropriate flow decisions: (1) habitat models for late fall-run, 

winter-run, and spring-run chinook salmon; (2) timing of chinook salmon life stages; (3) spawning and 

rearing locations; (4) water temperature; (5) tributary inflow; (6) water quality; (7) agricultural diversions; 

(8) redd dewatering; (9) adult and juvenile stranding; (10) changes in substrate due to recent gravel 

restoration work; (11) potential changes in cover due to riparian vegetation restoration plans; and 

(12) outmigration. Flow needs for other, sometimes competing purposes, such as for other wildlife species, 

water supply, power generation, and maintenance of Delta water quality, should also be considered in this 

process.

Predicted benefits: Defining and implementing the "optimum flow" for anadromous fish in the upper 

Sacramento River would be a major step in maximizing the river's capacity for natural fish production.

Action 4: Manage flow to restore riparian vegetation.

Objective: Consider all features of how flow influences ecosystem.

Location: Red Bluff at RM 242 to Chico Landing at RM 204.
3-Xa-22 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Narrative description: With control of the Sacramento River, flow patterns no longer resemble the 

hydrology that helped to establish and maintain riparian forests. Because our knowledge of the dynamics of 

Sacramento River riparian forests is limited, we suggest the following actions:

# Experimental springtime pulse flows to assist juvenile salmonid outmigration should also attempt 

to mimic historical patterns of flooding followed by decreasing spring flows; they also establish 

and maintain riparian vegetation. The present patterns increase rather than decrease flows in 

spring, but the succession of riparian plant communities is better facilitated by decreasing flows. 

 Flushing flows are needed to manage sedimentation and are therefore beneficial to both fish 

and riparian communities.

# A hydrologic model should be developed for a meander belt from Red Bluff to Chico Landing.

Discussion: Many factors have resulted in considerable reduction in the amount of riparian habitat 

along the Sacramento River. Agricultural conversion is the principal reason for the decline. Completion of 

Shasta Dam as part of the CVP fostered further conversions of habitat to agriculture as decreasing flood 

risks allowed the planting of orchards and row crops in the historical floodplain. Bank protection also fostered conversion of forests by reducing bank erosion and meandering. The CVP altered the river's natural 

flow regime and sediment transport characteristics, changing patterns of forest regeneration. Operation of 

flood control projects, primarily south of Chico, with their associated systems of weirs, levees, bypasses, 

and bank protection, precludes the reestablishment of a dynamic riparian ecosystem. Other current and 

historical factors contributing to the degradation of the riparian system include timber and fuel harvesting and 

urban and residential development.

For most of the length of the river below Colusa, many of these factors currently preclude the

reestablishment of an active meander zone. The Sacramento River Flood Control Project directs 

floodflows away from the leveed main channel, leaving only small remnants of riparian habitat south of 

Colusa. Although the river is not meandering in these reaches, valuable habitat remains, providing benefits 

to salmon and other wildlife species and opportunities for improvement.

Predicted benefits: The reestablishment of a healthy riparian system along the Sacramento River would have 

several positive impacts on salmonid populations. These include: 1) maintaining channel configurations 

suitable for creating spawning riffles; 2) supplying gravel from eroding banks for the creation of spawning 

riffles; 3) supplying woody debris that provides habitat for juvenile fish and a source of organic material for 

aquatic invertebrates; 4) supplying a renewable source of shaded riverine aquatic habitat; 5) supplying 

terrestrial invertebrate food for juvenile fish; and 6) moderating the temperature regime of the river, 

particularly the near shore and backwater areas.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-23

Action 5: Maintain water temperatures at or below 56 F from Bend Bridge to Keswick Dam except in 

extreme low water years.

Objective: Develop a water management plan that will ensure USBR=s ability to provide cold water during 

critical months and budget cold water reserves in reservoirs to maximize survival during critical months. 

Location: Keswick Dam at RM 302 to RBDD at RM 242.

Narrative description: Water temperatures in the Sacramento River are a major limiting factor to the 

maintenance of winter-run chinook salmon, spring-run chinook salmon, and, to a lesser extent, fall-run 

chinook salmon (NMFS 1993, USBR 1992, USFWS 1987, DFG 1992). By providing temperature 

control at Shasta Dam, it is possible to compensate for the spawning grounds now blocked by the dam that 

historically maintained winter-run and spring-run chinook salmon during summer. In addition, temperature 

control actions maintain fall-run chinook salmon by overcoming the delayed cooling of the river that the 

reservoirs cause in fall. The historical water project operations and temperature modeling demonstrate that 

the Shasta-Trinity Unit of the CVP has the capability of controlling water temperatures in the 60 miles of 

river between Keswick Dam and RBDD under typical runoff and storage conditions (USBR 1992).

Over the last 20 years, various scientific studies and regulatory actions have established that 56 F is needed 

for successful incubation (Seymour 1956 as cited by DWR 1988, USFWS 1987, Water Rights Order 90-

5, NMFS 1993). Controlling temperatures to a "daily" average of 56 F on the longest length of spawning 

grounds that the storage and runoff conditions will allow requires the following actions:

# Attain optimal management of the cold water supply available in the reservoir system by 

installing and properly operating the Shasta Temperature Control Device and the temperature 

control curtains in Lewiston and Whiskeytown Reservoirs pursuant to Water Rights Order 90-

5). Prior to installation of the device, operate the low level outlets that bypass the powerhouse 

bypass.

# For each race of salmon, establish a temperature compliance point that will attain 56 F 

throughout the incubation period of each race as determined by available storage as shown in 

Table 3-Xa-4 pursuant to the BO (NMFS 1993).

# Conserve sufficient Shasta Reservoir storage by the end of the water year so that in the next 

water year at least 90% of the recorded runoff conditions will refill the reservoir to the point the 

cold water supply will yield a temperature of 56 F in the river reach where 90% of winter-run

incubation activity occurs (above Jelly's Ferry). Specifically, Shasta Reservoir should be 

operated to attain a minimum October 1 carryover storage of 1.9 maf under all runoff 

conditions except the driest 10% of the water years.

o

o

o

o

o
3-Xa-24 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Table 3-Xa-4. Water temperature control points for winter chinook salmon 

in the upper Sacramento River as a function of operational environment

(carryover + Shasta inflow from October 1-February 1 and on April 1)

related to Bend Bridge (RM 258) and Jelly's Ferry (RM 267).

Operational 

Environment 

(maf)

February 1

 Operational 

environment 

(maf)

April 1

Control 

point Inclusive dates

Temperature

 ( F)

>3.03 4.33>_ Bend Bridge April 15 - September 30 <56

>3.03 4.33>_ Bend Bridge October 1 - October 31 60

2.54> <3.03 3.17> <4.33 Bend Bridge April 15 - August 31 56

2.54> <3.03 3.17> <4.33 Jelly's Ferry September 1 - September 30 56

2.54> <3.03 3.17> <4.33 Jelly's Ferry October 1 - October 31 60

2.38> <2.54 2.82> <3.17 Jelly's Ferry April 15 - September 30 56

2.38> <2.54 2.82> <3.17 Jelly's Ferry October 1 - October 31 60

<2.38 <2.82 Meet Delta water quality standard

Water allocations in spring should be based on a 90% exceedance forecast to reduce the risk of over 

allocating water supplies and missing the carryover storage target (NMFS 1993).

# Attain optimal operations and planning of the annual cold water budget by using a temperature 

model on a daily time step model, monitoring temperature (Clean Water Act, Water Rights 

Order 90-5), and scheduling the Trinity River diversion to the Sacramento River to provide a 

temperature benefit.

# All existing and future discharges of municipal and industrial waste that could add heat to the 

river, as well as water projects that could reduce the flow of the river and increase its heat gain, 

must attain temperature objectives established in accordance with the Clean Water Act. 

Specifically the Basin Plan for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 

provides that "temperature shall not be elevated above 56 F in the reach between Keswick 

Dam to Hamilton City and 68 F in the reach between Hamilton City and the I Street Bridge" 

(Sacramento). The reach below Hamilton City is a migration corridor and rearing area for 

salmon.

Discussion: Fisheries experts have identified water temperature in the upper Sacramento River as a 

critical factor in the decline of winter-run chinook salmon. During most years, winter-run chinook salmon 

are unable to spawn successfully below RBDD because of lethal temperatures (Hallock and Fisher 1985). 

In recent years, drought conditions have resulted in lethal temperatures above the dam as well.

o

o

o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-25

Coombs and Burrows (1957) found that water temperatures between 43 F and 57.5 F are optimal for 

chinook egg development although a literature review conducted by DWR indicated that the optimum range 

of temperature for development through the emerged fry stage may be bound by 56 F on the upper end 

(Seymour 1956 as cited by DWR 1988). Water temperature of 62 F is believed to produce 100% 

mortality.

Water temperature in the upper Sacramento River varies with location and distance downstream of 

Keswick Dam, depending on hydrologic conditions and operation of the Shasta and Trinity Divisions of the 

CVP. Water temperatures between Keswick Dam and RBDD are influenced by meteorological conditions, 

tributary inflows, volume of water released from Keswick Dam, temperature distribution in the reservoir, the 

ratio of Spring Creek Power Plant release to Shasta Dam release, and depth of release from both Shasta 

and Trinity dams. Water released from Keswick Dam generally warms as it travels downstream during 

summer and early fall months.

The reservoir system provides large reserves of cold water that can be tapped in a planned fashion. During 

most years, cold lake water and large irrigation flows provide sufficient thermal mass and rapid travel time to 

prevent excessive heat gain in the first 40-60 miles below Keswick Dam. Thus, the project can maintain a 

temperature regime suitable for the spawning and incubation of salmon over an area that is roughly 

equivalent to that found in the mountainous reaches of the river system now blocked by the dam.

During the past 5 years, USBR, in coordination with the multiagency Sacramento River Temperature Task 

Group, has developed temperature operational plans for the Shasta and Trinity Divisions of the CVP. From 

1987 to 1994 USBR has implemented plans to provide for temperature protection for winter-run chinook 

salmon while still meeting other project purposes (USBR 1992; pages 33-36). The task group meets 

annually to discuss operational alternatives, new objectives, biological information, and status of water 

temperatures. Once the task group has recommended an operation plan for temperature control, USBR 

then submits a report on the operation plan to the SWRCB generally on or before June 1 each year. 

Operational plans have included releases of water from upper and lower outlets at Shasta Dam, releases 

from the lower outlet on Trinity Dam, and manipulation of the timing of Trinity River diversions and 

Whiskeytown Reservoir flood control drawdown. The lower outlets on Shasta and Trinity dams have the 

ability to gain access to deep, cold water in the reservoirs. However, water released through the lower 

outlets is unavailable for hydropower generation, and power generation is not possible from upper level 

outlet releases on Shasta Dam. Warmwater releases from the upper level outlets have been made to 

conserve cold water in Shasta Lake for temperature control operations during late summer months and to 

induce winter-run chinook salmon to spawn as far upstream as possible.

o o

o

o
3-Xa-26 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Action 6: Raise RBDD gates during primary chinook adult and juvenile migration periods.

Objective: Provide unimpeded adult and juvenile passage past RBDD and decrease juvenile mortality 

associated with predation. 

Location: RBDD, RM 243, Red Bluff, California.

Narrative description: This action requires raising the dam gates at minimum from September 15 to May 15 

each year to benefit all chinook salmon runs and steelhead by providing unimpeded passage (Table 3-Xa5). Raising the dam gates at RBDD is a proven, attainable technology that allows unimpeded fish passage in 

the Sacramento River at Red Bluff. The river returns to a natural configuration that avoids mortality of adult 

and juvenile salmon, provided protective measures are incorporated into the alternate water pumping 

system(s). The seasonal removal of the dam at Red Bluff allows fall-run and spring-run chinook salmon 

access to an additional 3 miles of habitat.

Table 3-Xa-5. Percent of adult and juvenile chinook salmon runs and steelhead 

passing RBDD from September 15 to May 15 (DFG 1991).

Chinook salmon run

Life stage

Falla Late fall Winter Spring

Steelhead

Adults 75% 100% 89% 19% 84%

Juveniles 89-64%b74% 74% 100% --

c

a

Juveniles includes only those emerging above the dam.

b Values represent wet and dry years.

c No estimate of juvenile steelhead passage has been made because of difficulty in differentiating from 

resident trout.

Discussion: Fish ladders at RBDD are inefficient at passing migrating adult salmon (Hallock et al. 

1982; Vogel and Smith 1984; USFWS 1987, 1989, 1990; Vogel et al. 1988). This results in significant 

delays and blockage of upstream migrating chinook salmon and steelhead, causing increased spawning 

downstream in waters previously too warm for successful egg incubation. Delay at the dam can produce 

elevated stress conditions in the adult salmon, especially when water temperatures along their migration 

passageways approach the upper limits of their temperature tolerance. Radio telemetry studies to evaluate 

passage of adult salmon reported up to 40% of radio-tagged winter chinook and 33% of late fall-run 

chinook salmon were blocked by the dam (Hallock et al. 1982, Vogel et al. 1988).
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-27

Since 1987, USBR has raised the RBDD gates for a variable and significant portion (80%) of the 

nonirrigation season, allowing free passage of adults during that period. Upstream progress of late fall-run 

and winter chinook salmon as they approach and pass RBDD was monitored yearly from 1986 through 

1991 by USFWS. Analysis of the data have shown that raising the RBDD gates during the nonirrigation 

season dramatically improves upstream fish passage (Northern Central Valley Fishery Resource Office, 

USFWS, Red Bluff, California, unpublished data).

Problems in passage of juvenile salmonids has also been reported (Vogel and Smith 1984; Hallock 1989; 

USFWS 1987, 1989, 1990; Vogel et al. 1988). A cause of mortality in juvenile chinook salmon is the 

dysfunctional predator-prey relation created by RBDD, largely from the Sacramento squawfish

(Ptychocheilus grandis) (Vondracek and Moyle 1983, Vogel et al. 1988). The piscivorous nature of 

Sacramento squawfish, as well as its preference for salmonids, is well documented (Vondracek and Moyle 

1982, 1983); however, it has not been systematically studied immediately below RBDD (Garcia 1989). 

The Sacramento squawfish is a native species that co-evolved in the river with chinook salmon and 

steelhead. In the natural free-flowing river setting, the predator-prey relationship between the Sacramento 

squawfish and the native salmonids is intact and has no significant effect on salmonid populations (Brown 

and Moyle 1981). Artificial structures, however, can provide increased feeding and ambush settings, 

creating an unnatural advantage for predators. Other piscivors present below RBDD include striped bass 

(Morone saxatilis), rainbow trout and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and American shad (Alosa 

sapidissima), as well as numerous other fish and bird species.

The juvenile passage problem at RBDD is twofold: upstream movement of piscivorous fishes is obstructed 

by the dam, causing fish to accumulate downstream, and juvenile salmon are disoriented from passing under 

the dam gates or through the bypass system, making them vulnerable to predation or injury. Vogel et al. 

(1988) found that mortality attributable to physical injury from passage under the dam gates was negligible 

(at or near 0) and mortality due to passage through the Tehama-Colusa headworks fish bypass system was 

measurable (1.6-4.1%). To estimate total mortality during dam passage, Vogel simultaneously released 

known numbers of juvenile hatchery salmon immediately above and below RBDD. Fish released above 

RBDD were recaptured 16% to 55% less than those released below the dam in this experiment. Some 

releases of hatchery fish above RBDD have contributed 51% less to the commercial and sport harvest than 

releases below the dam (Northern Central Valley Fishery Resource Office, USFWS, unpublished data, 

1991). Vondracek et al. (1991) estimated an annual loss of 1-6% to juvenile downstream migrants during 

passage at RBDD due to Sacramento squawfish predation; however, peak estimates of mortality in April 

and May were as high as 80%.

The installation of the new fish screening system may reduce entrainment and predation of those fish that are 

diverted into the Tehama-Colusa Canal forebay although the effectiveness of this new fish bypass system 

has only been partially evaluated (Big Eagle et al. 1993). More symptomatic of the extent of the predation 

are surface and in situ observations by USFWS's scuba divers of concentrations of Sacramento squawfish 
3-Xa-28 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

feeding immediately below the dam. This suggests a significant predation problem on juvenile migrants 

passing under the dam gates. New information suggests that more significant mortality may be associated 

with juvenile passage under the dam gates. Rotary-screw traps operated below RBDD during August and 

September 1994 experienced high levels of juvenile salmonid mortality (resulting from passage under the 

dam gates) in their catch. After the RBDD gates were raised in September, mortality became negligible 

(USFWS 1994). These preliminary findings are under further investigation but do suggest that juvenile 

mortality during passage may have other causes, or that predators are benefiting from prey already dead or 

injured. Predation also occurs in the Red Bluff Reservoir where there are populations of black bass and 

other predators, not typical of a riverine habitat.

It was recommended by Vogel et al. (1988) that measures to control predation by Sacramento squawfish 

should be developed at RBDD. Some of the suggested measures were to trap and remove Sacramento 

squawfish from the fish ladders, use physical methods to disperse Sacramento squawfish below the dam, 

develop a commercial or sport fishery for Sacramento squawfish, or reduce Sacramento squawfish holding 

areas below RBDD. The goal of trapping and developing commercial or sport fisheries for Sacramento 

squawfish would be to remove a portion of the accumulated squawfish below RBDD, which theoretically 

would increase juvenile salmon survival, thereby increasing the number of adult salmon returning to the river. 

 Trapping Sacramento squawfish in the fish ladders would have little impact on numbers immediately below 

the dam as it removes Sacramento squawfish that have already left that area. New fishways, designed to 

improve salmon passage, might also improve Sacramento squawfish passage; however, this is speculative as 

the biological criteria for Sacramento squawfish passage have not been developed.

Commercial fishing was evaluated in 1989 (Leveen 1990). Leveen used traps and hook and line methods 

to capture Sacramento squawfish. He caught 620 Sacramento squawfish immediately below RBDD in an 

undetermined amount of time using hook and line methods, he also caught 20 salmon. In 660 trap-days, 

3,423 fish (mostly hardheads) were captured, including Sacramento suckers (31), tule perch (16), and carp 

(2). Contamination of Sacramento squawfish flesh by high levels of dioxin from upstream pulp mills 

terminated the project. The levels are now reduced to the point they may not interfere with a commercial 

fishery, but the California Department of Health Services has not determined if the fishery is suitable for 

commercialization.

It is unlikely a sport fishery could remove enough Sacramento squawfish to make a measurable impact on 

juvenile salmon survival. Sacramento squawfish are more abundant at RBDD in spring (Vogel et al. 1988) 

but spring removal may only temporarily decrease their abundance. This is because Sacramento squawfish 

are highly migratory and would repopulate the area below RBDD. Hence Sacramento squawfish removal 

would be a continuous process. Additionally, a spring fishery would likely incur an unacceptable incidental 

catch of threatened winter-run salmon. Sacramento squawfish are most abundant in the tailrace area 

immediately below the dam gates where disoriented prey are available. Boats are unsafe in the swift tailrace 

water immediately below the dam precluding entry by sport anglers.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-29

The best long-term solution for improving or eliminating the dysfunctional predator-prey relationship would 

be the removal of feeding habitat in Red Bluff Reservoir and below the dam by seasonally or permanently 

raising the dam gates during the nonirrigation season. This allows free passage of juvenile salmon and 

Sacramento squawfish in near natural river conditions where the native predator-prey relationship has 

sustained itself for thousands of years. This is a known technology with easily understood benefits.

Predicted benefits: Upper Sacramento River salmon populations declined an estimated 114,000 fish 

(57,000 fall-run, 17,000 late fall-run, and 40,000 winter-run chinook) between 1969 and 1982 because of 

passage problems at RBDD (Hallock 1987). These losses have reduced the sport and commercial fisheries 

by about 228,000 salmon a year. Raising the dam gates for 8 months per year benefits all adult and juvenile 

chinook salmon runs and steelhead because negligible mortality is incurred at the dam. Supplemental 

pumping that occurs during the gates-raised period can have an impact on salmon located along the bank 

unless managed properly. Allowing spring-run and fall-run salmon to spawn by not inundating the spawning 

bed should remove a mitigation obligation for the Red Bluff project specific to the Tehama-Colusa Fish 

Facility.

Action 7: Complete the process to find final solutions to passage problems at RBDD and improve passage 

conditions beyond opening the dam gates longer than 8 months.

Objective: Correct problems at RBDD.

Location: RBDD, RM 243, Red Bluff, California.

Narrative description: This action calls for finding solutions to passage problems that will benefit the fishery 

resource beyond opening the gates 8 months per year. During the 8 months of the year the gates are open, 

there are no fishery problems associated with the RBDD. The following is a recommendation summary, 

based on current literature findings, for actions needed to monitor and evaluate existing fish protection 

facilities and to provide additional data required to make defensible decisions regarding solutions to passage 

problems at RBDD:

# USBR should continue to monitor entrainment past the rotary drum screens to evaluate longterm screening effectiveness.

# USBR should continue to inspect the screens in situ (SCUBA) to evaluate the durability of the 

seals and accumulation of silt in front of screens. 

# USBR should measure screening efficiency by exposing a known number of fish to the screens 

and then measuring the number bypassed to the river or entrained in the canal. 
3-Xa-30 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

# USBR should make inspections of the screens during high flows with the release of a known 

number of juvenile salmonids into the forebay to determine the likelihood of impingement.

# USBR should evaluate predation on juvenile salmonids in the forebay and at the bypass of the 

rotary drum screens.

# USBR should evaluate trash deflectors in front of Tehama-Colusa Canal headworks to 

determine fish deflector qualities. 

# USBR needs to develop the ability to make real-time observations of screen seating during 

screen replacement.

# USBR should evaluate the effectiveness of screens on the centrifugal pumps located in the right 

bank fishway. 

# USBR should evaluate piscine predation in Red Bluff Reservoir.

# USBR should continue to turn off RBDD high-intensity lights to reduce predation.

# USBR should evaluate bird predation at RBDD.

# USBR should develop, with the cooperation of USFWS, NMFS, and DFG, standard 

operating procedures for monitoring, maintenance, and operation of fish protection facilities.

# USBR should continue to use gate 6 fish ladder as an interim measure until final resolution of 

RBDD's fish passage problem.

# USBR should evaluate entrance modification to the west fish ladder entrance to optimize 

hydraulics.

# USBR should develop delay versus percent fish ladder discharge models by run. Include any 

new data in model development.

# USBR should explore feasibility of an experiment to increase supplemental flows in the fish 

ladders and, if feasible, conduct this experiment. 

# USBR should evaluate mortality of juvenile salmonids through the fishway civil works. 

# USBR and the fisheries trustees should give proper consideration to the concerns of the 

community and their desire to keep Red Bluff Reservoir intact as long as a viable fishery can be 

assured. 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-31

# USBR should develop delay versus percent fish ladder discharge models for upstream

migrating steelhead. 

# USBR and the fisheries trustees should give proper consideration to the temporary remedy of 

the gates-out modification from September 1 to May 30, along with modification to fish ladders 

to improve adult passage.

Discussion: Fish passage studies have been conducted at RBDD since the early 1980s (Hallock 

1981; Hallock et al. 1982; Vondracek and Moyle 1982, 1983; Vogel and Smith 1984, 1985; Vogel et al. 

1988; USFWS 1987, 1989, 1990). These studies identified numerous problems associated with fish 

passage at RBDD. Raising the dam gates is a completely effective remedy that solves all fishery problems 

relating to the dam for all species of anadromous fish at all life stages. The fish entrainment problem 

associated with diverting water at RBDD through the ineffective louver and bypass system was essentially 

solved by installing a state-of-the-art rotary drum fish screen in 1990. This screen system has, so far, 

proven to reduce canal entrainment and mortality of downstream migrating juveniles to near zero when 

water is being diverted and the system is properly operated and maintained (Johnson 1991, 1993; Big Eagle 

et al. 1993; Johnson and Croci 1994). Though remarkable progress has been made, additional studies are 

required to satisfy decision makers as to the permanent approach for alleviating passage problems. With 

anadromous salmonid runs in serious decline, the studies must be started as quickly as possible to minimize 

their population recovery times and lost use of these valuable resources.

The Red Bluff Fish Passage Program was undertaken to solve identified causes of declines in anadromous 

fish populations attributed to RBDD. This was a 5-year study initiated in October 1983 to develop 

methods to improve upstream and downstream anadromous fish passage at RBDD. The program is a 

coordinated effort between USBR, USFWS, NMFS, and Department. USBR is the lead agency for the 

program and the other agencies are participants. The purpose was to identify specific problems and 

implement corrective measures. A final report was produced for downstream migrant and adult upstream 

passage (Vogel et al. 1988). The results of this report form the major basis for the recommendations under 

this action.

Predicted benefits: Upper Sacramento River salmon populations declined an estimated 114,000 fish 

(57,000 fall-run, 17,000 late fall-run, and 40,000 winter-run chinook) between 1969 and 1982 because of 

passage problems at RBDD (Hallock 1987). These losses have reduced the sport and commercial fisheries 

by about 228,000 salmon a year. During the 8 months of the year the gates are open, there are no fishery 

problems associated with the RBDD. Raising the dam gates is a completely effective remedy that solves all 

fishery problems relating to the dam for all species of anadromous fish and all life stages. However, current 

gates-up operation is a transient fix and final resolution of passage problems at RBDD that will fulfill water 

needs for domestic, agriculture, and wildlife are pending. The process must be expedited and brought 

smoothly to closure so that benefits can be realized by still-viable fish populations. As new questions arise, 

USBR and fisheries trustees must collaborate with the interested publics to answer their questions and 
3-Xa-32 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

concerns. Acting in good faith to share information and concerns will facilitate understanding and hasten the 

realization of restoration goals.

Action 8: Implement structural and operational modifications to eliminate stranding, toxic discharges, and 

passage problems for chinook salmon and steelhead and improve screens. 

Objective: Correct problems at the ACID's diversion dam.

Location: Keswick Dam, RM 302, and the ACID's diversion dam, RM 299.

Narrative description: The ACID's diversion dam is a flashboard dam located on the upper Sacramento 

River near Redding, at RM 298.5. This was the first dam on the Sacramento River, completed in 1917. 

Approximately 175,000 af of water can be diverted annually to the ACID's main canal.

The dam is installed only during the irrigation season. Typical operations involve the installation of 

flashboards in the dam in early April and their removal in late October or early November. Installation, 

removal, and mid-season adjustment of the flashboards are coordinated with flow reductions in the 

Sacramento River provided by USBR at Keswick Dam.

High flows make it physically difficult to install and remove the flashboards in the dam using hand-powered 

methods that date to 1917. ACID has historically indicated that 5,000 cfs is the maximum flow at which 

personnel can safely remove or install the dam flashboards. On several occasion, however, the flashboards 

have been removed or installed at flows above 5,000 cfs.

Past flow reductions to accommodate mid-season adjustments can cut the river flow in half. Reductions 

have occurred in a matter of hours, dewatering redds and producing large losses of juvenile salmonids 

through stranding and predation in isolated pools. The flow reductions for the ACID have not been 

consistent with the water right permit conditions for operation of Shasta Dam.

Operational modifications have successfully avoided the need to adjust the dam last year at flows between 

4,000 and 14,000 cfs. Adjustment of the dam for flows less than 4,000 cfs can be accomplished without 

changing the Keswick Dam release.

The canal system needs several standard operating procedures to prevent documented problems. These 

include limiting waste gate flows to levels that do not attract salmon and steelhead from the river and 

containing canal waters when toxic herbicides are present to prevent fish kills. The canal intakes at 

Bonnyview Pumps and the main dam require maintenance and routine inspection.

Further empirical work is needed before any operational remedy is shown to be effective under all types of 

water years and water delivery demands. Once the ACID has determined the level of remediation it can 

provide through operational changes, structural measures can be designed to achieve complete remediation.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-33

The following actions are proposed or have been enacted to reduce impacts of the ACID's dam on the 

aquatic environment.

# Modify the dam so it is unnecessary to reduce Keswick Reservoir releases to accommodate 

flashboard adjustment. Once modifications are shown to be successful, an agreement can be 

reached clarifying the water rights settlement contract between USBR and the ACID.

# If changes in structure and operations produce only a transitory remedy for river flows less than 

14,000 cfs, other more costly alternatives need to be evaluated, including installing large 

automatic drum gates on the dam, installing a large Archimedes screw pump station, or 

supplementing canal flows with water pumped from other sources.

# Modify catwalks at the ACID's dam to include a new and safer work platform on the dam. 

# Modernize the removal method for the topmost flashboard.

# Investigate solutions to excessive releases from the canal to waste gates that attract adults into 

the wasteways where they are stranded when the gates are shut off.

# Modify fish screen at the headworks of the district's canal to improve structural strength. 

# Reduce or eliminate toxic discharges to the river and tributaries after application of herbicides.

# Reduce or eliminate stranding of adult chinook and steelhead attributable to cross connections 

of the canal with tributaries.

# Improve fish ladders at the dam to allow adult fish passage.

Discussion: 

Stranding - A safe catwalk and easier flashboard removal is required to allow flashboard 

extraction and replacement without changing Keswick Dam releases. The current catwalk is a safety hazard 

because of its slippery surface; footing could be improved by covering the surface with nonskid material. 

Flashboards are currently removed by stabbing them with a pike-pole and prying them loose, an inefficient 

procedure made more so by high flows. The uppermost flashboards could be modified to make their 

removal easier at high flows by pegs attached to the upstream face. Additionally, if the ACID's operations 

can be accommodated with fewer flashboards in place, creating a lower head, the dam would not be as 

sensitive to higher river flows.
3-Xa-34 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Cross connection of the canal with tributary streams during the nonirrigation season allows adult fish to enter 

the canal when it carries storm water. Physical improvements will be necessary to eliminate this cause of 

stranding.

Toxic discharges - Improper application of herbicides to the canal waters results in toxic 

chemical concentrations in river tributaries. Procedures have been initiated to contain toxic chemicals in the 

canal.

Fish screens - The canal screen has limited structural strength that need reinforcement. 

When it becomes clogged with aquatic vegetation or when there are rapid changes in flows, there is a 

danger of failure. To avoid catastrophic failure of the screen, trip panels are present that break away before 

the structure fails, leaving the diversion temporarily unscreened.

Adult passage - The ACID's dam was a complete barrier to the upstream migration of 

salmon until a ladder was installed in 1927. Since completion of Shasta and Keswick dams in 1942 cut off 

all but 3.5 miles of the Sacramento River upriver of the ACID's dam, the need for fish passage has been to 

provide access to spawning habitat between the dams and allow passage to a fish trap at Keswick Dam that 

serves as a collection facility for Coleman National Fish Hatchery.

There are no passage problems for most adult fall- and late fall-run chinook salmon and most steelhead 

trout because dam flashboards are removed during the nonirrigation season when these fish are migrating. 

There are no known juvenile salmonid passage problems associated with the dam. The seasonal presence 

of the small dam has not created any congregations of predators or good predator ambush habitat similar to 

larger dams.

During the 6 months of the year the dam is present, it is a partial barrier to adult anadromous fish, including 

winter-run chinook. There are small fish ladders located on each bank of the river that are ineffective 

because they carry only 1-4% of river flow. Construction of modern effective ladders is possible.

At this time, progress on the needed fishery remedies is proceeding on a cooperative basis. The ACID is 

developing the necessary information to better operate and improve the facilities necessary to exercise its 

water right while minimizing impacts on the aquatic environment, consistent with settlement agreements 

resulting from previous litigation.

Predicted benefits: This project will avoid the unnecessary destruction of valuable salmon and steelhead in 

the Sacramento River. This includes avoiding loss of winter-run chinook salmon, a species that is listed as 

endangered by both the federal and state Endangered Species Acts.

Action 9: Construct escape channel from stilling basin to the Sacramento River at Keswick Dam.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-35

Objective: Avoid entrapment of adults at Keswick Dam stilling basin.

Location: Keswick Dam, RM 302.

Narrative description: Keswick Dam is located at RM 302 on the Sacramento River approximately 9 miles 

downstream from Shasta Dam. The dam has no fish ladders and completely blocks further upstream 

passage of migrating adult salmon and steelhead.

Keswick Dam was designed as a flow control structure for the Sacramento River to stabilize uneven water 

releases from Shasta Dam. Its construction, with a spillway, fishtrap, and power plant (75,000-kilowatt 

capacity), began in 1941 and was completed in 1951. It is a concrete gravity structure 157 feet high with a 

crest length of 1,046 feet creating a 23,800-af reservoir.

Aside from receiving Sacramento River water released from Shasta Dam, the reservoir created by Keswick 

Dam also receives interbasin flows from the Trinity River. Water from the Trinity River Basin is diverted via 

the Clear Creek Tunnel through the Judge Francis Carr Powerhouse into Whiskeytown Reservoir. From 

here, Trinity River water can be diverted into Keswick Reservoir via the Spring Creek power conduit to the 

Spring Creek Power Plant.

The spillway located on the east side of Keswick Dam is used for flood releases and during power plant 

outages. During normal power plant operations, there is no flow through the spillway and the stilling basin 

below the spillway is elevated above the tailwater river channel by the spillway end sill and a rock bench. 

During normal power plant operation, the tailwater is lower in the river channel than the spillway end sill, 

isolating the stilling basin from the river channel.

During a spill, the spillway end sill and rock bench become inundated, connecting the stilling basin to the 

main river channel. In past decades, the spills attracted migratory fish into the stilling basin where they 

became trapped when the spills ended. Documentation of this phenomenon dates back to 1972. More 

recent occurrences include December 1990, February 1992, and September 1994. Although fyke weirs in 

the shared stilling basin wall are intended to allow free passage of stranded fish into the fish ladder, testing 

conducted in December of 1993 demonstrated that fish were also attracted into the stilling basin through 

these fyke weirs.

The incidental take statement in the BO (NMFS 1993) addressing the effects of the CVP on winter-run 

chinook salmon requires USBR to structurally modify the stilling basin at Keswick Dam to allow free 

passage of adult salmonids back to the Sacramento River. The proposed solution to this problem, agreed 

to by the NMFS, DFG, USFWS, and USBR, involves excavating a channel from the spillway stilling basin 

through the spillway end sill and rock bench. This modification eliminates fish entrapment in the stilling basin. 

 The agencies also agreed USBR should develop an interim fish salvage plan to immediately remove trapped 

fish from the basin following spills until the escape channel is constructed.
3-Xa-36 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Predicted benefits: Adult salmonids would have access back to the main river and would not be lost to the 

spawning population resulting from poor water quality within the basin or losses associated with handling 

during rescue attempts.

Action 10: Implement structural and operational modifications to eliminate entrainment at water diversions.

Objective: Increase survival of outmigrating anadromous salmonid stocks by correcting unscreened or 

inadequately screened water diversions.

Location: Numerous irrigation diversions on the Sacramento River from Redding to its confluence of the 

Feather River.

Narrative description: Numerous unscreened water diversions from the Sacramento River and Delta 

adversely affect outmigrating juvenile salmonids, including the endangered winter-run chinook salmon. An 

estimated 10 million juvenile salmonids are lost to unscreened diversions annually (The Resources Agency 

1989). There are more than 300 separate irrigation, industrial, and municipal diversions along the 

Sacramento River between Redding and its confluence with the Feather River, diverting nearly 1.2 maf of 

water annually from April through October (The Resources Agency 1989). There are an additional 1,800 

smaller diversions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, diverting approximately 1.6 maf annually (DWR 

unpublished report 1983).

Diversions cause losses of fish in three ways: 1) direct entrainment of fish into irrigation systems, 2) physical 

damage of fish through contact with poorly screened diversions or bypass structures (impingement), and 3) 

increased predation on juvenile salmon due to hydraulic conditions near the diversion. These types of losses 

can occur at inadequately designed or poorly installed screens as well as unscreened diversions.

The CVPIA authorizes USBR and USFWS to "assist the State of California in efforts to develop and 

implement measures to avoid losses of juvenile anadromous fish resulting from unscreened or inadequately 

screened diversions on the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, their tributaries, the Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Delta, and the Suisun Marsh". The CVPIA Unscreened Diversions Program (UDP) provides this 

assistance by administering funding and providing technical assistance for fish screen projects. The state's 

ongoing program and priorities have guided most of the site-selection processes. A UDP technical team 

composed of representatives from USFWS, USBR, DWR, NMFS, and DFG provides technical advice 

and ensures that the program meets the goals and intentions of the CVPIA.

Fish screen technologies have been proposed that use sound or electricity to guide fish away from pumps. 

Although these alternatives have not been fully developed or tested, they have not provided necessary levels 

of fish guidance. Alternative technology for fish screen projects will be funded under an Experimental 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-37

Unscreened Diversion Research Program funded in fiscal year 1995 by USBR's Miscellaneous Project 

Program Construction Appropriations.

The UDP includes an accelerated program designed to immediately fund screening projects during the 

development of a long-term fish screen program. The accelerated screening program moved ahead in fiscal 

year 1994 to spend $600,000 from the restoration fund on three fish screen projects and program 

administration.

Predicted benefits: These fish screen programs have a high probability of reducing the 10 million juvenile 

salmon lost annually to unscreened diversions. These programs will probably have similar benefits for other 

anadromous species.

Action 11: Implement structural and operational modifications to eliminate impingement and entrainment of 

juvenile salmon at the GCID's water diversions.

Objective: Correct problems at the GCID's water diversions.

Location: GCID diversion, RM 206, Sacramento River, near Hamilton City, California.

Narrative description: This action calls for implementation of the on-going program to modify fish screens 

and bypass channel to mitigate fully for the fishery impacts associated with operations of the GCID's 

Hamilton City Pumping Plant. On August 19, 1990, a three-party agreement between the DWR 

Reclamation Board, GCID, and DFG was signed to fund environmental documentation and supporting 

preliminary engineering for gradient restoration and fish screen replacement. A contract was signed with 

HDR Engineering to complete the environmental documentation and engineering analysis, with a preliminary 

draft of the engineering Feasibility Report completed during 1994. In addition, a draft environmental impact 

statement (EIS) and environmental impact report (EIR) are currently under review with final completion 

scheduled for early 1995. Six alternatives, in addition to a no-action alternative, are considered feasible. 

The recommended environmentally superior alternative, in the draft EIS/EIR, is the construction of a multiple 

"V" screen near the mouth of the oxbow with a pumped bypass to return fish to the river (Alternative B). 

The basis for selecting Alternative B was the project purpose of fish protection and the overriding 

importance of fish protection when considered in combination with other environmental impacts. The report 

concluded that Alternative B "would most likely offer the greatest protection to endangered winter-run 

chinook salmon and other fish species that use the Sacramento River near the GCID's Hamilton City 

Pumping Plant".

The draft EIR/EIS concludes that prior to construction of the preferred alternative, an alternative that may or 

may not be the "environmentally superior alternative", future lead and responsible agencies must weigh 

environmental considerations against other factors such as construction costs, socioeconomic costs, legal 
3-Xa-38 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

considerations, technical modifications and feasibility, and political considerations. It also concludes that 

several areas of controversy exist that would bear on selection of the ultimate preferred alternative. The 

following are recommended actions needed to resolve those controversies:

# USBR should determine the degree of predation as a cause of mortality in the intake channel 

and the relative impact of predation on downstream migrants, compared to other sources of 

mortality, such as impingement, entrainment, and sedimentation.

# DFG should evaluate the importance of strict adherence (versus slight deviations) to existing 

fish screening velocity criteria as a means of protecting fish.

# USBR should determine the number of juvenile fish actually entering the GCID's intake channel 

under a range of flow conditions.

# USBR should determine the frequency and severity of predation at slow-flow holding areas 

near the existing fish screens and in the existing bypass channel.

# USBR should determine whether predation in the GCID's oxbow exceeds natural predation 

rates in other parts of the Sacramento River.

# USBR should determine whether the Sacramento River has the eventual capability to meander 

in such a manner as to leave the GCID's oxbow stranded.

# USBR should determine the degree to which sedimentation would occur and extend upstream 

of any new fish screens built.

# USBR should determine the degree to which sedimentation would occur and extend upstream 

of a Gradient Restoration Facility (GRF).

# USBR should determine the probability of success that can be expected from bypassing fish 

through pumps.

# USBR should determine the amount of time that should be devoted to future study before 

committing to a long-term solution. 

The draft EIR/EIS also concludes that prior to construction of the Preferred Alternative "some studies can 

be conducted that would provide additional, valuable information" including the following:

# USBR should develop two-dimensional mathematical models and physical models of the GRF

in combination with new fish screens. The models should be designed to accurately depict 

existing and post-project instream conditions, including approach and sweeping velocities at the 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-39

screens, water depths and velocities throughout the entire affected reach of the river, and areas 

of turbulence. Modeling should be accomplished over a reasonable range of flow conditions 

expected after construction.

# USBR should determine the swimming abilities of all fish species and important live stages 

occurring in the project area when such information is lacking. It is imperative that the screens 

and either pumps or GRF be designed to protect the most sensitive of the species in the area.

# USBR should correlate post-project water surface elevations with elevations of various 

habitats in the area. This must be accomplished so that hydrologic impacts on vegetation 

communities can be more accurately determined.

# USBR should determine whether the GRF, if selected, could cause a change in river course 

resulting in flow to another channel.

# USBR should evaluate screw pumps at the RBDD and at GCID, if selected, to determine their 

feasibility at screened diversions.

Discussion: Fishery impacts at the GCID site were identified in the 1920s by researchers from the 

then California Division of Fish and Game. Court action required GCID to install fish screens in 1935, 

which were almost immediately rendered ineffective by undermining from flood events. No subsequent 

attempts were made to alleviate the problem until DFG built the existing screen structure in 1972 with 

funding from the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965.

The screen facility built in 1972 consists of 40 rotary drums, 17 feet in diameter and approximately 8 feet 

wide. The drums, housed in a 450-foot-long concrete headworks, are located midway down the oxbow, 

immediately in front of GCID's pumping facility. Within the headworks are 10 fish bypass orifices that 

converge in a 60-inch pipe that empties into the lower oxbow. The bypass was designed to transport fish 

around a seasonal earthen dam installed by GCID to decrease pumping lift. The original contract signed by 

GCID and DFG required that 90 cfs be allowed to go through the bypass to facilitate fish passage.

Studies conducted by DFG during the mid-1970s revealed that the screening structure was not operating 

effectively and suggested that large losses of juvenile salmon were continuing to occur at the site. Specific 

deficiencies identified included ineffective bypasses, screen leakage, high screen face velocities, and high 

potential for predation. Several modifications were made to rectify the situation, including screen seals on 

the rotary drums and placement of culverts through the seasonal dam. Even with the modifications, 

however, fish losses were still high.

Beginning in 1970, river gradient changes began to adversely affect flows and water surface elevations at the 

fish screens. Gradual lowering of the river surface profile occurred from 1971 until 1983 when high waters 
3-Xa-40 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

caused significant changes. During this period, scouring of the main river channel resulted in an average 

surface elevation that was 3-3.5 feet lower than that existing before 1971. The result was to lower the 

water surface elevation at the face of the fish screens and increase the through-screen velocity. In addition, 

gradient profile changes resulted in bypass flows ceasing and often flowing in reverse direction. The inability 

to provide positive bypass flows of 90 cfs placed GCID in direct violation of its contractual obligations with 

DFG.

Discussions between GCID and DFG were begun in the early 1980s to investigate potential remedies to the 

lack of bypass flows. Deteriorating hydraulic conditions finally resulted in DFG installing a fyke trap in place 

of one of the rotary screens. The trap was first operated in spring 1985 as a salvage facility with minimal 

effectiveness. During 1986, GCID widened and deepened its intake channel, which served to restore 

bypass flows. Continued high screen velocities, coupled with screen deficiencies identified by the DFG 

studies in the mid-1970s, resulted in continued discussion between GCID and DFG about fishery impacts. 

GCID's application for renewal of its dredge permit in 1986 resulted in a number of conditions being 

imposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), among which was implementation of a study to 

define a state-of-the-art solution to the fishery problems. Paralleling the requirements of the Corps permit 

was a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between GCID and DFG to conduct studies to define 

solutions to fish passage and water supply problems at the diversion site.

The result of the joint GCID/DFG study was a feasibility report published in 1989 that recommended 

building an entirely new screening structure at the head of the existing intake channel. The recommendation 

was based on extensive review of alternative solutions that would provide protection to fishery resources 

while allowing water deliveries by GCID.

During 1989, winter-run chinook salmon were listed under the California and federal Endangered Species 

Acts as endangered and threatened, respectively. Federal status was upgraded to endangered in 1994. 

Historical record had demonstrated that fry and juvenile winter-run salmon were exposed at the GCID 

pumping site as early as mid-July, with a peak fry exposure during late August to early September. During 

1991, the NMFS brought suit against GCID to prevent it from causing further losses of winter-run salmon. 

The BO issued by NMFS indicated that operation of the GCID facility was likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of winter-run salmon. The lawsuit resulted in a federal court injunction preventing the 

GCID from pumping during periods of peak downstream migration of winter-run salmon. As the result of 

the injunction, a joint stipulation between GCID, DFG, and NMFS provided conditions under which GCID 

could continue to pump. The joint stipulation initially required that GCID submit a completed and adequate 

application for an incidental take permit pursuant to Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act. 

Subsequent submittals were deemed inadequate by NMFS on February 4, 1993. With passage of the 

CVPIA (P.L. 102-575), USBR has been given responsibility for screening at GCID. The original joint 

stipulations were amended in 1993 to reflect the new status of USBR. GCID was required to fulfill certain 

conditions under the direction of NMFS. GCID was required to ensure the full funding of environmental 

analysis, selection, design, and construction of acceptable measures to provide long-term protection to 

winter-run salmon. During the interim period, GCID was required to reduce pumping during the critical 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-41

period of August 1 through November 30 to meet screen velocity criteria of 0.33 foot per second (fps) 

required by DFG. In addition, among other conditions, minimum bypass flows were required to provide 

adequate passage for juveniles back to the river.

Various fishery studies were conducted by consultants hired by GCID during 1990-1993. The results failed 

to clearly identify solutions to rectify the problem. However, during 1993 GCID modified the portion of the 

oxbow channel in front and downstream of the fish screens to provide positive flows and reduce predator 

habitat. During 1993-1994, GCID refitted, as a stated "interim solution", the existing screen structure with 

new fixed plate screens meeting the screen opening criteria required by DFG/NMFS. These modifications 

are currently undergoing evaluation.

Predicted benefits: Fish losses at GCID are potentially very large. At times, the GCID diverts up to 20% 

of the total Sacramento River flow at RM 206 (Hallock 1987). If we assume that juvenile salmonids are 

distributed proportionally to flow, then up to 20% of the juvenile salmonids passing RM 206 could come in 

contact with the fish protection facilities at GCID. Correcting problems associated with the fish protection 

facilities at GCID can improve the probability of survival of those juvenile salmonids that contact it.

Action 12: EPA will complete Superfund cleanup of Iron Mountain Mine by 1996.

Objective: Remedy water quality problems associated with Iron Mountain Mine and other toxic discharges.

Location: Iron Mountain Mine, Spring Creek Drainage

Narrative description: Fish will be protected from chronic and acute toxicity caused by the discharge of 

heavy metals in acid mine drainage. The discharge can and has produced major kills of salmon and 

steelhead, as well as sublethal exposures that cause injury to anadromous fish by reducing growth and 

interfering with migratory behavior (EPA 1992a, Sorensen 1991). Completion of studies and subsequent 

implementation of EPA remedies for the Iron Mountain Mine Superfund site are needed to attain the safe 

metal concentrations identified in the CVRWQCB's Basin Plan. Pollution control remedies are required at 

the Iron Mountain Mine portal discharges from remaining sulfide ore deposits inside the mountain, the 

discharges from tailing piles, other sources, and the metal sludge in Keswick Reservoir. Attaining the 

objectives requires close coordination with the state and federal agencies, fishery trustees, legal council, 

consultants, and the responsible party.

We endorse the ongoing process to remedy problems associated with mine drainage entering the 

Sacramento River. Specifically, the main objectives of EPA and the fishery trustees in the Iron Mountain 

Mine clean up include: 

# Eliminate the water demand that the dilution of the toxic discharge places on the Shasta-Trinity 

Project of the CVP. The water demand can be several hundred thousand af of storage that is 
3-Xa-42 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

needed for all the other beneficial uses of the project, including fish and wildlife conservation 

and temperature control.

# Attain the water quality objectives for toxic metals and contaminated sediments in the basin 

plan to protect the fishery resources of the Sacramento River from acute and chronic toxicity.

Until the site is fully remediated, there are a series of interim operations needed to achieve proper dilution of 

Iron Mountain Mine effluents:

# USBR will operate the CVP according to the 1980 MOU signed by USBR, DFG, and 

SWRCB. Under the provisions of the Spring Creek MOU, USBR agrees to operate 

according to criteria and schedules to minimize the probability of an uncontrolled spill and 

catastrophic fish loss, provided that such operation will not cause flood control parameters on 

the Sacramento River to be exceeded or interfere unreasonably with other CVP requirements 

as determined by USBR. The water quality criteria established in the MOU exceeds the metal 

concentration levels specified by the basin plan and causes chronic toxicity because operating 

to such standards would increase the frequency of acute toxicity that could affect a large 

portion of the salmon and steelhead populations.

# Operate by the stipulations in the BO (NMFS 1993).

Discussion: Site Location (EPA 1992b) - The Iron Mountain Mine site includes approximately 

4,400 acres of land that includes the mining property situated around the 3,000-foot-high mountain. The 

site consists of several inactive underground and open pit mines, numerous waste piles, abandoned mining 

facilities, and mine drainage treatment facilities. The drainage from inactive mines on Iron Mountain Mine 

represents the largest pollutant discharge to the Sacramento River. This discharge is at least equal to all the 

combined industrial and municipal discharges to the San Francisco Bay and Estuary System (EPA 1992b). 

The toxic discharge is created by the mine characteristics, together with the natural occurrence of nearly 

pure sulfide deposits, producing a unique chemical reaction that is nearly optimal for the production of acid 

mine waters. This mine water contains extremely elevated concentrations of copper, zinc, cadmium, and 

other metals known to be toxic to fish and wildlife. On occasion, fish kills (including salmon) have been 

documented in the upper Sacramento River due to Iron Mountain Mine wastes. More frequently, there are 

documented instances of metal concentrations that exceed chronic toxic levels considered "safe" to early life 

stages of salmon.

The wastes from Iron Mountain Mine are collected in the Spring Creek Reservoir, then metered out into the 

releases of clean water from Shasta and Whiskeytown Reservoirs to achieve the best water quality possible. 

 However, due to the extremely large waste load (averaging over 1 ton of copper and zinc per day), it is not 

possible to attain water quality objectives for heavy metals and a less protective target has been established. 

 In the past and occasionally during intense, winter storms, the dam spills introduces toxins into the river at 

uncontrolled rates that sometimes result in fish kills. These highly toxic conditions are exacerbated when 

flows from Shasta and Whiskeytown Reservoirs are not available for dilution due to other CVP constraints.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-43

Operating the Sacramento County Diversion Dam (SCDD) during major flood events is complicated 

because releases from Keswick Dam may be reduced to meet downstream flood control objectives while 

Spring Creek is spilling. Water released for diluting spills may be in excess of any other CVP requirements, 

representing a loss of beneficial use of the water for other purposes.

Predicted benefits: Source control and water management actions will significantly reduce copper and zinc 

in the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam. Such reduction would result in metal concentrations that 

consistently meet water quality objectives and that have been determined to be safe for fisheries. The 

control actions are being designed to protect fisheries from chronic and acute toxicity during all but a one in 

100-year flow. Successful completion of the superfund program will (1) protect all fish from acute and 

chronic toxicity, including physiologic problems and slow growth; (2) protect salmonid reproduction 

between Keswick Dam and Cottonwood Creek from toxicity; (3) restore salmon and steelhead production 

to compensate for losses caused by the discharge; and (4) make available the water supply in the ShastaTrinity unit of the CVP for all the beneficial uses.

Action 13: Avoid potential competitive displacement of wild, naturally produced juveniles with hatcheryreleased juveniles by stabilizing hatchery production levels and implementing release strategies designed to 

minimize detrimental interactions.

Objective: Evaluate competitive displacement between hatchery and natural stocks.

Location: Coleman National Fish Hatchery, Feather River State Fish Hatchery, and Nimbus State Fish 

Hatchery.

Narrative description: There is a potential for competition to occur between hatchery-released and 

wild/natural juveniles in the Sacramento River. Biological interactions of hatchery-released fish with wild fish 

may include direct competition for food and space during the freshwater rearing phase (Steward and Bjornn 

1990). The extent of competition is, however, dependent on the degree of spatial and temporal overlap and 

the basic concept of supply and demand (Steward and Bjornn 1990).

The precise level of competitive interactions between hatchery-produced and wild/ naturally produced 

juveniles in the Sacramento River is unknown due to the absence of detailed studies. However, when 

comparing current population levels to apparent historical carrying capacities, the degree of competition as 

they rear and migrate through the 200-mile reach of river is assumed to be minimal (USFWS 1993).

Management practices exist that will avoid the risk of excessive competitive interaction both now and in the 

future. The practices can be implemented now and include: 1) stabilizing the total amount of hatchery 
3-Xa-44 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

production basinwide at established production goals and 2) releasing hatchery fish in a manner that avoids 

competitive displacement of wild/natural fish to the greatest extent possible.

Production goals should be quantified for all hatcheries in the basin and held or "capped" at current 

established levels. An allowable overage (e.g., 15%) can be built into these caps to accommodate 

fluctuations in spawning population numbers. Capping of production in this manner at USFWS's Coleman 

National Fish Hatchery has been implemented to avoid potential competitive impacts on endangered winterrun chinook salmon (NMFS 1994). As river carrying capacity and hatchery-wild interactions become more 

fully understood, production goals will be modified to benefit survival of both hatchery-produced and 

wild/naturally produced fish.

All current release strategies throughout the Sacramento River should be evaluated at a greater level of 

detail to identify the potential occurrence of competitive displacement of wild/natural juveniles with hatcheryreleased juveniles. USFWS's 1993 Biological Assessment on the Effects of Coleman National Fish 

Hatchery Operations on Winter-Run Chinook Salmon cites Steward and Bjornn (1990) and McMichael 

et al. (1992) in recognizing that hatchery-produced salmonids could lower production of wild/natural 

salmonids through competition if 1) the carrying capacity of the river is exceeded, 2) hatchery fish are larger 

than wild fish, 3) hatchery fish are in place before wild fish emerge, 4) large numbers of hatchery fish are 

released, or 5) released fish fail to disperse.

Carrying capacity is not believed to be a factor due to the 200-mile length of rearing area and the fact that 

this reach historically supported at least two to four times the current number of salmon and steelhead. An 

assessment of current release strategies should focus on competitive interaction questions, including: 

a) Are hatchery fish larger than their wild/natural counter-parts at time of release?

b) Are hatchery fish allowed to take up residency prior to the emergence of wild/natural fish?

c) Are large numbers of hatchery pre-smolts released in a short time-frame?

d) Do hatchery fish fail to disperse after release?

Releases from all hatcheries within the basin should be evaluated in terms of these questions. Release 

strategies should be implemented to avoid identified competitive interactions. Established monitoring 

programs for wild/natural juveniles should be continued to evaluate potential competitive interactions due to 

size or timing of releases (questions a and b). Additional in-river monitoring will be needed if there is 

evidence that the number of hatchery fish or a failure to disperse produces undesirable levels of competition 

with wild/natural fish (questions c and d). Monitoring program objectives include relative abundance 

estimates of natural/wild juveniles near hatchery release sites, pre- and post-release, and average weights or 

preferably length-weight relationships (i.e., condition factors) of natural/wild juveniles near hatchery release 

sites, pre- and post-release. Relative abundance estimates of wild/natural juveniles pre- and post-release 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-45

may assist in determining the extent to which hatchery released juveniles displace wild/natural juveniles, 

while estimates of condition factors may give insight into levels of competition for available food supplies.

Although carrying capacities are currently not presumed to be limiting, they will be considered in 

establishing long-term release strategies. Also, release strategies involving pre-smolts and fry should always 

consider the estimated densities of wild/natural fish and attempt to utilize underseeded habitats (Hard et al.

1992).

Predicted benefits: The precise nature of competitive displacement of wild/naturally produced juveniles by 

hatchery-produced juveniles is currently not defined. However, the current low population levels of 

wild/natural fish lead us to believe existing impacts of competitive displacement are minimal. Implementation 

of the above-stated recommendations may further reduce the potential for any negative impacts and 

therefore may result in higher survivability of wild/naturally produced juveniles and smolts.

Action 14: Implement specific hatchery spawning protocols and genetic evaluation programs to maintain 

genetic diversity in hatchery and wild stocks. 

Objective: Maintain genetic diversity in hatchery stocks.

Location: Coleman National Fish Hatchery, Feather River State Fish Hatchery, and Nimbus State Fish 

Hatchery.

Narrative description: Steward and Bjornn (1990) and Hard et al. (1992) provide in-depth discussions of 

the potential genetic impacts or risks hatchery programs may pose on wild populations. These genetic risks 

include 1) extinction, 2) loss of within-population genetic variability, 3) loss of between-population genetic 

variability, and 4) genetic differences between hatchery and wild stocks resulting from differential selection 

pressures in the hatchery environment.

Implementing specific spawning guidelines and maximizing the survival of the resultant progeny will limit 

founder effects, genetic drift, and inbreeding in the hatchery population.

It is extremely important, however, that genetic variance between the groups is initially low (Reisenbichler et 

al. 1992, Hindar et al. 1991) and survival of hatchery adults and resultant eggs and fry in the hatchery is 

maximized. If survival of eggs and progeny in the hatchery program is maximized, genotypes will not be lost 

due to low survival rates and maladaptive selection in the hatchery environment.

One of the main parameters used to assess the viability of a population is its effective population size 

(Bartley et al. 1992). Therefore, to minimize inbreeding and genetic drift, a mating scheme should be 

developed to maximize the effective population size for all fish collected as hatchery brood stock.
3-Xa-46 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Genetic differences between hatchery and wild stocks can be held to a minimum by employing specific 

breeding guidelines to minimize allele-frequency differences between hatchery and wild fish (e.g., Meffe 

1986, Reisenbichler et al. 1992, Hynes et al. 1981, Hindar et al. 1991, Simon 1991, Simon et al. 1986, 

Tave 1986, Bonneville Power Administration [BPA] 1994). Guidelines to maximize the effective population 

size, conserve genetic diversity, and minimize genetic differences between hatchery and wild stocks (as 

described by the above authors) should be implemented as follows:

# Use adults that are genetically similar to the corresponding wild/natural stocks.

# Incorporate large numbers of adults into the spawning program to more adequately represent 

all genomes present in the wild. Although a reduction in the genetic variability in hatchery 

stocks of Pacific salmon due to inbreeding is not well documented (Steward and Bjornn 1990), 

small population sizes in hatchery programs may lead to losses of within-population genetic 

variability through inbreeding depression and genetic drift (Waples 1991).

# Implement a "no selection" protocol. Consider all returning or collected fish as part of the 

population (i.e., avoid selection based on phenotypic characteristics or other criteria).

# Use jacks to ensure genes associated with all age classes are incorporated in the population at 

appropriate levels.

# Implement a 1:1 male-to-female spawning ratio (i.e., one time use of each adult, single pair 

spawning, unpooled gametes).

# To ensure full fertilization when the egg supply is severely limited or male gamete viability is 

known to be low, successively use two males for each egg lot (1 and 2; 2 and 3; 3 and 4, etc). 

 This procedure utilizes the first of the pair (with mixing), followed by interval of 30 seconds, 

and then the immediate use of the second male.

# Use pairing schemes to avoid discarding of excess spawners on spawning days where one sex 

is more numerous than the other. This can be used on all populations, except those that are 

critically small.

# For critically small populations (i.e., winter-run chinook salmon) apply a splitting scheme. 

Divide eggs from each female into two lots and fertilize with gametes from two different males. 

Also, use each male twice, once with two separate females. This practice safeguards against 

the loss of genetic contribution from an individual producing viable gametes mated with an 

individual that produced nonviable gametes (USFWS 1993).

# Develop improved gamete cryopreservation techniques to permit later crossing of lines from 

different generations.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-47

Additionally, programs should be developed to obtain baseline information on the genetic diversity of 

current hatchery and wild/natural stocks and evaluation programs should be developed to monitor changes 

in these diversity levels over time.

Predicted benefits: Implementation of specific spawning protocol will serve to minimize the potential genetic 

effects of hatchery programs on wild/natural stocks. Development of genetic evaluation programs will aid in 

assessing the success of the spawning strategies to maintain existing genetic diversity.

Action 15: Evaluate transfer of disease between hatchery and natural stocks.

Objective: Evaluate disease relations between hatchery and natural stocks.

Location: Coleman National Fish Hatchery, Feather River State Fish Hatchery, and Nimbus State Fish 

Hatchery.

Narrative description: Develop and implement strategies to minimize the risk of disease outbreaks in 

hatcheries, determine degree of prevalence of pathogens/disease in wild/natural stocks, and evaluate 

potential for disease transmission from hatchery fish or hatchery water supplies to wild/naturally produced 

fish.

The actual extent of horizontal transmission of diseases or parasites from hatchery-released salmonids to 

wild stocks is largely unknown. Although disease outbreaks and epizootics are fairly common in hatcheries, 

direct transfer of these diseases to wild fish has not been clearly demonstrated. Steward and Bjornn (1990) 

state there is little evidence of transmittance of diseases or parasites from hatchery to wild salmonids. Their 

literature review describes a number of studies suggesting diseases such as bacterial kidney disease (BKD) 

and infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN) were not transmitted from infected hatchery fish to wild fish. 

However, they go on to state that research on this subject is limited and conclude the full impact of disease 

on supplemented stocks is probably underestimated.

Infectious disease is considered to be a normal component in the life history of hatchery-reared and 

wild/naturally produced salmonids in the Sacramento River due to their similar parental stock (free-ranging 

brood stock of mixed origin) and exposure to similar water supplies. Some incipient level of pathogens are 

natural and also probably essential for the development of proper immunological response to actual disease 

outbreaks (Hard et al. 1992). Unfortunately, hatchery-rearing conditions often render hatchery fish more 

susceptible to contracting and spreading disease and parasites in the confined, high-density rearing 

environment.

Most pathogens endemic to Sacramento River salmonids evolved with their salmonid hosts and are not 

recent introductions. Endemic pathogens that have caused significant health problems in Central Valley 
3-Xa-48 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

salmon hatcheries include infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), BKD, Yersinia ruckeri, 

Flexibacter columnaris, Ceratomyxa shasta, Ichthyophthirius multifiliis, and Nanophyetus 

salmincola (Cox 1993). Numerous other bacterial, parasitic, and fungal species have also been identified 

as being pathogenic to hatchery populations under appropriate conditions.

Exposing wild stocks to infected hatchery fish may result in mortality or disability or may have no effect. 

This ultimate result depends on several ecological parameters (e.g., proximity and exposure time) that 

influence the spread and pathology of diseases and the immune status of the fish. The reduced probability of 

contact between individuals outside the confines of the hatchery may reduce the potential for wild salmonids 

being infected by the hatchery fish (Steward and Bornn 1990).

Reducing the risk of disease outbreaks within a hatchery consequently can reduce potential transfer of 

disease to wild/natural stocks. To minimize the risk of disease outbreaks in hatcheries within the 

Sacramento River basin, management practices as modified from BPA (1992) should be implemented as 

follows:

# All phases of propagation, transfers, and distribution will follow recommendations similar to 

those of USFWS's Fish Health Policy (1995).

# All hatcheries relying on surface water where anadromous fish are in the headwaters above the 

hatchery should be equipped with state-of-the-art water sterilization systems (e.g., utilizing 

ozone, ultra-violet).

# Bird exclusion devices should be installed at all rearing facilities to avoid disease introduction 

and pond-to-pond transfer by predators.

# During hatchery operations, strict sanitation and disinfection procedures should be employed.

# Isolation, segregation, and quarantine practices should be employed when necessary.

Additionally, state and federal fish health centers and the National Biological Survey should devise programs 

to 1) ascertain the disease implications of hatchery effluent waters on wild/natural juveniles, 2) perform 

laboratory and in situ exposures of infected hatchery fish to uninfected wild/natural fish to gain an 

understanding of the kinetics of horizontal disease transmission, and 3) gather baseline information on the 

degree of prevalence of pathogens/disease in wild/naturally produced juvenile salmonid populations.

Predicted benefits: Implementing strict fish health policies and practices in Sacramento River basin 

hatcheries will reduce disease outbreaks within hatcheries and consequently reduce the potential for 

pathogen/disease transfer from hatchery-reared fish to wild/naturally produced fish.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

A. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xa-49

Action 16: Create a 50,000-acre meander belt from Red Bluff to Chico Landing to provide gravel 

recruitment, large woody debris, moderate air temperatures, and nutrient input to the lotic system.

Objective: Restore and preserve riparian forests.

Location: Red Bluff at RM 242 to Chico Landing at RM 204.

Narrative description: Recreate an active meander belt and restore a continuous riparian corridor between 

Chico Landing and Red Bluff. The meander belt and corridor would encompass approximately

50,000 acres.

Protect and restore the Sacramento River riparian corridor and, by doing so, preserve important instream 

values. The riparian and associated meander zone affect the aquatic ecosystem by providing the majority of 

spawning gravel; creating a variety of preferred spawning areas (e.g., point bar riffles, chute cutoffs, multiple 

channel areas, and areas near islands); maintaining and improving the hydrologic diversity of the river 

channel; reestablishing and maintaining a diversity of substrates; supplying a continually renewable source of 

shaded riverine aquatic habitat, including large woody debris; and providing an important terrestrial food 

source.

The most feasible location for reestablishing a functional Sacramento River riparian ecosystem is in the reach 

between Chico Landing and Red Bluff. Along this stretch of the river, riparian vegetation influences erosion 

and deposition within the floodplain. In turn, these fluvial processes create the diversity of streamside 

vegetation and maintain its overall condition.

Riparian vegetation creates a buffer to decrease local flood velocities. This increases the deposition of 

suspended materials derived upstream from eroding banks. It is this erosion-deposition process that builds 

the middle terrace and eventually the high terrace lands that support high-terrace climax forest and 

agriculture. Overbank flooding is essential for the continued health of the riparian system. As silt and seeds 

are deposited during these overbank waterflow events, the native vegetation is rejuvenated.

The interplay between biological succession and hydrologic and geomorphic factors results in a mosaic of 

habitat types in the riparian zone. These types follow a chronological and topographic continuum from a 

bare sandbar, to young forests of cottonwoods and willows, to mature forests of older cottonwoods and 

other deciduous species, to a climax forest of valley oak. Mature riparian forests are typically 40-90 years 

old. A meander zone along the Sacramento River should include an unbroken band of the full continuum of 

these river-created habitats that are maintained by the river over time. By definition, young to mature forest 

exists where the river channel has been in the last 100 years. The movement of the river within this 100-

year meander belt creates and maintains the rich mosaic of habitats. It is estimated that this 100-year zone 

encompasses approximately 13,000 acres between Chico Landing and Red Bluff.
3-Xa-50 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

The hydrologic regime is an integral part of the riparian corridor. A healthy and sustainable riparian corridor 

depends on both seasonal flow fluctuations and periodic flood events. Receding spring flows are required 

to ensure a moist alluvial substrate for the establishment of willows and cottonwoods at the edge of 

sandbars. During winter and early spring, higher flood flows are necessary both to ensure deposition on 

high terraces and to erode banks to provide sediment downstream. The overbank deposition of sediments 

is necessary to offset the bank erosion and maintain the equilibrium of erosion and deposition in the 

floodplain. Sustained releases from Shasta Reservoir at a level just below bankfull discharge (such as 

occurred in spring 1993) may cause considerable erosion of saturated banks; however, allowing the river to 

utilize the floodplain can reduce flow velocities and allow for sediment deposition.

Ongoing DWR studies indicate that while floodplain deposition in the Sacramento River riparian zone has 

decreased since the construction of Shasta Dam, the rate of bank erosion has decreased as well. This 

suggests the possibility of an overall balance between erosion and deposition. 

Research needs associated with meander-belt establishment include:

# Ongoing erosion and deposition measurements, particularly during wet years (most available 

data have been collected in the dry years since 1986). Further data collection and analysis is 

necessary to adequately assess erosion and deposition rates along the Sacramento River.

# Modeling the dynamics of the geomorphic system and biological succession. Data on geology, 

erosion, sedimentation, hydrology, and channel morphology can be used in combination with 

vegetation studies to determine the proportion of plant communities that will be established 

over time in the riparian zone. This information will also be valuable in assessing the impact of 

different flow regimes on the dynamics of the riparian ecosystem.

Under Senate Bill (SB) 1086, a group of landowners, government agencies, and environmental interests 

have been developing plans for the institution of a meander zone along the Sacramento River. Their ongoing 

dialogue resulted in the blueprint for limited meander zone found in the Upper Sacramento River Fisheries 

and Riparian Habitat Management Plan (The Resources Agency 1989). Parallel with these efforts, The 

Nature Conservancy has purchased several tracts along the river, and USFWS includes the Sacramento 

River riparian corridor as part of the Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge. Through the SB 1086 

process, plans are currently being laid for the establishment of a legislated, locally based district to 

implement the establishment of a meander belt.

Predicted benefits: Creation of a 50,000-acre meander belt from Red Bluff to Chico Landing will restore 

natural processes to the river ecosystem, providing gravel replenishment for spawning habitat enhancement; 

large woody debris for fish cover; moderate air temperatures that should contribute to a lower, more stable 

river temperature regime; and nutrient and food input to the lotic system.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-1

B. UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER TRIBUTARIES

Clear Creek -

Limiting factors and potential solutions- Table 3-Xb-1 lists key limiting factors for salmon and 

steelhead in Clear Creek and potential solutions.

Instream flow - Clear Creek as a regulated stream system receives very little stream flow. 

Therefore, restoring habitat and achieving doubling of the salmon and steelhead populations in the stream 

will require higher flows. The increased flow regime must provide sufficient spawning, incubation, rearing 

habitats, and outmigration flows for salmon and steelhead, together with suitable temperatures and channel 

maintenance (prevention of riparian encroachment).

Water temperature - High water temperatures can be lethal to adult spring-run chinook 

and yearling steelhead that live in the creek during the dry season (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] Water 

Quality Records, DWR 1986, USFWS 1991). Warmer temperature regimes favor development of 

warmwater fish populations (e.g., black bass and squawfish) that will prey on juvenile salmon and steelhead.

Whiskeytown Dam has several outlets that release water from different elevations and temperatures within 

the reservoir water column. Integrated management of water temperatures and flow rates of reservoir 

releases is necessary to attain the proper creek habitat requirements for spring-run chinook salmon and 

juvenile steelhead.

Gravel recruitment and extraction - Suitable spawning gravel is being reduced in Clear 

Creek as a result of blockage by Whiskeytown Dam and gravel mining in the lower stream sections below 

the dam. For the past decade, about 12% of the stream below Whiskeytown Dam was mined for gravel. 

Another 10% of the streambed is targeted for mining. The channel configuration in mined areas is braided 

and pitted. The braided sections are shallow and split the flow, causing adult passage problems. The 

excavation pits entrain and trap juvenile outmigrants when the water level goes up and down during spring 

storm periods that subject them to predation by bass and squawfish. During periods of high runoff, the 

excavation pits also trap new gravel, making it unavailable for fish spawning (DWR 1986, 1994).

Fish passage - McCormack-Saeltzer Dam, constructed in 1903 for gold mining and later 

agriculture, is located about 10 miles downstream from Whiskeytown Dam. Water (about 10 cfs) is 

diverted into the Townsend Flat water ditch under pre-1914 water rights and an additional water rights 

settlement contract with the USBR. The use of the water right has changed; most of the water right service 

area is subdivided for housing or mined for gravel, leaving little for agricultural or fishery use. Saeltzer Dam 

is a partial barrier to fish passage that is compounded by difficult passage areas in the bedrock stream 

channel immediately below the dam. Improving fish passage and implementing a recommended flow regime 
3-Xb-2 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

will open up spring-run chinook salmon and steelhead habitat and restore additional spawning capacity to 

the creek.

Land use - Approximately half the creek's watershed below the dam is composed of 

decomposed granite soils (DWR 1986). The steep slopes and erosive soils below Whiskeytown Dam add 

sedimentation problems to downstream spawning and rearing areas. These problems are exacerbated by 

reduced flushing flows and blocked gravel recruitment below Whiskeytown Dam.

Table 3-Xb-1. Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead

in Clear Creek and potential solutions.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Instream flow Implement integrated flow schedule providing for T and riparian 

channel maintenance

Water temperature Operate Whiskeytown Dam to provide temperature control

Gravel extraction Restrict instream gravel mining and restore mined-out channel sections

Fish passage Remove McCormick-Saeltzer Dam and find alternate water supply

Land use Make land use practices compatible with salmon restoration by 

acquiring land in the watershed and implementing erosion control 

practices, a stream corridor protection plan, and other appropriate land 

use planning developed in a comprehensive resource management plan 

for the watershed

Whiskeytown Dam Restore spawning gravel recruitment halted by the dam and stream 

channel sections disturbed by dam construction and compensate for the 

blockage and inundation of 12 miles of spawning habitat above the dam

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Implement an integrated instream flow schedule.

o
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-3

Objectives:

1. Provide adequate instream flows and channel maintenance flows for all life stages of salmon and 

steelhead.

2. Provide suitable temperatures for all life stages.

3. Provide channel maintenance flows.

Location: Whiskeytown Dam.

Narrative description: The recommended releases from Whiskeytown Dam to Clear Creek are 200 cfs 

from October to April and 150 cfs for the remainder of the year with variable spring-time releases 

depending on water year type. Annually, this flow regime represents an amount of water that is equaled or 

exceeded by the natural runoff of the creek at the dam site during 25-30% of the water years. During 

drought conditions, these recommended releases are reduced by 25%. These recommendations (DFG 

correspondence report 1993) are based on attainable temperature objectives and habitat requirements that 

were determined by an instream flow study (DWR 1986) and the Clear Creek hydrologic data at 

Whiskeytown Dam for 1923 to 1994 (USBR Central Valley Project Operations Hydrologic Data).

The recommended flows provide habitat and temperature requirements for fall-run and late fall-run chinook 

salmon and steelhead and, to a lesser extent, for spring-run salmon, which are presently extirpated from the 

stream. If the spring-run chinook salmon population becomes successfully reintroduced, it may require an 

even lower summer water temperature regime, necessitating increased flows. The releases are measured at 

Whiskeytown Dam to provide more precise temperature regulation and prevent harmful flow fluctuations.

A springtime flushing flow recommendation will be developed empirically to accomplish sediment removal, 

prevent riparian vegetation encroachment, maintain the proper channel configuration, distribute new

spawning gravel, facilitate timely juvenile outmigration, and attract adult spring-run salmon and steelhead into 

the stream. The schedule and amount of flow would be determined by a series of experiments designed to 

intensify and augment a storm flow at strategic times. The flushing flow releases would not exceed the 

natural inflow into Whiskeytown Reservoir during the storm.

Implementing the recommended flows can be accomplished via a reoperation of the Keswick and 

Whiskeytown dams in a manner that does not affect the water supply of the Shasta-Trinity unit of the CVP. 

 Because Clear Creek enters the Sacramento River a short distance below Keswick Dam, it can be used to 

convey a small portion of the large irrigation water supply needed in the river.

Clear Creek flows recommended during the wet season approximate the annual amount of natural runoff 

that is present or exceeded in 90% of the years of record (1923-1994 in USBR Central Valley Project 
3-Xb-4 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Operations Hydrologic Data). Drought years within the 10% of the driest years on record require flow 

reductions that approximate the natural runoff. During the dry season, the Clear Creek releases will be 

subtracted from the Keswick Dam releases, requiring no net change in release from storage, only a change 

in delivery route. The flow reductions at Keswick Dam during May through September are minor relative 

to the average river flow (approximately 1%) and will not affect the habitat or temperature regime of the 

Sacramento River. Specifically, the Keswick Dam releases would be reduced to approximately 85 cfs (the 

flow increment above the water right requirements).

The recommended flow schedule should be implemented as soon as possible because a significant amount 

of usable habitat, presently taken out of service, that can significantly contribute to the doubling goals.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: The water rights permit for the project 

allows implementation of a new release schedule for Whiskeytown Dam at any time on mutual consent 

between the USBR and DFG (CVPIA does not affect water right permits). The reoperation of Whiskeytown Dam may require preparation of a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report; however, it may not be 

needed prior to operational changes based on past practice.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The U.S. Department of the Interior is 

responsible for providing the stream flows that ensure preservation of fish and wildlife and compensate for 

lost spawning areas above Whiskeytown Dam. DFG should recommend flow releases, and the fishery 

agencies must monitor the habitat restoration effort. The USBR and DFG must update the water right for 

the project by submitting a revised MOU to SWRCB.

A detailed operational plan describing the recommended flow regime, consisting of natural runoff from Clear 

Creek into Whiskeytown Reservoir, should be prepared by DFG, the USBR, and USFWS. It should 

include flow release adjustment procedures at Keswick and Whiskeytown dams and dry year flow regimes 

to ensure that Clear Creek flows do not exceed its annual natural unimpaired runoff.

Potential obstacles to implementation: A consequence of providing additional releases down Clear 

Creek is the translocation of power production from Spring Creek and Keswick power plants to the city of 

Redding power plant located at Whiskeytown Dam where there is less power potential (head). A timely 

resolution of this power production loss may not be possible.

Predicted benefits: By increasing the flows below Whiskeytown Dam, it is possible to add back 

approximately 5 miles of spring-run habitat and 10 miles of steelhead habitat and to reintroduce spring-run 

chinook salmon. If successful, another distinct and genetically viable population of spring-run chinook 

salmon and steelhead could become established in the Central Valley, which would reduce the probability of 

these species going extinct. In addition, the recommended flow releases can nearly double available fall-run 

and late fall-run chinook salmon habitat over that provided by the present releases. Clear Creek is one of 

two tributaries in the upper Sacramento River that can provide habitat for three races of salmon and 

steelhead.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-5

Clear Creek's estimated production is 6,190 salmon and 13,052 steelhead (USFWS 1986, DWR 1985).

Action 2: Provide temperature control.

Objective: Operate Whiskeytown Dam to control temperatures primarily for steelhead or spring-run 

chinook salmon if reestablishment is successful.

Location: The reach of stream above the valley floor near McCormick-Saeltzer Dam.

Narrative description: Whiskeytown Dam has several outlets at different elevations that allow lower 

temperature water releases. The installation of the Oak Bottom temperature control curtain further assists in 

regulating temperature for Clear Creek. A remote-sensing temperature monitoring device is needed at the 

USGS gauge station at Placer Road Bridge to help project operators to actively control creek temperatures.

Temperature monitoring during several experimental flow releases demonstrated that temperature objectives 

for juvenile rearing (65 F), holding of prespawning adults (60 F), and egg incubation (56 F) are attainable 

(DWR 1986, DFG temperature data, USGS temperature data).

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: In a related action, DFG has proposed an 

amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Basin that establishes temperatures 

suitable for spring-run chinook salmon and steelhead in the foothill reaches of Clear Creek (DFG 

correspondence 1994). The CVRWQCB's staff is considering the recommended amendment pending 

further analysis.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Roles and responsibilities are the same as those 

described for Action 1. In addition, the CVRWQCB will continue to analyze the temperature objectives for 

Clear Creek proposed by DFG.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Potential obstacles are the same as those as described for 

Action 1.

Predicted benefits: Temperature control makes the habitat usable for salmon and steelhead and recreates 

habitat similar to what is now blocked by Whiskeytown Dam. The expected temperature regime provided 

by the recommended flows will ensure that: 1) the first 10 miles of stream below the dam will be suitable for 

steelhead spawning and incubation and oversummering rearing of juveniles; 2) any reintroduced spring-run 

chinook salmon would be provided with suitable habitat for adult summer holdover, spawning, and 

incubation within the first 5 miles below the dam; and 3) suitable habitat would be provided for spawning, 

o o o
3-Xb-6 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

incubation, and juvenile rearing of fall-run and late fall-run chinook salmon within the first 8 miles of the 

stream above its confluence with the Sacramento River.

Action 3: Restrict gravel mining and restore degraded channel.

Objective: Eliminate the severe adverse effects of gravel mining.

Location: North State Aggregate and Sunrise Excavation Pits.

Narrative description: The adverse effects of instream gravel mining are documented (DWR 1994). 

Specific problems on Clear Creek include formation of a highly unstable braided and pitted channel that 

affects upstream passage and lacks sufficient gravel recruitment (DWR 1986). Purchase of the mined 

stream channel, along with that proposed for mining, would eliminate this problem.

Currently the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is in the process of exchanging some of its lands for 

900 acres of land bordering Clear Creek between McCormack-Saeltzer Dam and the confluence with the 

Sacramento River (Schmidt Estate and BLM February 1995 pers. comm.), which is consistent with the 

Record of Decision for the Redding Resource Areas Land (BLM 1993). Completion of the land exchange 

will place approximately 96% of the lands along the valley reach of the stream in public ownership, while in 

the foothill reach of the stream, all the adjoining lands are in public ownership.

After mined areas are transferred to public ownership, channel restoration projects such as the placement of 

a berm to deflect water from the pits, consolidation of braided channels, and installation of spawning riffles 

can begin. Plans and environmental documentation are completed for some of the initial channel restoration 

work.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: The approved Surface Mine Reclamation 

Plan for the mined section of the creek is compatible with projects that restore the site for fish and wildlife 

uses. Restoration activities may be augmented by the Federal Forest Plan Option 9 program that includes 

Clear Creek watershed. Restoration proposals for labor-intensive projects have been submitted to this 

program for funding.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: BLM is implementing the land exchange with the 

assistance of DFG. Shasta County and the City of Redding are administering the Surface Mine Reclamation 

Plans that have requirements consistent with restoration of fish and wildlife habitat. Plans for public 

recreation in the watershed are the responsibility of the City of Redding, National Park Service, and BLM. 

The County of Shasta and the Corps are responsible for establishing conditions for any future proposed 

gravel mining activity in the lands near Clear Creek.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None, if the land exchange process proceeds as planned.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-7

Predicted benefits: Approximately 12% of the anadromous fish habitat has been heavily mined for gravel 

but can be restored for spawning and rearing. An additional 10% of the stream can be exempted from 

gravel mining.

Action 4: Provide fish passage.

Objective: Provide access to stream habitat above McCormick-Saeltzer Dam.

Location: McCormick-Saeltzer Dam.

Narrative description: DFG has made a number of attempts to provide effective fish passage over 

McCormack-Saeltzer Dam (Saeltzer Dam) that have been largely unsuccessful to date. This is

compounded by a difficult passage situation in the bedrock channel below the dam that could be improved 

by blasting a wider channel (project scheduled for 1995).

The most effective method of passing fish would be removal of the dam. The land at the dam site is now 

under the ownership of DFG. Although the dam can be used to segregate fall-run from spring-run salmon, 

that service is not relevant and can be provided by alternate means if necessary. To protect water quality 

and substrate, dredging of sediment behind the dam is needed. A project design and environmental 

documentation is already completed for this action.

The dam and diversion appear to be greatly oversized for the current water use serviced by the canal (i.e., 

much of the irrigation district lands serviced by this diversion have been urbanized and mined for gravel). 

There are alternate methods of supplying water, including groundwater pumping, contracting water from the 

ACID's canal, or piping water from Clear Creek using a smaller diversion. The proposal to exchange the 

dam for an alternate water supply was discussed with the owner-operators and in public meetings; the 

evaluation process is continuing.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: The program could be augmented by the 

CVPIA water purchasing program by offering to purchase its pre-1914 water right and the USBR water 

contract. The landowners in the district may request the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

(formerly the U.S. Soil Conservation Service) to develop a water conservation plan for farm use and this 

program could identify alternate water supplies. 

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG is responsible for documenting the fish 

passage problem. The SWRCB is responsible for responding to any complaints that the water right is not 

being exercised according to the rules for reasonable use and/or preventing environmental damage.
3-Xb-8 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Potential obstacles to implementation: The water district serviced by the dam may choose not to 

enter into a water conservation program or not accept any alternate water supply.

Predicted benefits: Fish passage provides access to the only reach of the stream where water temperatures 

can be controlled by releases from Whiskeytown Dam during the dry season. Without access to this reach 

there would not be suitable habitat available for yearling steelhead or spring-run chinook salmon. There are 

educational benefits to allowing salmon and steelhead access to the upper reach where they could be 

observed at the Whiskeytown Environmental Camp. This facility is operated by the Shasta County 

Department of Education and the National Park Service to accommodate thousands of elementary school 

students annually with programs that include fishery issues.

Action 5: Prevent habitat degradation due to sedimentation and urbanization.

Objective: Develop an erosion control and stream corridor protection program for the creek.

Location: Entire stream.

Narrative description: The soils in the upper portion of the watershed consist of highly erodible 

decomposed granite that can degrade water quality and spawning substrate. A review of land management 

practices in the Clear Creek watershed is being conducted through the coordinated resource management 

process. The Western Shasta Resource Conservation District (RCD) formed a group of interested parties 

from private and government sectors and held several public meetings discussing fishery restoration plans. 

This collaborative process is directed at developing the land use practices for timber harvest, residential 

development, agriculture, mining, and road building that prevent sedimentation of the stream. The RCD will 

be initiating a watershed analysis in spring 1995 that will identify the scope and scale of watershed 

problems. The NRCS could, if funded, inventory and prioritize problem sites and design and implement 

treatment measures.

As urbanization of the land continues in the Clear Creek watershed, there is a need to preserve a wide, 

unfragmented corridor of riparian vegetation for fish and wildlife. The land exchange process being 

completed by BLM will produce a greenbelt along 98% of the stream. The stream corridor along the 

remaining private land should be protected under the Stream Corridor Protection Program (DFG 1993) 

adopted as an interim policy by both the city and the county. Part of the documentation for this program 

includes a complete mapping of Clear Creek with its riparian habitat and wetlands in a geographic 

information system format.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Almost all the land adjacent to the creek 

will be owned by public agencies that presently have land management objectives consistent with fishery 

restoration, wildlife conservation and public recreation. The land use activities on the remaining private 

lands should be consistent with the recently revised Shasta County General Plan (Shasta County 1993) that 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-9

specifies special development and erosion control practices in the erodible Clear Creek watershed and 

protection of salmon spawning gravel in the creek.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The land use activities on public lands must be 

managed in a manner that prevents degradation of the quality of either the water or the spawning substrate 

consistent with state and federal water quality laws. The land use activities on private land are conditioned 

in permits issued by Shasta County consistent with the provisions of the general plan. DFG, CVRWQCB, 

and the Western Shasta RCD review the proposed land use activities and advise the county on appropriate 

measures to conserve natural resources through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None anticipated if all land management agencies follow 

current plans.

Predicted benefits: By establishing land use practices that decrease rather than increase the discharge of 

sediment to the stream, the restored sections of habitat will not be degraded by future land use practices. 

Effective source control of sediment discharge will also eliminate the need to operate sediment basins that 

interfere with fish passage and water quality protection. The decreased sediment loads will also increase the 

effectiveness of spring-time flushing flow releases from Whiskeytown Dam. Fish and wildlife values 

associated with the stream and its riparian vegetation will be preserved with the implementation of the 

Stream Corridor Protection Program.

Action 6: Restore lost gravel recruitment and spawning habitat.

Objective: Compensate for spawning gravel recruitment and spawning areas blocked by Whiskeytown 

Dam.

Location: Below Whiskeytown Dam, below McCormick-Saeltzer Dam.

Narrative description: The recruitment of spawning gravel to the creek is halted by Whiskeytown Dam, 

resulting in a 90% reduction in spawning habitat in the first 10 miles below the dam as indicated by a 

comparison of preproject and postproject spawning gravel surveys (DWR 1986, DFG 1971). This loss 

can be compensated for by artificially introducing quantities of spawning-sized gravel on a continuous basis.

During construction of Whiskeytown Dam, the stream below the dam site was mined for dam building 

materials, including boulders and rubble, reducing the quality of the habitat in this reach. Boulders can be 

placed in this section to restore habitat diversity.

The construction of Whiskeytown Dam also resulted in the blockage and inundation of approximately 12 

miles of stream suitable for salmon spawning (U.S. Bureau of Fisheries 1940). The early surveys of the 
3-Xb-10 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

stream reach above Whiskeytown Dam indicated that less than 1% of the streambed was suitable for 

spawning, yielding an estimated capacity to support a run of approximately 700 salmon (U.S. Bureau of 

Fisheries 1940). These surveys did note that the stream was affected by mining wastes. There are 

historical records of a salmon run above the town of Whiskeytown prior to blockage by Saeltzer Dam at the 

turn of the century (DFG correspondence 1956). 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Reintroduction of salmon and steelhead 

above Whiskeytown Dam is impossible because of insolvable fish passage issues for adults and juveniles. 

The preferred mitigation method when mitigation cannot be accomplished onsite, according to DFG and 

USFWS policies, is to compensate for those lost resources by creating new ecologically equivalent habitat 

as close to the site as possible. Mitigation could be achieved on the remaining 16 miles of stream below 

Whiskeytown Dam by managing flows, temperature, and spawning gravel so that the stream has the habitat 

with the capacity to support the same type and population size of anadromous fish as the historical habitat 

prior to blockage by dams.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DWR, DFG, and USFWS need to formulate 

and implement a habitat restoration plan for Clear Creek below Whiskeytown Dam.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None are anticipated if all land management agencies follow 

current plans.

Predicted benefits: The replacement of a portion of the spawning gravel will restore and increase available 

habitat. Attainable increases in habitat using many years of gravel addition could range between 25% and 

50%. This restoration action, along with the other actions proposed for Clear Creek, are expected to 

nearly double existing populations of salmon and steelhead.

Cow Creek -

Limiting factors and potential solutions- Primary land and water use activities in the Cow Creek 

drainage include timber harvest, livestock grazing, and hydropower production. Loss of habitat and water 

diversions are largely due to activities associated with livestock production. The Cow Creek watershed is 

in relatively good condition and measures to protect existing habitat from water diversion, cattle grazing, 

creekside development, and gravel extraction should maintain and preserve habitat conditions. Primary 

limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead are low fall and summer flows affecting attraction, 

migration, spawning, and rearing, caused in part by irrigation diversions. Irrigation diversions also affect 

steelhead by delaying or blocking adult upstream migration and the entrainment of juvenile migrants. Table 

3-Xb-2 lists key limiting factors to salmon and steelhead in Cow Creek and potential solutions.

Water diversions - The only laddered dams and screened diversions are part of

hydropower facilities. Agricultural diversions are unscreened, and ditches are unlined and poorly

maintained. Nearly all the larger irrigation diversions occur within the tributary streams above the valley 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-11

floor and generally do not limit chinook salmon migration to potential upstream spawning habitat (Harvey 

pers. comm.). The one possible exception to this is the concrete based flashboard diversion on North Cow 

Creek near Bella Vista (1.3 miles below Indian Oak Road) that presents a potential barrier. Irrigation 

diversions typically operate from April through October and can negatively affect stream flows important for 

fall-run attraction, migration, and spawning. Habitat surveys conducted by DFG in 1992 identified several 

permanent and temporary irrigation diversions in the various tributary streams, including 13 diversions in 

South Cow Creek, 10 diversions on Old Cow Creek, one on Clover Creek, and two on North Cow 

Creek. No surveys were conducted on Oak Run Creek. According to DFG, no summary data readily 

exist for information on diversion rights (i.e., ownership, magnitude, and duration).

Steelhead are directly affected by water diversion because they impede upstream migration of adults and 

entrain downstream migrating juveniles. Agricultural diversions and Pacific Gas and Electric Company's 

(PG&E's) hydropower diversions on South Cow Creek also reduce summer flows important for juvenile 

steelhead rearing. Colleen Harvey identified potential migration barriers to adult steelhead. All agricultural 

diversions are unscreened.

Livestock grazing - Livestock grazing has reduced riparian vegetation and eroded 

streambanks in the various tributary streams and in the mainstem Cow Creek. Sedimentation will continue 

to degrade the quality of spawning gravel in Cow Creek. Habitat surveys conducted by DFG in 1992 

identified stream sections within the various tributaries where excessive erosion has occurred. Fencing these 

stream sections to protect the riparian corridor has been recommended for approximately 42,600 feet of 

stream on South Cow Creek, 45,600 feet on Old Cow Creek, 39,120 feet on Clover Creek, and 

19,500 feet on North Cow Creek (Harvey pers. comm.).

Urbanization - Population growth in the towns of Palo Cedro, Bella Vista, Oak Run, and 

Millville is resulting in increased demand for domestic water and is affecting riparian habitat within the Cow 

Creek watershed (Reynolds et al. 1993). Creekside development projects will continue to threaten existing 

habitat conditions unless appropriate measures are taken to ensure that riparian corridors are protected. 

DFG has worked with Shasta County to address riparian concerns in its recently revised Shasta County 

General Plan (Shasta County 1993). The plan currently includes provisions to protect the riparian corridor

within the watershed. 

Gravel mining - Gravel mining occurred in North Cow Creek between Bella Vista and 

Palo Cedro near the confluence of Dry Creek. Gravel extraction has destroyed the riparian area and 

removed in-channel gravel. Chinook salmon spawning and rearing habitat have been adversely affected in 

this area. Currently, gravel mining in Cow Creek has ceased but its effects still remain. The recently revised 

Shasta County General Plan includes specific ordinances that currently prohibit gravel mining operations 

within the watershed. 
3-Xb-12 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

in Cow Creek and potential solutions to those problems. 

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Instream flow Work with water right holders to obtain agreement for 

additional flows

Adult passage Work with water right holders to obtain agreement for 

improved passage at diversions

Entrainment Screen diversions

Livestock grazing Fence riparian corridors to exclude livestock

Urbanization and creekside 

development

Work with county and private land owners to develop a 

riparian corridor protection zone

Gravel mining Eliminate instream gravel extraction operations

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Work with water right holders to obtain an agreement for adequate flows for fall-run chinook 

salmon migrations and spawning and juvenile steelhead rearing.

Objective: Provide suitable passage and early spawning flows for fall-run chinook salmon adults 

(particularly in dry water years) and adequate flows for juvenile steelhead rearing.

Location: South Cow, Old Cow, Clover, and North Cow Creeks and possibly Oak Run Creek.

Narrative description: Agricultural diversions on various tributaries and streams have reduced streamflows 

important for migration and early spawning of fall-run chinook salmon (primarily during dry years in 

mainstem Cow Creek and in South Cow Creek. Irrigation diversions and PG&E hydroelectric diversions 

on South Cow Creek have also reduced juvenile steelhead rearing habitat in the tributary streams, 

particularly during summer. DFG habitat surveys conducted in 1992 have documented the number and 

location of agricultural diversions on most of the main tributary streams that generally operate from April 

through October of each year. Thirteen agricultural diversion exist on South Cow Creek, ten on Old Cow 

Creek, one on Clover Creek, and two on North Cow Creek. No surveys were conducted on Oak Run 

Creek.

Table 3-Xb-2 . Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-13

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Some solutions depend on additional 

investigations. Although no IFIM studies have been conducted on Cow Creek, DFG has suggested that 50 

cfs (measured at the Millville gauge) be maintained during October. This should provide adequate migration 

and spawning flows for fall-run chinook salmon until DFG has completed the instream flow studies to 

evaluate overall needs for migration, spawning, and rearing of anadromous fish.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Additional investigations need to be carried out 

on all of the tributaries to examine current ownership and the specifics of the water rights. Specific canal 

maintenance programs need to be identified to minimize water losses. DFG should have primary 

responsibility for developing an agreement with water users to obtain the necessary flows for fall-run salmon 

and steelhead. DFG should also have lead responsibility for identifying specific canal maintenance 

programs. SWRCB should assist DFG in these efforts.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Diverters may oppose the suggested improvements or 

accepting liability or operation and maintenance costs. A reasonable plan will have to be negotiated 

between private diverters and responsible agencies to balance legitimate needs of agriculture, power 

generation, and fishery resources. Efforts to sort out water rights, gage and monitor stream flows, determine 

instream flow needs, and possibly purchase supplemental water will require funding and agency involvement. 

 Adequate funding and staff must be available to DFG and SWRCB to cover these costs.

Predicted benefits: Obtaining additional fall flows from current water users will significantly enhance 

attraction, migration, and spawning habitat for fall-run chinook salmon, particularly in dry years. Additional 

summer flows will enhance steelhead rearing habitat, particularly with other actions taken to improve 

passage and reduce entrainment (see Actions 5 and 6). Projected benefits would be best addressed after an 

instream flow study is conducted to determine migration, spawning and rearing needs for all anadromous 

salmonids.

Action 2: Effectively screen agricultural diversions.

Objective: Prevent loss of juvenile steelhead due to entrainment.

Location: Various agricultural diversions in the tributary watersheds.

Narrative description: Agricultural diversions on Cow Creek are unscreened. The extent to which these 

diversions entrain juvenile steelhead is currently unknown; however, DFG conducted surveys on various 

Cow Creek tributaries in 1992 and found that diversions took nearly 50-100% of the available stream flow 

(Harvey pers. comm.). If the existing steelhead spawning and rearing habitat is enhanced through increased 

flows and passage improvements, then screening will be necessary.
3-Xb-14 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Additional studies will be needed to 

identify diversions that significantly affect the fishery. Screening should be accomplished where instream 

flow and passage issues are resolved.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should have primary responsibility for 

conducting studies to identify diversions that require screening. DFG should also be responsible for 

identifying screening alternatives to reduce steelhead mortality. USFWS and the NMFS should support 

DFG.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The cost to screen private diversions will be objectionable to 

individual owners. This effort would have to find funding for screen installation and maintenance. Adequate 

funding would also be needed for fish screen design studies and agency involvement.

Predicted benefits: Effectively screening diversions will prevent the loss of juvenile steelhead and 

subsequently increase production.

Action 3: Improve passage at agricultural diversion dams.

Objective: Improve passage for adult steelhead and increase steelhead spawning and rearing habitat.

Location: Various agricultural diversions from Cow Creek above the valley floor.

Narrative description: DFG has identified several natural structures and agricultural diversions that may be 

potential migration barriers to adult steelhead (Harvey pers. comm.). Most water diversions in Cow Creek 

operate from April through October. Some diversions are temporary and may not be migration barriers; 

however, several diversion structures remain in place throughout the year and limit or impede migrating 

adults.

Related actions that may impede or augment the actions: Agency efforts have been successful in 

requiring PG&E to build a ladder at its hydroelectric diversion on South Cow Creek. The Olsen 

Hydroelectric Project on Old Cow Creek has also constructed a fish ladder.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, acting as the lead agency, should contact 

all water right holders to determine operating procedures and identify actions to rectify passage problems. 

Potential solutions include replacing dams with pumps, installing ladders, consolidating diversions, and 

temporarily removing dams. USFWS should support DFG.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Diverters may oppose suggested solutions for fish passage 

improvements or operation and maintenance costs. Cost for passage improvements may be prohibitive for 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-15

private diverters. Alternative funding sources may be necessary for passage improvements. Adequate 

funding and staff must be available to DFG and USFWS to cover these costs.

Predicted benefits: Improving or providing passage at diversion dams will increase the usable holding, 

spawning, and rearing habitat for steelhead. Increased production will likely result from improved passage.

Bear Creek -

Limiting factors and potential solutions- Unscreened diversions in the valley reach are thought to 

be the major limiting factors. Natural flows are often less than the combined rights of the diverters, resulting 

in a total dewatering of the creek in the valley reach during critical periods for salmon. Table 3-Xb-3 lists 

limiting factors to salmon and steelhead in Bear Creek and potential solutions.

Table 3-Xb-3. Limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead

in Bear Creek and potential solutions to those problems.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Flows 1. Provide an alternate source of water

2. Purchase existing water rights from diverters

3. Initiate legal action to provide instream flows

Entrainment Build and operate fish screens on all diversions

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Restore instream flows.

Objective: Provide adequate instream flows to permit safe passage of juvenile and adult salmon and 

steelhead at key times of the year.

Location: Bear Creek from the Sacramento River to Bear Creek Falls.

Narrative description: In most years, and particularly dry years, flows in Bear Creek are insufficient and do 

not allow passage during spring and early fall mostly due to agricultural diversions. Precise volumes 

necessary for passage have not yet been defined.
3-Xb-16 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Cooperative agreements have been 

implemented on Deer and Mill Creeks to exchange instream flows for groundwater during key times of the 

year with the intent of refining volumes and timing in future years. Such agreements that provide pumped 

groundwater in place of diverted stream flows could also be negotiated with the Bear Creek water right 

holders. Two additional avenues exist to achieve required flows: (1) purchase of an existing water right or 

(2) legal action.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USFWS, DFG, DWR and water rights holders 

need to collaborate on solutions for this action to work. DFG should take the lead role to initiate 

negotiations with the water right holders.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Recovery of the fall-run salmon on a sustainable basis requires a consistent guaranteed 

flow during the key migration periods, late summer and early fall. It is thus anticipated that achieving the 

specified flows is essential to meeting the specified recovery goals.

Action 2: Build and operate fish screens on all unscreened diversions.

Objective: Prevent losses of migrating juvenile fall-run salmon and steelhead into agricultural diversions.

Location: Sacramento River to Bear Creek Falls.

Narrative description: None of the agricultural diversions on Bear Creek are screened. If adequate flows 

are acquired, it will then be necessary to screen all remaining diversions during spring.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: The success of this action depends on 

acquiring the necessary flows described in Action 1.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, with assistance from USFWS and DWR, 

should contact the diverters and begin implementing screening.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Actions 1 and 2 must be accomplished with the anticipated benefit that salmon runs will 

return to, or exceed, DFG-estimated production and restoration goals.

Cottonwood Creek -
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-17

Limiting factors and potential solutions- Gravel mining on the valley floor has significantly reduced 

or eliminated available spawning area. In addition, poor land use practices are thought to have resulted in 

increased water temperatures and siltation and contributed to armoring of previously utilized spawning 

areas. Table 3-Xb-4 lists key limiting factors for salmon and steelhead in Cottonwood Creek and potential 

solutions.

Table 3-Xb-4. Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in 

 Cottonwood Creek and potential solutions to those problems.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Gravel 1. Restrict or eliminate gravel mining in important spawning areas 

through county zoning or state legislation

2. Rip and clean or reconstruct salmon spawning riffles on the 

south Fork Cottonwood Creek below Dippings at dam site 

and on lower Cottonwood Creek below the South Fork

Straying 1. Construct barrier to prevent fall-run chinook salmon from 

entering Crowley Gulch as the result of attracting flows caused 

by releases from the ACID

Water temperatures and 

siltation

1. Establish land use management practices in the watershed to 

restore and protect riparian vegetation and control erosion

2. Implement revegetation and erosion control program to restore 

lost riparian areas

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Protect and enhance spawning gravel.

Objective: Increase spawning opportunity.

Location: Valley sections of Cottonwood Creek.

Narrative description: Spawning gravel in the Sacramento River system is a limited resource, and 

Cottonwood Creek is one of the most important sources. Gravel has been mined in Cottonwood Creek for 
3-Xb-18 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

many years and has damaged spawning areas and significantly reduced gravel recruitment into the 

Sacramento River. Two major gravel mines operate on the creek near Interstate 5. Potential regulations to 

improve stream habitat include confining gravel extraction to off-stream terrace areas and mining only gravel 

of a size not used by spawners. Because some spawning gravels have become armored or compacted with 

sediment and unfit for spawning, a program is needed to rip and clean affected spawning riffles and to 

reconstruct additional riffles where possible.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Shasta and Tehama counties have enacted 

gravel mining ordinances that serve to protect critical spawning areas.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should continue to work with both 

counties in an effort to stop any new gravel extraction permits from being issued for streams supporting 

anadromous fish and to improve existing gravel extraction practices. DFG should also take the lead role in 

implementing spawning gravel rehabilitation where necessary.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Reduction of instream gravel mining and rehabilitation of existing spawning riffles will 

produce long-term benefits to salmon in Cottonwood Creek and protect a valuable gravel source for the 

Sacramento River.

Action 2: Eliminate attraction flows in Crowley Gulch.

Objective: Eliminate mortalities from stranding.

Location: The ACID's waste gate at Crowley Gulch.

Narrative description: The ACID currently releases excess water into Crowley Gulch through a waste gate. 

 Such releases have attracted adult fall-run salmon into a channel with no spawning habitat, which results in 

stranding. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Construction of a barrier at the mouth of 

Crowley Gulch will prevent adult entries and stranding.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: With support from USFWS and DWR, DFG 

should take the lead role in working with the ACID on this action.

Potential obstacles to implementation:
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-19

Predicted benefits: Eliminating adult mortalities at this site will provide additional fall-run spawners to the 

system.

Action 3: Improve land use practices.

Objective: Reduce water temperatures to improve holding, spawning, and rearing habitat and reduce 

siltation and sedimentation of existing spawning gravel.

Location: Mouth to upper end of watershed.

Narrative description: Incompatible land use practices such as overgrazing, road building, timber harvest, 

and development have resulted in watershed degradation. This degradation is believed to have resulted in 

increased water temperatures, siltation, and reduced spawning habitat. Regulatory actions need to be taken 

to control timber harvest, grazing, and road building need to eliminate additional damage to the watershed. 

In addition, active programs need to be implemented to restore riparian vegetation where necessary. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should investigate and work with 

responsible agencies and stakeholders to facilitate watershed protection and restoration.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Increased salmon productivity will result from decreased water temperatures and 

improved spawning areas.

Battle Creek -

Limiting factors and potential solutions - Table 3-Xb-5 lists key limiting factors for chinook 

salmon and steelhead in Battle Creek and potential solutions. 

Hydrogeneration development - The primary factor that limits the potential production of 

anadromous fish above Coleman Powerhouse is stream flow. Bypass flows required by the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) project license at PG&E's diversions are only 3 cfs on North Fork and 5 

cfs on South Fork (Federal Power Commission 1976). Substantially greater flows will be required for 

salmon to reproduce successfully. All PG&E's diversions are unscreened and the effectiveness of the fish 

ladders is unknown. Additionally, the outflow from power generation facilities is generally greater than the 

creek flow. This causes some fish to stray toward the higher flow, and the fish may become stranded in the 

event of a powerhouse shutdown.
3-Xb-20 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

There is biological justification to implement restoration of Battle Creek on a long-term plan that can be 

phased in over 20 years. Because the residual populations of spring-run salmon and steelhead are so small, 

there is no need to immediately increase flows throughout the entire 41-mile stream system. The first phase 

of the project would confine the anadromous fish to a reach of stream that is large enough to meet habitat 

requirements of a growing population, yet small enough to increase spawning success by confining the 

mating pairs to a small enough area where they can find each other. Action 3 describes this initial 

restoration phase and recommended interim flows.

Agricultural diversions- There are two significant agricultural diversions on the main stem 

of Battle Creek: the Orwick and Gover diversions. Only the latter is screened. However, the Gover 

diversion fish screen is located part way down the ditch and prevents only juvenile entrainment. Adults are 

often seen spawning in the canal and are presumed to gain access to the area below the screen by jumping 

over the screen (visual observation, DFG-Redding and USFWS-Coleman National Fish Hatchery (CNFH) 

and Northern Central Valley Fishery Resource Office).

Barriers to migration - Since the construction of CNFH, natural salmon and steelhead fallrun and late fall-run spawning in Battle Creek has for the most part been limited to the 5.7 miles from the 

mouth to the hatchery weir. CNFH personnel have expressed concern that substantial spawning of 

anadromous fish upstream from the hatchery water supply intake could result in disease organisms affecting 

hatchery production. During 1985-1989, as many as 10,000 fall-run spawners surplus to CNFH's eggtaking needs were released into Battle Creek above the hatchery weir to spawn naturally. Because of 

concerns for potential disease problems related to decomposing carcasses in the hatchery water supply, 

which is taken from the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace before the flow returns to Battle Creek, the fish 

ladders on PG&E's two lowermost diversions (Wildcat on the North Fork and Coleman on the South 

Fork) were purposely closed precluding migrations into the middle reaches of those streams.

Large boulders in the Eagle Canyon reach of North Fork Battle Creek create a probable barrier to 

upstream migration of salmon (Payne & Associates 1991a).

Disease control - An additional management consideration with introducing anadromous 

fish into upper Battle Creek is the increased risk of disease in CNFH. It is also possible to reduce disease 

risk to the hatchery by sterilizing the effluent from the large number of aquaculture facilities that discharge fish 

pathogens into upper Battle Creek with a proposed multimillion dollar ozone water treatment system. This 

system will ultimately facilitate reintroduction of anadromous fish into 41 miles of stream. Until then, 

hatchery disease risk can be managed by separating the hatchery water supply from the first 17 miles of 

upper Battle Creek using existing power canals along with some minor modification of the water delivery 

system for the hatchery. This action provides a low-cost interim action, opening up a 17-mile reach of 

stream that can support anadromous fish above the hatchery. 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-21

Table 3-Xb-5. Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead 

in Battle Creek and potential solutions to those problems.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Water flow Increase bypass flows at PG&E diversions to quantities needed to 

provide near-optimum transportation, spawning, and rearing of 

anadromous fish

Upstream passage of adults 1. Allow passage at the CNFH weir

2. Modify the barrier in Eagle Canyon

3. Examine fish ladders at PG&E dams for effectiveness 

particularly during increased flows; modify as necessary

Entrainment 1. Effectively screen Orwick diversion

2. Effectively screen all PG&E diversions within the reach of 

potential anadromous fish distribution

Straying of adults 1. Effectively screen Gover diversion to prevent adult salmon 

from entering the ditch

2. Effectively screen tailrace at Coleman Powerhouse

Potential disease problems at 

Coleman National Fish 

Hatchery

Install water treatment facilities capable of completely removing 

disease organisms from the hatchery water supply. As interim 

solution, install bypass pipe from Coleman Powerhouse Forebay 

to Coleman Powerhouse tailrace channel

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Treatment of CNFH water supply.
3-Xb-22 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Objective: Eliminate the potential for waterborne disease to adversely affect hatchery production.

Location: CNFH.

Narrative description: Personnel from CNFH have expressed concern that decaying carcasses of 

spawned-out chinook salmon upstream from the hatchery water supply intake could release disease 

organisms that might adversely affect hatchery operation. The hatchery water supply treatment should be 

improved so that it will completely remove disease organisms. Funds for sterilization of the hatchery water 

supply are currently appropriated through the USBR. Due to the enormous cost of the project, the 

construction is being accomplished in phases and the project is presently capable of treating only about 25% 

of the hatchery water supply. The final completion date is uncertain. Achieving the benefits of most other 

actions are contingent on complete treatment of the water supply. A lower cost interim solution is to deliver 

disease-free Coleman Canal water to the hatchery by installing a bypass pipe from the Coleman

Powerhouse Forebay to the Coleman Powerhouse Tailrace channel that feeds the hatchery (Rectenwald 

pers. comm., CH2M Hill 1994). This bypass will be used only when the powerhouse is shut down during 

load rejection.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USFWS and the USBR should seek budget 

augmentations or redirection so that the project will be completed in a timely manner.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Funding of the project depends on Congressional appropriations. 

 Attempts to reduce federal budget deficits could delay necessary funding.

Predicted benefits: Providing a disease-free source of water to CNFH will likely increase hatchery survival. 

 Additionally and probably most importantly, implementation of this action will support the endeavor for 

providing fish passage above the CNFH weir. Providing passage at this point will enable fish to gain access 

to approximately 41 miles of stream. This action, in concert with the other proposed actions, would 

increase anadromous fish runs by an estimated 4,500 fall-run, 4,500 late fall-run, 2,500 winter-run, and 

2,500 spring-run chinook salmon and 5,700 steelhead trout. These estimates are based on the amount of 

potential spawning substrate in reaches where different species/races would be expected to spawn (Kondolf 

and Katzel 1991), the amount of substrate required per redd (Reiser and Bjornn 1979), and the 

professional judgment of DFG biologists.

Action 2: Allow passage above CNFH weir.

Objective: Increase available habitat for all salmonid runs and life stages.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-23

Location: CNFH weir.

Narrative description: CNFH operates a weir at RM 5.7 that prevents passage upstream and directs fish 

into the hatchery. Currently, the weir is in operation from July through March. This prevents passage of 

nearly all fall-run and late fall-run chinook salmon and steelhead. Substantial superimposition of fall-run 

redds occurs in years when large numbers of fish return. During extreme high flows, salmon and steelhead 

are able to swim over the weir to spawn upstream (Coots and Healey 1966). In the late 1980s, fall-run fish 

were allowed passage above the CNFH weir when production goals were met. Currently, spring- or 

winter-run chinook salmon that reach the weir from April through June are allowed to pass upstream.

One of the main reasons for denying passage at the weir is to prevent spawned-out carcasses from 

introducing disease organisms into the hatchery water supply. CNFH diverts water from Battle Creek 

above the hatchery weir. Currently CNFH is developing facilities for treating its water supply.

Because CNFH is operated to compensate for blocking spawning grounds upstream from Shasta Dam, any 

partial or seasonal blockage at the CNFH weir for accommodating hatchery operations is an impact of the 

CVP and as such may require mitigation in accordance with Section 3406(b)(I) under "other impacts" of the 

CVP. Avoiding any blockage that interferes with the natural production of Battle Creek will reduce the 

mitigation obligations of the CVP. 

Hankin (1991) determined that it is feasible to maintain both natural production and hatchery production in 

Battle Creek. Once the water treatment facilities are completed, fish should be allowed access to the creek 

above the weir. All spring-run and winter-run fish should be allowed passage. Passage of fall-run and late 

fall-run chinook salmon and steelhead should be evenly distributed throughout the run. The time and 

number of fish to place over the weir should be based on the estimated size of the run returning to the 

hatchery and hatchery production goals. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: This action depends on completion of Action 1.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The action will be implemented by USFWS once 

Action 1 is complete. Action 1 depends on funding to be obtained by the USBR.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Requires funding to complete Action 1.

Predicted benefits: Passage above the weir will provide approximately 41 miles of spawning and rearing 

habitat for chinook salmon and steelhead. Providing access to additional spawning habitat for fall-run will 

likely increase production for Battle Creek because it is believed that available spawning habitat below 

CNFH is utilized at capacity.
3-Xb-24 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

This action, in concert with the other proposed actions, would increase anadromous fish runs by an 

estimated 4,500 fall-run, 4,500 late fall-run, 2,500 winter-run, and 2,500 spring-run chinook salmon and 

5,700 steelhead trout. These estimates are based on the amount of potential spawning substrate in reaches 

where different species and races would be expected to spawn (Kondolf and Katzel 1991), the amount of 

substrate required per redd (Reiser and Bjornn 1979), and the professional judgment of DFG biologists. 

Action 3: Increase bypass flows at PG&E's hydropower diversions.

Objective: Provide streamflow of sufficient quality and quantity to provide adequate holding, spawning, and 

rearing habitat.

Location: All hydropower diversions on North Fork and South Fork Battle Creek.

Narrative description: Many different factors are considered when determining instream flow requirements 

at hydropower diversions, including hydrology, stream temperature, run timing, the relationship between 

streamflow and physical habitat available to fish, and the impact on power generation. Thomas R. Payne 

and Associates (1991a) evaluated the relationship between streamflow and physical habitat available to 

various anadromous fish life-history stages for several reaches of Battle Creek. While the following instream 

flows are subject to revision based on additional analyses, they are offered as an indication of the magnitude 

of flows needed to optimize anadromous fish production:

Diversion Months Flow (cfs)

Keswick All year 30

North Battle Creek feeder September-November 40

January-April 40

May-August 30

Eagle Canyon May-November 30

December-April 50

Wildcat May-November 30

December-April 50

South May-November 20

December-April 30

Inskip May-November 30

December-April 40

Coleman September-April 50

May-August 30

The restoration of anadromous fish in Battle Creek will be implemented in a phased approach. The 

optimum flows listed above will not be required until the population grows to a size sufficient to utilize all the 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-25

available habitat. The initial restoration phase in the 17-mile reach between the Coleman fish barrier and 

Eagle Canyon Dam on the North Fork and Coleman Diversion on the South Fork will require the following 

interim actions:

1) Eagle Canyon Dam - Release 40 cfs from Eagle Canyon Dam from September 1 to April 1 

and 30 cfs the remainder of the year. The source for the release would be all the springs 

diverted into the canal, plus a small amount of surface flow. Close the fish ladder all year.

2) Coleman Diversion - Release 50 cfs from Coleman Diversion from October 1 to February 

1 and 30 cfs for the remainder of the year and close the fish ladder all year.

3) Wildcat Diversion - Close Wildcat Diversion to allow all the spring water to remain in the 

creek and avoid entraining juvenile outmigrants in the power canal.

4) Coleman Forebay - Deliver canal water to the hatchery through a bypass pipe from the 

Coleman Power Plant forebay to the plant=s outlet (tailrace) channel.

The preliminary engineering cost estimate for the pipeline and work on the hatchery delivery system is 

$1,000,000. This interim effort would delay the need to install and operate an expensive ozone water 

treatment plant. This bypass represents a loss of power production with an estimated value ranging from 

$220,000 to $640,000 per year (including the recommended fish water release), depending on the runoff 

and power prices. The value of the fall-run salmon production exceeds $700,000 per year based on the 

commonly accepted median value of $100 dollars per salmon. The spring-run chinook salmon and 

steelhead production would increase the value of this production 3-10 times, based on existing values and 

the value of avoiding future listings under the Endangered Species Act.

This action item and actions 6, 7, and 8 are mostly reasonably the responsibility of PG&E to mitigate the 

adverse impacts of the Battle Creek Project. They will, however, be costly in terms of capital construction 

costs and lost power generation, and PG&E would be expected to resist being saddled with these costs. 

The Battle Creek Project is licensed by FERC (the present license expires July 31, 2026), which has the 

legal authority to order that the needed changes be implemented (Article 44 of the license).

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: All of the other actions are required to gain 

maximum benefit from this action.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, CVRWQCB, USFWS should seek 

PG&E cooperation in providing improved flows and temperatures below project diversions. If such an 

attempt should fail, the agencies should petition FERC to reopen the project license and direct the licensee 

to release the necessary flows.
3-Xb-26 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Potential obstacles to implementation: Requires cooperation on the part of PG&E. Inadequate 

DFG and/or USFWS staff available to pursue and complete the needed regulatory actions.

Predicted benefits: Increased water releases, in combination with Actions 2 and 9, will make available 

approximately 41 miles of spawning and rearing habitat. The recommended flows will provide sufficient 

habitat for achievement of the identified restoration goals. This action, in concert with the other proposed 

actions, would increase anadromous fish runs by an estimated 4,500 fall-run, 4,500 late fall-run, 2,500 

winter-run, and 2,500 spring-run chinook salmon and 5,700 steelhead trout. These estimates are based on 

the amount of potential spawning substrate in reaches where different species/races would be expected to 

spawn (Kondolf and Katzel 1991), the amount of substrate required per redd (Reiser and Bjornn 1979), 

and the professional judgment of DFG biologists. Phasing anadromous fish production into the first 17 miles 

of upper Battle Creek could produce 6,000 fall-run chinook salmon immediately, 1,000 spring-run chinook 

salmon by 2015, 1,000 steelhead by 2015, and reintroduction of a small population of winter-run salmon by 

2015 (Rutter 1901, DFG 1966).

Action 4: Construct rack to prevent adult salmon from entering Gover Diversion.

Objective: Prevent loss of spawning adult fall-run chinook salmon.

Location: Head of Gover Diversion Canal.

Narrative description: The Gover Diversion, creek mile 5.3, is effectively screened part way down the ditch 

to prevent juvenile salmonid entrainment. However, in some years adult fall-run chinook salmon are 

observed in the ditch both above and below the fish screen (DFG, USFWS-CNFH, and Northern Central 

Valley Fishery Resource Office observations). It is believed these fish are able to jump over the fish screen 

or swim up the channels that convey excessive water back to Battle Creek. Fry produced in the ditch are 

presumed lost to diversion. A bar rack with openings not greater than 2 inches located at the head of the 

diversion has been suggested, along with some sort of barrier at the terminus of the waste gates.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG needs to cooperate with the ditch owner 

to develop an effective means to prevent adult salmon from spawning in the channel. DFG's screen shop in 

Red Bluff should investigate the site and develop suitable screening. If screening is not feasible, then DFG 

should discuss other options with the ditch owner such as implementing conservation measures to reduce the 

ditch flow during the spawning period.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Requires the ditch owner's cooperation.

Predicted benefits: Effectively screening this diversion from adult entry to the canal will prevent adult salmon 

from spawning in a location where reproduction will not contribute to population maintenance.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-27

This action, in concert with the other proposed actions, would increase anadromous fish runs by an 

estimated 4,500 fall-run, 4,500 late fall-run, 2,500 winter-run, and 2,500 spring-run chinook salmon and 

5,700 steelhead trout. These estimates are based on the amount of potential spawning substrate in reaches

where different species/races would be expected to spawn (Kondolf and Katzel 1991), the amount of 

substrate required per redd (Reiser and Bjornn 1979), and the professional judgment of DFG biologists.
3-Xb-28 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Action 5: Screen Orwick Diversion.

Objective: Prevent straying of spawning adult fall-run chinook salmon and prevent entrainment of juvenile 

salmonids.

Location: Head of Orwick diversion ditch.

Narrative description: The Orwick diversion, creek mile 7.3, is unscreened and would entrain adult and 

juvenile salmon if passage is afforded at the CNFH weir. DFG has constructed a screen, and it is ready for 

placement. However, it has not been installed because of a lack of cooperation by the land owner. Section 

6021 of the Fish and Game Code requires the owner of a conduit to grant access for the installation and 

maintenance of the required screen.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should pursue compliance with the law 

and complete installation of this screen.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Requires cooperation by the landowner.

Predicted benefits: Effective screening will prevent adult fish from entering the diversion ditch where any 

spawning would not be productive and will ensure that juvenile salmonids are not lost to entrainment. This 

will increase escapement in future years.

This action, in concert with the other proposed actions, would increase anadromous fish runs by an 

estimated 4,500 fall-run, 4,500 late fall-run, 2,500 winter-run, and 2,500 spring-run chinook salmon and 

5,700 steelhead trout. These estimates are based on the amount of potential spawning substrate in reaches 

where different species/races would be expected to spawn (Kondolf and Katzel 1991), the amount of 

substrate required per redd (Reiser and Bjornn 1979), and the professional judgment of DFG biologists.

Action 6: Screen tailrace of Coleman Powerhouse.

Objective: Prevent straying of spawning adult chinook salmon and steelhead.

Location: Outfall of Coleman Powerhouse.

Narrative description: Flows released from Coleman Powerhouse are generally greater than flows in the 

main creek channel above the powerhouse. The tailrace flow attracts upstream-migrating adult salmon 

where there is limited spawning habit and where the fish or the resulting spawn could be dewatered in the 

event of a powerhouse shutdown. This occurs only when fish are allowed to pass the CNFH weir.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-29

DFG has constructed an effective barrier on the outfall of a lateral from Gover ditch (near the Riverview 

Restaurant) that could be used as a model.

This action item, as well as Actions 3, 7, and 8, is most reasonably the responsibility of PG&E to mitigate 

the adverse impacts of the Battle Creek Project. These action will, however, be costly in terms of capital 

construction costs and lost power generation, and PG&E would be expected to resist being saddled with 

these costs. The Battle Creek Project is licensed by FERC (the present license expires July 31, 2026), 

which has the legal authority to order that the needed changes be implemented (Article 44 of the license). 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and USFWS should actively pursue 

development of the needed barrier through administrative or legal action.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Requires cooperation on the part of PG&E. Unavailable 

DFG and/or USFWS staff to pursue and complete the needed regulatory actions.

Predicted benefits: Implementing this action will prevent the loss of adults due to straying and increase the 

production in Battle Creek. This action, in concert with the other proposed actions, would increase 

anadromous fish runs by an estimated 4,500 fall-run, 4,500 late fall-run, 2,500 winter-run, and 2,500 

spring-run chinook salmon and 5,700 steelhead trout. These estimates are based on the amount of potential 

spawning substrate in reaches where different species/races would be expected to spawn (Kondolf and 

Katzel 1991), the amount of substrate required per redd (Reiser and Bjornn 1979]), and the professional 

judgment of DFG biologists. 

Action 7: Construct fish screens at the PG&E diversions.

Objective: Minimize loss of both adult and juvenile salmonids.

Location: All diversions except those upstream from North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion.

Narrative description: PG&E operates six diversions on Battle Creek within the reach of potential 

anadromous fish distribution, none of which are screened. Anadromous fish spawning could be expected to 

occur as far upstream as above North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion (to the Cross Country Canal) on 

North Fork Battle Creek and South Diversion on South Fork Battle Creek. Contingent on obtaining 

necessary flows and providing passage at the CNFH weir, these diversions should be screened to prevent 

the loss of adult and outmigrant salmon and steelhead.
3-Xb-30 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Specific diversions that should be screened are prioritized as follows: 1) Wildcat Diversion, 2) Eagle 

Canyon Diversion (only if barrier described in Action 9 is modified), 3) Coleman Diversion, 4) Inskip 

Diversion, 5) South Diversion, and 6) North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion.

This action item, as well as Actions 3, 6, and 8, is most reasonably the responsibility of PG&E to mitigate 

the adverse impacts of the Battle Creek Project. (See the narrative description for Action 6.)

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Screening is the responsibility of PG&E 

pursuant to Section 5980 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code and Section 18 of the Federal Power Act. 

DFG and USFWS should actively pursue construction of the needed screens.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Requires cooperation on the part of PG&E. Unavailable 

DFG and/or USFWS staff to pursue and complete the needed regulatory actions.

Predicted benefits: Effective screening will prevent loss of juvenile and adult fish to hydropower diversions. 

 This in turn will increase production on Battle Creek.

This action, in concert with the other proposed actions, would increase anadromous fish runs by an 

estimated 4,500 fall-run, 4,500 late fall-run, 2,500 winter-run, and 2,500 spring-run chinook salmon and 

5,700 steelhead trout. These estimates are based on the amount of potential spawning substrate in reaches 

where different species/races would be expected to spawn (Kondolf and Katzel 1991), the amount of 

substrate required per redd (Reiser and Bjornn 1979), and the professional judgment of DFG biologists.

Action 8: Evaluate the effectiveness of fish ladders at PG&E diversions.

Objective: Ensure that fish passage is occurring.

Location: PG&E dams.

Narrative description: All PG&E hydropower diversion dams have fish ladders that are assumed to work. 

However, the effectiveness of these ladders has not been tested. The current ladders were constructed to 

operate with the current bypass flows of 3 cfs (North Fork) and 5 cfs (South Fork). The increased flows 

(Action 3) required to restore anadromous fish production may affect their ability to pass or attract fish 

under the new flow conditions and their effectiveness will need to be assessed. Ladders that are determined 

to have poor or no passage should be modified or replaced. PG&E is responsible for the maintenance and 

operation of the ladders. DFG should monitor passage at the ladders. Ladders needing improvements 

should be fixed based on priority; those with no passage should be fixed first, beginning downstream and 

working upstream. 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-31

This action item, as well as Actions 3, 6 and 7, is most reasonably the responsibility of PG&E to mitigate the 

adverse impacts of the Battle Creek Project. (See the narrative description for Action 6).

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, USFWS, NMFS, and PG&E should 

jointly inspect and evaluate the effectiveness of the ladders.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Assessing the effectiveness of the fish ladders under the new flow regime will aid in 

determining passage problems. Doing this will enable real time action to resolve such problems. Alleviating 

passage problems will ensure utilization of holding, spawning, and rearing habitat for steelhead and for fall-, 

late fall-, winter-, and spring-run chinook salmon. This action, in concert with the other proposed actions, 

would increase anadromous fish runs by an estimated 4,500 fall-run, 4,500 late fall-run, 2,500 winter-run, 

and 2,500 spring-run chinook salmon and 5,700 steelhead trout. These estimates are based on the amount 

of potential spawning substrate in reaches where different species/races would be expected to spawn 

(Kondolf and Katzel 1991), the amount of substrate required per redd (Reiser and Bjornn 1979), and the 

professional judgment of DFG biologists. 

Action 9: Improve fish passage in Eagle Canyon.

Objective: Facilitate movement of adult salmon and steelhead to habitat in north Battle Creek in and above 

upper Eagle Canyon.

Location: Eagle Canyon.

Narrative description: A bedrock ledge and boulders that have fallen from the canyon wall have created a 

probable barrier to upstream migration of anadromous fish through the Eagle Canyon reach of North Fork 

Battle Creek (Payne & Associates 1991a).

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG stream improvement personnel are 

planning to modify this barrier.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.
3-Xb-32 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Predicted benefits: Modification of the barrier will allow access to approximately 8.3 miles of holding, 

spawning, and rearing habitat.

This action, in concert with the other proposed actions, would increase anadromous fish runs by an 

estimated 4,500 fall-run, 4,500 late fall-run, 2,500 winter-run, and 2,500 spring-run chinook salmon and 

5,700 steelhead trout. These estimates are based on the amount of potential spawning substrate in reaches 

where different species/races would be expected to spawn (Kondolf and Katzel 1991), the amount of 

substrate required per redd (Reiser and Bjornn 1979), and the professional judgment of DFG biologists.

Action 10: Examine the feasibility of establishing a spawning population of winter-run chinook salmon.

Objective: Increase the genetic diversity and current habitat of the endangered Sacramento River winterrun chinook salmon.

Location: Above CNFH Weir.

Narrative description: While winter-run are assumed to be extirpated in Battle Creek, an additional 

population that spawns in this stream would increase the possibility of recovery of the species and reduce 

the probability of the race becoming extinct. Presently, the entire spawning population depends on habitat 

conditions in the Sacramento River below Shasta and Keswick dams. During critically dry or consecutively 

dry years, it is unlikely that Shasta Reservoir will be capable of maintaining or providing the necessary cold 

water in the river to support winter-run chinook salmon (about 1 in 10 years). This race of salmon will 

continue to be imperiled by such situations and years of low rainfall and low water storage may delay their 

recovery. Reintroduction of winter-run chinook salmon into the Battle Creek drainage following

implementation of this plan would allow them access to substantial flows in the upper creek. This source of 

water is capable of protecting incubating winter-run chinook salmon eggs and fry during severe drought 

years because of the cool water provided by springs in the drainage.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: All of the other actions are required for this 

action to succeed at the earliest time possible.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: NMFS, USFWS, and DFG, through the 

winter-run recovery team, would direct such an effort. Implementation would be carried out by USFWS.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: A successful reintroduction of winter-run chinook salmon into Battle Creek will likely 

shorten their recovery period and allow delisting earlier than would occur by recovering a single population 

in the Sacramento River. This action, in concert with the other proposed actions, would increase the 

winter-run by an estimated 2,500 fish. This estimate is based on the amount of potential spawning substrate 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-33

in reaches where winter-run salmon would be expected to spawn (Kondolf and Katzel 1991), the amount 

of substrate required per redd (Reiser and Bjornn 1979), and the professional judgment of DFG biologists. 

Paynes Creek -

Limiting factors and potential solutions - Table 3-Xb-6 lists key limiting factors for chinook 

salmon and steelhead in Paynes Creek and potential solutions. Paynes Creek is primarily limited by 

instream flow that is directly related to precipitation. Sixteen seasonal diversions also have some impact on 

flows. Lack of adequate spawning gravel is also a limiting factor, although there are no known gravel 

extraction projects that would have altered natural recruitment.

Table 3-Xb-6. Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead

in Paynes Creek and potential solutions to those problems.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Instream flows 1. Negotiate with diverters to release additional flows at key 

times

2. Purchase water rights or provide alternate source of water

3. Initiate legal action to provide instream flows

Spawning gravel Construct spawning riffles and periodically maintain

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Restore instream flows.

Objective: Provide minimum instream flows to improve spawning, rearing, and migration opportunities.

Location: Mouth to upper end of watershed.

Narrative description: In general, flows in Paynes Creek are most affected by the lack of adequate rainfall. 

 Benefits could be achieved by acquiring additional instream water from the seasonal diverters because 

these are minimal diversions; however, this action, by itself, probably would not significantly improve 
3-Xb-34 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

survival conditions. Paynes Creek is thus likely only an opportunistic resource dependent on natural rainfall 

conditions.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should seek sources of additional water 

from diverters particularly in years with moderately low precipitation.

Potential obstacles to implementation: In years with low precipitation, it is likely that fish would not 

utilize the stream and any additional water supplied by diverters would be insufficient.

Predicted benefits: Consistent and adequate instream flow levels during the early fall and winter should 

provide the necessary conditions for fall-run salmon production increases. Fish population monitoring will 

provide data necessary to define IFIM study requirements and other studies deemed necessary to double 

the populations.

Action 2: Restore spawning gravel.

Objective: Increase spawning potential.

Location: Valley section.

Narrative description: No known gravel extraction projects or major dams have affected the volume or 

availability of natural spawning gravel. Thus, the addition of gravel and creation of riffles would potentially 

increase the productive capability of the creek over historical levels.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should assume the role of coordinating the 

location and placement of additional spawning gravel to enhance the productivity of Paynes Creek.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Improve spawning habitat and theoretically increase production.

Antelope Creek -

Limiting factors and potential solutions - Table 3-Xb-7 lists key limiting factors for chinook 

salmon and steelhead in Antelope Creek and potential solutions. Two diverters, the Edwards Ranch and 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-35

the Los Molinos Water Company, have water rights for 50 and 70 cfs, respectively. Natural flows are 

often less than the combined rights of the two diverters, resulting in a total dewatering of the creek below the 

canyon mouth during critical periods for salmon. The average annual natural flow for 1940-1980, April 

through October, was 92 cfs.

Flows in Antelope Creek at the valley floor often split into three channels. The result of this split during 

spring is often insufficient water to support passage for adult and juvenile migration. No clearly defined 

channel has been identified, although human intervention (water diversions) may partially be the cause of the 

split (Harvey pers. comm.).

Table 3-Xb-7. Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead

in Antelope Creek and potential solutions to those problems.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Agricultural diversions 1. Provide an alternate source of water to Edwards Ranch 

and Los Molinos Mutual Water Company

2. Purchase existing water rights from diverters

3. Initiate legal action to provide instream flows

Flow split Define desired channel and construct flow control structure

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Restore instream flows.

Objective: Provide adequate instream flows to permit safe passage of juvenile and adult salmon at key 

times of the year.

Location: Edwards Ranch and Los Molinos Mutual Water Company diversion dam at the canyon mouth.

Narrative description: During most years, and particularly dry years, flows in Antelope Creek are 

insufficient to allow passage due, in part, to agricultural diversions. More precise volumes necessary for 

passage will be defined in future IFIM studies; however, until then, an estimated interim flow of 50 cfs 

seems reasonable to provide passage (Fisher and Harvey pers. comms.).
3-Xb-36 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Cooperative agreements have been 

implemented on Deer and Mill Creeks to exchange instream flows for groundwater during key times of the 

year. Such agreements could be negotiated with the Antelope Creek water right holders. Required flows 

can also be achieved with: 1) purchase of an existing water right or 2) legal action.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should develop cooperative agreements 

with water right holders to gain access to alternative groundwater for the necessary flows during the critical 

times of the year. USFWS and DWR should support DFG's efforts.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Funding for wells and cooperation from water right holders 

are important to the success of this action.

Predicted benefits: Recovery of the spring-run, fall-run, and late fall-run salmon on a sustainable basis 

requires a consistent minimum guaranteed flow during the key migration periods. It is thus anticipated that 

achieving the specified flows is essential to meeting the specified recovery goals.

Action 2: Create defined stream channel.

Objective: Reduce infiltration losses and maintain flows to the Sacramento River.

Location: Antelope Creek at the canyon mouth.

Narrative description: Passage problems occur at the point where Antelope Creek splits into three different 

channels near the canyon mouth. Because of these split channels, much water is lost to infiltration, 

particularly at key times of the year. Restructuring the streambed for agricultural diversions is thought to 

have caused and is continuing to contribute to the flow splits. If additional flows are gained as the result of 

Action 1, it is important that any increases are not lost to infiltration. Two options are channel

reconfiguration or construction of a permanent flow distribution structure.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should cooperate with property owners 

and DWR to develop a solution. Actions that brought about this problem need to be identified and then 

remedied.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Actions 1 and 2 must both be accomplished with the anticipated benefit that salmon runs 

will return to, or exceed, the baseline production and restoration goals.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-37

Elder Creek -

Limiting factors and potential solutions - Table 3-Xb-8 lists key limiting factors for chinook 

salmon and steelhead in Elder Creek and potential solutions. The Corning Canal siphon, which crosses 

Elder Creek just west of Interstate 5, approximately 4 miles from its mouth, creates a barrier to migrating 

chinook salmon during low to moderate flow conditions. Blocking of adult fall-run chinook salmon by the 

siphon has been observed on several occasions since 1970. Spawning habitat is limited in the lower 

reaches of Elder Creek. Fall flows are inconsistent and the available spawning gravel is heavily silted.

The stream channel has been extensively manipulated with flood control levees and bank erosion control 

projects. The lower stream channel is a Corps flood control project maintained by DWR and Tehama 

County.

Table 3-Xb-8. Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead

in Elder Creek and potential solutions to those problems.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Poor fish passage over Corning Canal 

siphon

Construct a fish passage structure over the Corning 

Canal siphon

Limited and heavily silted spawning 

habitat in lower Elder Creek

Adopt an erosion control ordinance to minimize 

sediment input and carefully plan and coordinate 

flood management activities to integrate fish habitat 

improvements whenever possible

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Construct a fish passage structure over the Corning Canal siphon.

Objective: Improve fish passage for chinook salmon and steelhead.

Location: Corning Canal siphon about 4 miles above the mouth of Elder Creek.

Narrative description: The Corning Canal siphon creates a barrier to migrating chinook salmon and 

steelhead under low to moderate flow conditions (DFG 1993). Because spawning habitat is limited in the 

lower reaches of Elder Creek and spawning gravel available there is heavily silted, this barrier probably has 

a significant impact on chinook salmon production. Construction of a fish passage structure over the siphon 

is estimated to cost about $250,000 (DFG 1993).
3-Xb-38 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None identified.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, with USFWS support and in cooperation 

with the water districts that use the Corning Canal, will take the lead in designing and implementing this 

project.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Before this project can be constructed, an engineering 

feasibility report and environmental documentation are needed to evaluate this proposal and identify any 

alternatives. This work requires funding.

Predicted benefits: Improved fish passage in lower Elder Creek is needed to achieve any significant 

increase in anadromous fish production. No specific estimates of fish numbers are available.

Action 2: Adopt an erosion control ordinance to minimize sediment input into Elder Creek.

Objective: Reduce sediment input into Elder Creek.

Location: Elder Creek.

Narrative description: The stream channel of lower Elder Creek is confined within Corps flood control 

levees and there has been extensive bank erosion. The channel has been extensively manipulated by flood 

and erosion control activities in order to maintain channel capacity. Tehama County should adopt an 

erosion control ordinance to reduce erosion-causing activities and to minimize sediment input. Flood 

management activities should be carefully planned and coordinated with appropriate agencies (DWR, DFG, 

the Corps, the Reclamation Board, and Tehama County Flood Control) to improve the existing fish habitat. 

 Specific fisheries habitat restoration projects can usually be included in flood maintenance operations at little 

additional cost. Because USFWS has recently purchased property near the mouth of Elder Creek, it may 

be possible to undertake fishery habitat restoration work in conjunction with development of the Middle 

Sacramento River Wildlife Refuge.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: With anticipated reductions in state and 

federal funding it is likely that local government and land owners may play a bigger role in flood management 

work, such as removal of invasive vegetation or protection of eroding banks. This could make inclusion of 

fish habitat improvements more difficult.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DWR, DFG, the Corps, the Reclamation 

Board, and Tehama County Flood Control should work together to make the flood management activities in 

Elder Creek more fish friendly. 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-39

Potential obstacles to implementation: Future agency personnel, local government, and land owners 

must be willing to work together to minimize fishery impacts of flood management activities.

Predicted benefits: There is significant potential that improved fishery habitat in lower Elder Creek will 

provide benefits for migrating juvenile salmonids. Maslin and McKinney (1994) found that many minor 

tributaries of the Sacramento River, like Elder Creek, are used as temporary rearing habitat by juvenile 

salmonids, which may or may not have been spawned there. Elder Creek is one of those tributaries for 

which there is anecdotal evidence of historical runs of chinook salmon and steelhead. Elder Creek has few 

fish today but may have high potential for restoration.

Mill Creek -

Limiting factors and potential solutions - Table 3-Xb-9 lists key limiting factors for chinook 

salmon and steelhead in Mill Creek and potential solutions. The most immediate restoration objective is to 

provide unimpaired passage for migrating adults and juveniles in the valley floor reach (DFG 1993). 

Blockage or delays in fish passage are attributed to insufficient flows in April, May, June, and October of 

dry years due to naturally occurring low flows and agricultural diversions. Inadequate fish passage 

conditions occur during high runoff events at Clough Dam and the middle of the three agricultural diversion 

dams on Mill Creek (DFG 1993).

Spawning habitat for fall-run in lower Mill Creek is limited due to a shortage of high-quality gravel. 

Additionally, total spawning habitat is reduced by the three dams.

Although poaching has been identified as a potential problem in the spring-run holding areas, there are no 

specific data as to its impact on Mill Creek. Potential poaching in the upper watershed is being addressed 

by DFG through a focused law-enforcement and education effort.

Residential development near Los Molinos is encroaching on Mill Creek's riparian corridor and has the 

potential, through cumulative impact, to significantly degrade the habitat of the lower creek.

Although the quantity and quality of upstream habitat does not appear to be limiting for the restoration of 

anadromous fish populations at this time, degradation of upstream habitat is evident in some areas. Siltation 

is primarily a problem in upstream spawning and nursery areas between State Highway 36 and Big Bend 

(The Resources Agency 1989). In addition to the erosion of naturally occurring land forms in Lassen 

Volcanic National Park, timber harvesting, grazing, and roads have at times been identified as primary 

sources of stream siltation (The Resources Agency 1989).

Mill Creek is presently closed to fishing on the valley floor. In the anadromous fish sections above the 

canyon mouth, it is open to a catch-and-release trout fishery from April through the middle of November. 
3-Xb-40 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

During 1993, DFG amended its policy of managing a catchable trout fishery within the anadromous sections 

of Mill Creek to its present policy of excluding catchable trout from anadromous sections of the stream.

Table 3-Xb-9. Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead

in Mill Creek and potential solutions to those problems.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Inadequate transportation flows on 

valley floor

Complete agreements presently under negotiation 

with water right holders to leave natural flow in 

stream in exchange for groundwater

Improve passage at Clough Dam Remove Clough Dam and provide owners with an 

alternate means of obtaining irrigation water

Land use impacts in upper watershed 1. Preserve the largely pristine character of the upper 

reaches of Mill Creek through managing the 

watershed, limiting development, and 

discouraging public access to spring-run and 

steelhead holding and spawning areas

2. Complete a comprehensive watershed analysis to 

assess present land use management practices 

and identify needed changes

Armored spawning gravel on valley floor 1. Mechanically rip compacted gravel to improve 

spawning habitat and food producing areas

2. Engineer and construct spawning gravel beds

Degraded habitat on valley floor 1. Work with local government to ensure protective 

zoning or ordinances for the Mill Creek riparian 

corridor

2. Restore riparian vegetation along lower Mill 

Creek

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Improve transportation flows in the valley reach of Mill Creek.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-41

Objective: Ensure that upstream migrating spring-run chinook salmon and downstream migrating juvenile 

spring-run and late fall-run chinook salmon and steelhead can migrate safely through the lower portion of 

Mill Creek. 

Location: Mill Creek below Ward Dam.

Narrative description: Inadequate transportation flows during critical migration periods (April, May, June, 

and after October 15) have largely been alleviated due to negotiated agreements between the Los Molinos 

Mutual Water Company, The Nature Conservancy, water right holders on Mill Creek, and state agencies. 

Central to these agreements are minimum base flow requirements (approximately 25 cfs) and the flexibility 

necessary to adapt management of instream flows to fishery needs as identified by on-the-ground personnel. 

 For example, DFG personnel can request flow pulses or higher base flows (up to the entire creek flow) if 

conditions warrant. The only limitation on providing the additional instream flow is the state's ability to 

replace the fish bypass flows during the irrigation season with groundwater.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Although the existing agreements have been 

successful in meeting critical flow needs, additional flow provided on a voluntary basis through private water 

rights would make the existing program more cost effective and efficient. A study to refine flow needs for 

fish passage is presently being conducted by DFG.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The DWR monitors flow in the creek and 

operates the project wells. DFG monitors fish populations and passage conditions. Continued cooperation 

and flexibility in the Los Molinos Mutual Water Company operations is essential to the success of the 

exchange program.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Participation by agencies and water right holders in 

contractual arrangements for additional instream flows is voluntary and therefore not guaranteed.

Predicted benefits: This project guarantees spring-run chinook salmon access to upper Mill Creek in dry to 

critically dry years when instream flows might otherwise be limiting. Unimpeded upstream passage of 

spring-run will maintain the genetic integrity of this species in Mill Creek. Although the supplemental flows 

are focused on the restoration of the spring-run chinook salmon population, fall-run adults and downstream 

migrant late fall-run chinook salmon and steelhead also benefit.

Action 2: Remove Clough Dam.

Objective: Provide unimpaired passage where an existing structure presently obstructs migrating adults 

under certain flow conditions.
3-Xb-42 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Location: Clough Dam, lower Mill Creek.

Narrative description: At higher flows, the fish ladder on Clough Dam is inadequate and causes significant 

delays for upstream migrants. The Los Molinos Mutual Water Company could provide an alternate source 

of water to replace water diverted at the Clough Dam. Delivery of water from the company's system 

would, however, require the construction of a siphon under Mill Creek. Replacing the dam with a siphon 

would require the cooperation and approval of the dam's owners.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Although a second ladder would help 

alleviate the problem, the preferred alternative is to eliminate Clough Dam altogether. Comprehensive 

watershed management will require integration of existing state and federal land use planning, laws, and 

regulations.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and DWR should work through the newly 

formed Mill Creek conservancy to initiate this project.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Until issues related to the removal of Clough Dam are 

resolved, a second fish ladder on Clough Dam would provide improved passage over a greater range of 

flows than presently exists.

Predicted benefits: Removal of Clough Dam would provide improved passage conditions for all 

anadromous salmonids in Mill Creek. Additionally, removal of the dam could result in the restoration of 

approximately 0.5 mile of fall-run spawning habitat.

Action 3: Protect and restore anadromous salmonid fisheries habitat and preserve the long-term 

productivity of the upper Mill Creek aquatic ecosystem through cooperative watershed management.

Objective: Identification of restoration priorities and protection of Mill Creek's aquatic ecosystem through 

cooperative land use management in the upper watershed.

Location: Mill Creek watershed above the Sacramento Valley floor.

Narrative description: Protection and restoration of the upstream holding, spawning, and rearing habitat for 

spring-run salmon and steelhead will require a cooperative ecosystem management approach. For Mill 

Creek, a comprehensive watershed analysis should first be used to evaluate the quality of anadromous 

fishery habitat and quantify the effect of existing land use practices. This information could then be used to 

assist in setting priorities for improving current habitat conditions and developing alternatives to present land 

use practices that are detrimental to the long-term productivity of Mill Creek's anadromous fish populations. 

 Measures must be taken to improve management practices on state, federal, and private lands. Ecosystem 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-43

management from a watershed perspective is the most promising approach to guiding restoration in the 

watershed and maintaining viable anadromous fishery habitat in upper Mill Creek.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Comprehensive watershed management 

will require integration of existing state and federal land use planning, laws, and regulations.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: To be successful, implementation of ecosystem 

management will require participation of all major landowners in the watershed and all federal and state 

agencies involved with managing resources in the watershed. A Mill Creek Conservancy is being formed 

that could play a large role in this process if it is successful.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Watershed management within the Mill Creek drainage is 

essentially voluntary and therefore will require the cooperation of all major stakeholders. Agreement on a 

common goal to protect anadromous fishery habitat is essential before the process can begin in earnest.

Predicted benefits: A coordinated resource management planning process focused on the protection of 

anadromous fish habitat in the upper watershed will assist in the protection of existing habitat and preserve 

the long-term productivity of the upper Mill Creek aquatic ecosystem.

Action 4: Improve salmon spawning areas in lower Mill Creek.

Objective: Increase available spawning habitat at selected sites in lower Deer Creek to accommodate 

increased runs of fall-run and late fall-run chinook salmon.

Location: Lower 8 miles of Mill Creek.

Narrative description: Some spawning areas in lower Mill Creek are armored with rocks or boulders too 

large for salmon to move. Often these are locked together by sediment. This project would rip compacted 

gravel areas on certain riffles to improve spawning conditions and increase food production. In a few 

selected areas, spawning areas would be engineered and constructed with graded gravel. In some cases, it 

may be desirable to engineer and construct hydraulic controls to decrease velocities so that suitable-sized 

gravel can accumulate.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Continued operation of the water exchange 

program identified in Action 1 will enhance the benefit of this proposed action.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and DWR have cooperated in

constructing similar projects in Mill Creek in the past and should continue to do so in the future.
3-Xb-44 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Potential obstacles to implementation: Because Lower Mill Creek is entirely located on private 

property, the cooperation of local landowners will be required for implementation of this project.

Predicted benefits: This project would provide additional spawning habitat for about 1,500 fall-run or late 

fall-run chinook salmon.

Action 5: Maintain and restore riparian habitat along the lower reaches of Mill Creek.

Objective: Maintain and restore riparian habitat along the lower reaches of Mill Creek to help maintain cool 

water temperatures.

Location: Lower 8 miles of Mill Creek, Tehama County.

Narrative description: The riparian corridor is integral to maintaining the ecological integrity of the lower 

creek system. Local land use planning and regulations need to create a buffer zone between the creek and 

new development. Additionally, state and federal agencies could work with local land owners and land 

owner groups to restore riparian vegetation.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None identified.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: A cooperative effort between the USBR, DFG, 

DWR, and local government has already been instituted that shows promise in defining and implementing a 

riparian buffer zone for lower Mill Creek. The first step, mapping of existing resources, was initiated by 

California State University (CSU), Chico, in spring 1994.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Protection of the lower Mill Creek corridor is largely a 

question of local land use planning, laws, and regulation and therefore is subject to the willingness of local 

government to address this issue.

Predicted benefits: It is impossible to predict specific increases in fishery habitat or fish numbers due to this 

project; however, fish survival should increase to the extent water temperatures are decreased in lower Mill 

Creek and insect drop from streamside vegetation is increased during late spring when downstream migrant 

salmon and steelhead are passing through the area. 

Thomes Creek -

Limiting factors and potential solutions - Table 3-Xb-10 lists key limiting factors for chinook 

salmon in Thomes Creek and potential solutions.

Land use - Timber harvest, overgrazing, and road building cause excessive erosion and 

compaction of the soil. Poor land use practices worsened the effects of the 1964 flood that conveyed 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-45

hundreds of tons of gravel from the head waters to the valley floor (DWR 1982). The flood raised the 

stream bed in the valley and now much of the water below Paskenta flows subsurface, reducing the amount 

available for salmon.

In some areas, gravel mining has caused incision of the stream channel (Gard 1994). The stream channel 

has been incised so greatly as to cause passage problems at the Corning Canal siphon. A similar situation 

may be occurring at the Tehama-Colusa Canal (TCC) siphon and bridge crossings.

Migration barriers (diversions) - Excessive streambed erosion has exposed the Corning 

Canal siphon creating a migration barrier under most flow conditions (Gard 1994). Gravel mining adjacent 

to the siphon is the likely cause.

No major dams exist, but two minor seasonal gravel diversion dams may act as migration barriers; one is 

located in Paskenta and the other near Henleyville. Several small pumps draw water from the creek. These 

may also cause predation problems.

Instream flows- As is typical of westside streams, suitable flows for salmon reproduction 

are occasional at best. Historical records of flows in Thomes Creek reveal that in only 18 of 36 years are 

flows adequate to support salmon spawning (DFG 1961). Today, this probably occurs less due to the 

flood of 1964.

Water diverted from the TCC into Thomes Creek has attracted salmon to the creek to spawn, only to have 

the redds dewatered when diversions ceased (Villa pers. comm.). The TCC was designed with a turnout 

structure to provide water to Thomes Creek for mitigation of the RBDD. Water was delivered to Thomes 

Creek via the TCC but not for fishery purposes.

Water quality - Paskenta township has had concerns over the quality of its drinking water 

and recommends no consumption.

Table 3-Xb-10. Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead in

Thomes Creek and proposed corrective actions.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Land use 1. Modify gravel extraction methods

2. Modify timber harvest practices

3. Modify grazing practices

4. Stabilize areas of high erosion 
3-Xb-46 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Migration barriers 1. Replace Corning Canal siphon

2. Solicit assistance from water diverters 

Instream flow Develop release strategy for the TCC

Water quality Conduct regular water quality monitoring

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Modify gravel mining methods.

Objective: Improve land use practices.

Location: Gravel mining areas.

Narrative description: As a result of gravel mining operations in Thomes Creek, particularly the Red 

Bluff/Valley Rock operation located 500 feet downstream of the Corning Canal siphon and the Thomes 

Creek Rock/Wolf Pit operation located a short distance upstream of Highway 99, the channels have incised 

8-13 feet. Today, the top of the existing Corning canal siphon is 3 feet above the streambed elevation 

(Gard 1994). The exposed culvert is a migration barrier under most flow conditions. Similar effects have 

been noted at other portions of Thomes Creek, with 10 feet of incision at the TCC siphon, and concerns by 

California Department of Transportation about channel incision at bridge crossings. Other problems 

associated with gravel mining include increasing suspended solids, causing passage problems and stranding 

of fish into extraction pits.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: If gravel mining persists in the current 

manner, more structural fixes will be needed in the near future. Therefore, eliminating the causes is essential 

for correcting the fish passage barriers. The Tehama County Planning Commission is currently in the 

process of reviewing and modifying gravel extraction permits in Tehama County. More favorable conditions 

for salmon could be obtained with modified permit regulations.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USFWS and DFG should contact the Tehama 

County Planning Commission and the DWR.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-47

Potential obstacles to implementation: New regulations will likely incur resistance from the gravel 

mining companies.

Predicted benefits: Reform in gravel mining practices will prevent future passage problems, reduce 

entrainment, decrease suspended solids, and keep existing habitat from becoming degraded or lost.

Action 2: Modify timber harvest practices.

Objective: Improve land use practices.

Location: Entire stream.

Narrative description: Erosion caused by timber harvest has caused much damage to the upper watershed 

(DWR 1982). Logging roads are also of concern.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: More favorable timber extraction 

techniques need to be employed to reduce these impacts.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The Mendocino National Forest needs to 

employ the most ecologically sound timber extraction practices and require private timber harvesters to 

employ such methods and to remediate any incurred damages. 

Potential obstacles to implementation: Cooperation of timber harvesters and enforcement by the 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the California Department of Forestry (CDF) are necessary for this action 

to succeed.

Predicted benefits: Reform in timber harvest practices will improve salmon habitat by controlling erosion, 

increasing riparian habitat, and providing food and shelter.

Action 3: Modify grazing practices.

Objective: Improve land use practices.

Location: Entire stream.

Narrative description: The effects of cattle grazing on salmon are well known (Armour et al. 1994). 
3-Xb-48 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Cooperative efforts with the Mendocino 

National Forest would prove beneficial for the improvement of grazing practices on public lands.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Private ranchers in the area should be 

encouraged to utilize the best environmentally sound grazing practices. DFG, with support from USFWS, 

should start discussions with local ranchers and provide necessary budgets to fence out cattle and begin 

restoration actions. Riparian restoration plans may have to be developed for specific ranchers.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The success of this action depends on the cooperation of 

private ranchers.

Predicted benefits: Improved cattle grazing practices will reduce erosion, improve water quality, and 

increase riparian habitat.

Action 4: Stabilize areas of high erosion.

Objective: Reduce impacts of previous land use practices and improve habitat.

Location: Entire stream.

Narrative description: Incompatible land and water use practices (overgrazing, deforestation, road building, 

and gravel mining) in the past have caused serious erosion problems.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Success of this action depends on 

permanent correction and reform of past forest practices described in Actions 1, 2, and 3.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The NRCS, USFS, and CDF should provide 

the expertise to identify and prioritize specific areas that require rehabilitation.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Appropriate funding is required to accomplish this task.

Predicted benefits: Stabilization of areas having high erosion will reduce siltation and sedimentation of 

spawning habitat and holding pools. It will also help maintain the riparian corridor, which moderates water 

temperature and provides food and cover for juveniles.

Action 5: Replace Corning Canal siphon.

Objective: Improve fish passage.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-49

Location: Corning canal crossing (RM 7).

Narrative description: The Corning Canal crossing has been identified as a fish passage problem (Gard 

1994). Incision of the stream channel as a result of gravel mining has exposed the once-buried culverts.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: USFWS's Ecological Services in 

Sacramento recently completed a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report and supports replacing the 

siphon. The USBR is responsible for the funding. The project to replace the siphon is currently underway.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Successful implementation of Action 1 is 

required to stabilize the streambed after the siphon is replaced. 

Potential obstacles to implementation: If gravel mining practices are not improved, similar passage 

problems may evolve.

Predicted benefits: Replacing the Corning Canal siphon will permit fish passage at this point.

Action 6: Minimize diversion barrier usage. 

Objective: Improve fish passage.

Location: Henleyville Diversion, Paskenta Diversion.

Narrative description: Two diversions, one in Paskenta and one in Henleyville, were noted in DFG's 

Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (1993) and may be migration barriers to spring-run chinook salmon 

and steelhead. It is suspected that these are migration barriers and that spring-run chinook salmon utilize the 

stream.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Spring-run and steelhead probably ascend 

the creek only in years with high precipitation, and it is unlikely these dams operate during this time.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and USFWS should encourage diversion 

operators to keep barriers out as long as possible or to allow some method of fish passage and to notify 

DFG if spring-run chinook salmon are observed. Additionally, DFG should monitor the stream for springrun salmon.

Potential obstacles to implementation: It should be noted that these are probably problems only in 

years when adequate precipitation allows spring-run salmon to ascend the creek up to these diversions.
3-Xb-50 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Predicted benefits: Providing passage at these points will aid spring-run and steelhead migration to historical 

spawning grounds.

Action 7: Develop release strategy for the TCC into Thomes Creek.

Objective: Improve instream flows.

Location: Tehama-Colusa Canal crossing.

Narrative description: The TCC has the potential to supply water to Thomes Creek for spawning salmon 

but has not been utilized for this purpose.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: At times water has been supplied to 

Thomes Creek via TCC and has attracted salmon to spawn in the creek (Villa pers. comm.), but this water 

has been turned off in the past and redds were left dewatered and fish stranded.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The USFWS, USBR, and DFG should contact 

the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority to coordinate development of a water release strategy for the TCC into 

Thomes Creek. If water is supplied, a minimum flow should be maintained from October through May to 

ensure survival for all life stages. Until a minimum flow can be determined, 50 cfs should be released. This 

flow is a professional opinion (Ward pers. comm.).

Potential obstacles to implementation: If it is not possible to maintain a minimum flow, no water 

should be released during this time period.

Predicted benefits: Developing a water release strategy at TCC will: 1) provide for water needs of salmon 

and 2) ensure that salmon are not inadvertently drawn upstream to spawn, resulting in stranded juveniles.

Action 8: Conduct regular water quality monitoring.

Objective: Provide suitable water quality.

Location: Entire stream.

Narrative description: Recently, Paskenta township's drinking water source, Thomes Creek, has been 

declared unsafe, suggesting that water quality may not be favorable for salmon.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-51

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DWR or EPA should be contacted to monitor 

the water quality.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Funding for any water quality improvement projects could be 

a limiting factor for success of this action.

Predicted benefits: Monitoring water quality will assist in determining point sources of pollution so that 

remedial actions can be accomplished.

Deer Creek -

Limiting factors and potential solutions - Table 3-Xb-11 lists key limiting factors for chinook 

salmon and steelhead in Deer Creek and potential solutions. Habitat in the upper watershed is relatively 

intact, with numerous holding areas and an abundance of spawning gravel. Some spawning areas in lower 

Deer Creek are lightly armored but could be improved for use by fall-run chinook salmon.

Except for the lack of streamflows on the valley floor below the agricultural diversions, fish habitat 

throughout the drainage is generally of good quality. Water right holders on Deer Creek have recently 

expressed interest in cooperating with DFG to develop alternative water sources and to provide flows to 

meet fishery needs. Water users are concerned about the depleted status of the spring-run chinook salmon 

and are willing to work toward mutually acceptable solutions to restore the fishery. Flows necessary to 

provide unimpaired migration for adult salmon and steelhead are not accurately known but are estimated to 

be about 50 cfs for planning purposes (Harvey pers. comm.). A flow study by DFG is underway to better 

define these needs.

Inadequate flows for upstream passage is the most significant problem on Deer Creek. During low-flow 

periods, flows in Deer Creek below the lower diversion dam are, at times, inadequate for fish to pass 

upstream from the Sacramento River.

Spawning gravel in lower Deer Creek is adequate for present population levels of fall-run salmon. 

However, gravel rehabilitation at selected sites could increase available spawning habitat and would be 

needed in order to double spawning populations.

Protection and restoration of the upstream holding, spawning, and rearing habitat for spring-run salmon and 

steelhead will require a cooperative ecosystem management approach. Participants in a cooperative 

watershed management effort would include state, federal, and county agencies; private land owners; and 

land owner organizations. A comprehensive watershed analysis should be used to evaluate the quality of 

anadromous fishery habitat and quantify the effect of existing land use practices in the Deer Creek 

watershed. Such information could be used to help set priorities for improving current habitat conditions 
3-Xb-52 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

and to develop alternatives to present land use practices that are detrimental to the long-term productivity of 

Deer Creek's anadromous fisheries.

Juvenile spring-run chinook salmon and steelhead need protection from possible predation and competition 

from catchable-sized hatchery rainbow trout stocked in the headwater rearing areas. DFG no longer allows 

stocking of rainbow trout in the upper 3 miles of rearing habitat. Eliminating this planting location and 

shifting the trout allotment to above Upper Deer Creek Falls has alleviated any possible conflict between 

anadromous salmonids and the catchable trout stocking program.

Table 3-Xb-11. Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead

in Deer Creek and potential solutions to those problems.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Inadequate transportation flows Negotiate agreements with water districts and water right 

holders to pump groundwater at state expense in exchange 

for leaving up to 50 cfs of natural flow in stream for fish 

migration

Potential land use impacts in upper 

watershed

1. Preserve the largely pristine character of Deer Creek 

through cooperative managing the watershed, limiting 

development, and discouraging public access to

spring-run and steelhead holding and spawning areas

2. Complete a comprehensive watershed analysis to 

assess present land use management practices and 

identity needed changes

Armored spawning gravel 1. Mechanically rip compacted gravel to improve

spawning habitat and food-producing areas

2. Engineer and construct spawning areas with graded 

gravel

High temperatures Negotiate land use agreements with Deer Creek

Conservancy to protect existing riparian vegetation along 

lower Deer Creek and develop programs to restore

riparian vegetation

Flood management activity Plan and coordinate flood management activities carefully 

with appropriate agencies to integrate fish habitat
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-53

Limiting factors Potential solutions

improvements whenever possible

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Improve transportation flows in the valley reach of Deer Creek.

Objective: Provide improved flows in the lower 10 mines of Deer Creek to ensure that upstream and downstream migrating juvenile spring-run and fall-run chinook salmon and steelhead can pass over three diversion 

dams. 

Location: Valley reach of Deer Creek.

Narrative description: In dry years, water right holders may divert nearly the entire flow of Deer Creek 

during the critical migration period of May to early June. As a result, upstream migration of adult spring-run 

chinook salmon and downstream migration of juvenile salmon and steelhead can be impeded or entirely 

blocked. If low flows persist in the creek, water temperatures quickly exceed the tolerance range for these 

species. Supplemental flows will help restore the population of wild spring-run chinook salmon by allowing 

migrating adults to reach their spawning habitat and by providing transportation flows for the juvenile salmon 

and steelhead migrating to the Sacramento River.

An agreement, or agreements, will be completed between Deer Creek Irrigation District (DCID), StanfordVina Irrigation Company (SVIC), DFG, and DWR. Under the agreements, natural flow that would 

otherwise be diverted for irrigation would be left in the creek when requested by DFG to aid fish passage 

during critical migration periods. The DCID diversions would be replaced by groundwater. SVIC would 

replace diversions partially with groundwater and partially with improvements to its distribution facilities. Up 

to five wells would be built or refurbished in DCID, and SVIC would build an unspecified number of wells 

and line some of its canals. Stream hydrology suggests that supplemental flows would be needed about 

every 3 years.

Agreements to operate this project would be formalized under a long-term (minimum 15-year) contract. 

The agreements would guarantee the state certain stream flows, on request, but would not modify the water 

rights of the individuals or agencies. Pumping payment rates and other contract conditions could be 

renegotiated at the end of the contract, which could extend the agreements indefinitely.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Although the existing agreements have been 

successful in meeting critical flow needs, additional flow provided on a voluntary basis through private water 
3-Xb-54 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

rights would make the existing program more effective. A study to refine flow needs for fish passage is 

presently being conducted by DFG.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The DWR monitors flow in the creek. DFG 

monitors fish populations and fish passage conditions. Continued cooperation and flexibility in the 

operations of DCID and SVIC is essential to the success of the diversions-to-wells exchange program.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Participation by agencies and water right holders in 

contractual arrangements for additional instream flows is voluntary and therefore not guaranteed.

Predicted benefits: By ensuring access during dry and critically dry years, this action would guarantee 

spring-run chinook salmon access to about 38 miles of suitable holding, spawning, and rearing habitat every 

year. Spawning populations of spring-run chinook salmon have declined 90% over the past three decades. 

 Although it is recognized that transportation flows in dry years is only one of many factors that have 

reduced this population, this action will remove a major uncertainty in the restoration of spring-run salmon in 

Deer Creek.

Providing adequate transportation flows during spring of dry years would primarily benefit upstream 

migrating adult spring-run salmon; however, downstream migrant spring- and fall-run chinook salmon and 

steelhead would also benefit from these flows. The juvenile salmon and trout must be out of Deer Creek by 

late April or May during dry years to avoid elevated temperatures resulting from low flows.

Although this project is primarily focused on spring-run salmon, flow augmentation in fall of dry years to 

benefit out-migrating salmon and steelhead smolts would also benefit adult fall-run salmon. Thus, this 

project provides the potential to improve migration and spawning flows for fall-run adults after October 1 

and to increase survival of downstream migrant yearling spring-run salmon and steelhead.

Action 2: Protect and restore chinook salmon and steelhead habitat and preserve the long-term 

productivity of the upper Deer Creek aquatic ecosystem through cooperative watershed management.

Objective: Reduce the effects of land use practices.

Location: Deer Creek watershed above the Sacramento Valley floor.

Narrative description: Protection and restoration of the upstream holding, spawning, and rearing habitat for 

spring-run salmon and steelhead will require a cooperative ecosystem management approach. For Deer 

Creek, a comprehensive watershed analysis should first be used to evaluate the quality of anadromous 

fishery habitat and quantify the effect of existing land use practices. This information could then be used to 

assist in setting priorities for improving current habitat conditions and developing alternatives to present land 

use practices that are detrimental to the long-term productivity of Deer Creek's anadromous fisheries. 

Measures must be taken to improve management practices on state, federal, and private lands. Ecosystem 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-55

management taken from a watershed perspective is the most promising approach to guiding restoration in 

the watershed and maintaining viable anadromous fishery habitat in upper Deer Creek. To be successful, 

implementation of ecosystem management will require participation of all major land owners in the 

watershed and all federal and state agencies involved with managing resources in the watershed.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Comprehensive watershed management 

will require integration of existing state and federal land use planning, laws, and regulations.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: To be successful, implementation of ecosystem 

management will require participation of all major land owners in the watershed and all federal and state 

agencies involved with managing resources in the watershed. A Deer Creek Conservancy is being formed 

that could play a large role in this process if it is successful

Potential obstacles to implementation: Watershed management within the Deer Creek drainage is 

essentially voluntary and therefore will require the cooperation of all major stakeholders. Agreement on a 

common goal to protect anadromous fishery habitat is essential before the process can begin in earnest.

Predicted benefits: A coordinated resource management planning process focused on the protection of 

anadromous fishery habitat in the upper watershed will assist in the protection of existing habitat and 

preserve the long-term productivity of the upper Deer Creek aquatic ecosystem.

Action 3: Improve salmon spawning areas in lower Deer Creek.

Objective: To increase available spawning habitat at selected sites in lower Deer Creek to accommodate 

increased runs of fall-run and possibly late fall-run chinook salmon.

Location: Lower 10 miles of Deer Creek.

Narrative description: Some spawning areas in lower Deer Creek are armored with rocks or boulders too 

large for salmon to move. Often these have become locked together by sediment. This action proposes to 

rip compacted gravel areas on certain riffles to improve spawning conditions and increase food production. 

In a few selected areas, spawning areas would be engineered and constructed with graded gravel. In some 

cases, it may be desirable to engineer and construct hydraulic controls to decrease velocities so that 

suitable-sized gravel can accumulate. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Continued operation of the water exchange 

program identified in Action 1 will enhance the benefit of this proposed action.
3-Xb-56 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and DWR have cooperated in

constructing similar projects in Mill Creek and should be able to continue to do so on Deer Creek projects.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Lower Deer Creek is almost entirely located on private 

property, and therefore the cooperation of local land owners will be required for implementation of this 

project.

Predicted benefits: This project would provide additional spawning habitat for about 1,500 fall-run chinook 

salmon.

Action 4: Maintain and restore riparian habitat along lower reaches of Deer Creek.

Objective: To maintain and restore riparian habitat along lower reaches of Deer Creek to help maintain low 

water temperatures.

Location: Lower 10 miles of Deer Creek, Tehama County.

Narrative description: Negotiate long-term agreements with the Deer Creek Conservancy and other land 

owners to protect existing riparian vegetation along lower Deer Creek and develop programs to restore 

riparian vegetation.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None identified.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: A cooperative effort between the USBR, DFG, 

DWR, and local government has already been instituted that shows promise in defining and implementing a 

riparian buffer zone for lower Deer Creek. The first step, mapping of existing resources, was initiated by 

CSU, Chico in spring 1994.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Protection of the lower Deer Creek corridor is largely a 

question of local land use planning, laws, and regulation and therefore is subject to the willingness of local 

government to address this issue.

Predicted benefits: It is difficult to predict quantifiable increases in fishery habitat or fish numbers due to this 

project. However, fish survival should increase if water temperatures are decreased in lower Deer Creek 

and insect drop from streamside vegetation is increased during fall and late spring when downstream migrant 

salmon and steelhead are passing through the area. 

Action 5: Conduct flood management activities.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-57

Objective: Carry out required flood management activities with minimal damage to the fishery resources and 

riparian habitat of lower Deer Creek.

Location: Lower 5 miles of Deer Creek, Tehama County.

Narrative description: The objective of this action is to plan and coordinate flood management activities 

carefully with appropriate agencies (DWR, DFG, the Corps, the Reclamation Board, and Tehama County 

Flood Control) to protect existing fish habitat and to integrate fish habitat improvements whenever possible. 

 DWR is responsible for maintaining flood channel capacity in the valley portion of Deer Creek, which is a 

leveed flood control project of the Corps. Salmon spawning areas in the lower 5 miles of Deer Creek have 

been damaged by flood control maintenance activities, when spawning gravel was removed from the stream 

channel to increase capacity and when spawning riffles were compacted by heavy equipment or simply 

covered by soil, sand, or silt. In some cases, the stream channel was leveled during this process so that no 

low-flow channel remained. This made upstream migration by adult salmon difficult or impossible.

More recent DWR flood management activities on lower Deer Creek have successfully increased channel 

capacity and repaired levee damage, while maintaining a low-flow channel to permit fish passage. Large 

boulders and stumps were placed to create scour holes and provide resting habitat. Compacted gravel 

areas on spawning riffles were ripped to improve spawning habitat. A boulder weir was placed across the 

channel immediately downstream of the Stanford-Vina Dam to restrict flow and raise the water surface 

about 2 feet. This caused a more favorable water surface elevation at the entrance to the two fish ladders. 

Specific fisheries habitat restoration or enhancement projects can usually be completed during flood 

maintenance operations at little additional cost. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: With anticipated reductions in state and 

federal budgets, local government and land owners may plan a larger role in future flood management 

activities, such as limited removal of invasive vegetation or protection of eroding banks on private property. 

This could make inclusion of fish habitat improvements more difficult. DFG and other agencies should 

work with local land owners to exclude cattle from the creek channel, especially in important spawning and 

rearing areas. This will help to maintain the integrity of stream banks as well as protect fish habitat.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DWR, DFG, the Corps, the Reclamation 

Board, and Tehama County should continue to work together to make flood management projects more 

fish friendly.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Future agency personnel, local government, and land owners 

must be willing to work together to minimize fishery impacts of flood management activities.

Predicted benefits: It is impossible to predict specific increases in fisheries habitat or increased numbers of 

fish due to this project; however, if we can reduce damages due to flood maintenance activities, and 
3-Xb-58 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

perhaps actually increase fishery habitat by these activities, this will contribute measurably to the overall goal 

of doubling anadromous fish populations in Deer Creek.

Stony Creek -

Limiting factors and potential solutions - Table 3-Xb-12 lists key limiting factors for chinook 

salmon in Stony Creek and potential solutions.

Table 3-Xb-12. Key limiting factors for chinook salmon in Stony

Creek and potential solutions to those problems.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Stream channel blocked at the GCID's canal 

intersection

Install siphon under Stony Creek at 

intersection

Insufficient water flow for all life stages 1. Adjust management of Black Butte 

Reservoir

2. Positive operation of the constant head 

orifice at TCC

3. Reduce diversions

4. Conduct IFIM

Poor spawning habitat 1. Modify gravel extraction permits

2. Add spawning sized gravel

3. Excavate distinct stream channel

High water temperatures for all life stages 1. Excavate discrete stream channel

2. Develop riparian canopy

Entrainment of fish and reduction of instream 

flow at the constant head orifice

1. Terminate reverse operation

2. Develop replacement sources of water

Insufficient riparian habitat Develop a plan to establish riparian corridor
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-59

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Potential passage and entrainment at North 

Diversion Dam

Correct problems associated with fish passage 

and entrainment

Questionable water quality Conduct water quality monitoring

Migration barriers

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (RM 3) - Major challenges for Stony Creek 

restoration are fish passage and water flow enhancement at its intersection with the Glenn-Colusa Canal. 

During the irrigation season, the GCID constructs a gravel levee across Stony Creek at RM 3 as part of the 

eastern sidewall of the canal. The barrier is usually in place from April through November. It is removed 

during winter to allow potential high flows to pass down Stony Creek to the Sacramento River. In past 

years, the barrier has been in place year round, preventing flow to the Sacramento River and hence 

precluding the movement of salmon into the creek. After the levee is constructed, juvenile salmon that have 

moved from the Sacramento River into Stony Creek for rearing become stranded in residual pools below 

the levee or are entrained into the canal above the levee. In spring 1994, the temporary levee was erected 

in late February and an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 juvenile salmon were left stranded in the creek (Maslin 

and McKinney 1994). Adult chinook salmon were observed spawning in Stony Creek only once, in 1982, 

since the GCID's levee has been in place (Reavis 1983). That was in a year with early and above-normal 

precipitation, when passage at the levee was possible.

Tehama-Colusa Canal (RM 12) - Temporary passage problems may be occurring 

when water is diverted from Stony Creek to the TCC. During 1992 and 1993, a temporary gravel training 

dike and diversion dam were created across Stony Creek so that water could be diverted into the TCC 

(Brown 1994). This causes fish passage problems and reduces flow downstream. Brown (1994) 

documented resident and outmigrating fish were entrained by this diversion.

The TCC is equipped with a siphon under Stony Creek. Stony Creek water is diverted into the TCC via 

reverse operation of a constant head orifice. The original purpose of this diversion was to provide water 

from the TCC to Stony Creek to enhance salmon production as partial mitigation for operation of the 

RBDD. It is ironic that the constant head orifice is now used to divert Stony Creek water into the TCC. 

TCC demand for Stony Creek water occurs in spring and fall and is a result of the recent change in 

operation of the RBDD to facilitate fish passage on the Sacramento River. The gates-closed period for the 

RBDD has been shortened to 4 months, leaving unmet irrigation demand both before and after.

The USBR has applied for a permanent diversion permit for this site. California Sport Fishing Alliance 

(CalSPA) filed a protest to this application. As a result of negotiations, CalSPA agreed to withdraw its 
3-Xb-60 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

protest if the USBR met certain conditions. Among these the USBR commitments is the formation of a task 

force, technical team, and work plan for development of a long-term fish, wildlife, and water use 

management plan for Stony Creek. The creation of the task force could be a pivotal event in the restoration 

of Stony Creek.

North Diversion Dam (RM 18) - Potential fish passage problems may occur at the 

Orland Unit Water Users Association's North Diversion Dam. No fish passage facilities exist at this 

structure. In a study conducted in 1981-1982, 30+ salmon and redds were observed downstream of the 

dam, suggesting passage problems (Reavis 1983). Nick Villa (pers. comm.) reports that the North 

Diversion Dam is a migration barrier under most flow conditions.

Black Butte Dam (RM 24) - Built for flood control in 1967, Black Butte Dam has 

no provision for fish passage. Secondary uses of Black Butte Reservoir include recreation and water 

storage for the Orland Unit Water Users Association and the CVP.

Stony Gorge Dam (RM 45) - Stony Gorge Dam, located 45 miles upstream from 

the Sacramento River confluence, was built with no fish passage facilities. The dam supports irrigation 

needs of the Orland Unit Water Users Association. Prior to the closing of Stony Gorge Dam, Stony Creek 

supported "very good" populations of chinook salmon (Clark 1929). Subsequently, the native runs have 

become extinct. Most of Stony Creek's historical salmon spawning most likely occurred upstream of RM 

45.

East Park Dam (RM 63) - East Park Dam is located on Little Stony Creek, 18 

miles upstream of Stony Gorge Dam, and has no fish passage structures. Investigations by Kondolf and 

Swanson (1993) indicate that much of the gravel recruitment to Stony Creek originated from Little Stony 

Creek.

Instream flow - Ideally, all diversions would be eliminated, allowing the stream to return to 

a natural state. However, this scenario would be difficult to achieve both politically and economically. It is 

felt that Stony Creek could contribute to doubling salmon in the Sacramento River system without removal 

of all dams or diversions. Contributions can be achieved below Black Butte Dam. Regulating water 

releases from Black Butte Dam and the Tehama-Colusa Canal will aid in ascertaining escapement goals.

Considering the artificial nature of the stream below Black Butte Dam, utilization of this structure to enhance 

the remaining habitat is of utmost importance. A need exists to develop a water release schedule for Black 

Butte Dam to benefit salmonids, while not infringing on flood control capabilities. Stony Creek would also 

benefit from supplemental releases from the TCC, and a water release delivery schedule would need to be 

developed for that structure. Releases need to provide suitable flows for attraction, migration, spawning, 

incubation, rearing, and outmigration, while ensuring that fish or redds are not left stranded. An IFIM study 

should be conducted to determine the best flows.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-61

Spawning habitat - Limited usable spawning gravel exists in Stony Creek. The Black 

Butte Dam precludes the recruitment of gravel to lower Stony Creek, and what remains is being removed or 

embedded by gravel mining operations. Based on surveys of Stony Creek in the past (Puckett 1969) and 

more recent informal ones by the USFWS, gravel for spawning is considered very poor but still usable. 

Additions of spawning-sized gravel to Stony Creek and improvement of gravel mining operations would 

benefit salmon production.

The creation of a discrete channel below Black Butte Dam would provide the best use of the available 

water. Historically, the portion of Stony Creek below RM 24 was broad, shallow, and braided (Kondolf 

and Swanson 1993) and probably did not support salmon spawning consistently. Black Butte Dam now 

blocks passage to the higher elevations, but it can also provide cooler water and damping of flow extremes 

to the downstream portion of Stony Creek and thus provide some salmonid habitat. Given time, the proper 

flow regime will, by itself, create and maintain an appropriate channel; however, this process can be greatly 

accelerated by the design and excavation of a creek channel.

A single creek channel would alleviate passage problems at various flows; increase water velocity as needed 

for attraction, spawning, incubation, rearing and emigration; reduce water temperatures; and aid in

establishing a riparian corridor.

Diversions

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District - Potential entrainment of juvenile salmon behind 

the GCID's levee exists, particularly in wet years. When sufficient creek flows exist, salmonids move up 

from the Sacramento River to rear in Stony Creek and can be found up to the GCID's canal crossing. 

Juvenile salmonids become entrained when closing of the levee occurs before they emigrate.

Tehama-Colusa Canal - Resident and outmigrating fish are entrained into the TCC 

when flows are diverted (Brown 1994). Potential for entrainment exists if salmon spawning were to occur 

above this point.

North Diversion Dam - Salmon have not been observed above the North 

Diversion Dam in recent years, so entrainment is unlikely at this time. However, if passage issues are 

resolved, the potential for entrainment then becomes an issue because this diversion is not screened.

Riparian habitat - Many areas are nearly devoid of riparian vegetation, especially near 

gravel mining operations. This is apparent at the Highway 32 bridge. In some areas, orchards grow up to 

the stream margins and cows graze at the stream bank. Some eroded banks have been riprapped. A 

riparian canopy and streamside vegetation would reduce water temperatures, lower sedimentation, and 

provide terrestrial insects as an additional food source for juveniles.
3-Xb-62 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Water temperature - High water temperature is a potential limiting factor in Stony Creek 

for all life stages. Human influence on water temperature should be controlled or minimized to benefit 

anadromous fish. Human-related activities have reduced the riparian canopy and its associated thermal 

benefits. Additionally, impoundment of water behind reservoirs elevates water temperature. Reestablishment of a riparian corridor and lower level releases of water from reservoirs will assist in moderating water 

temperatures.

Water quality - Other factors that limit salmonid spawning and survival include high 

turbidity, agricultural chemicals run-off, low oxygen levels, and otherwise poor water quality. These issues 

need further investigation.

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Install siphon under Stony Creek for GCID's canal.

Objective: Provide all life stages of fish passage, and prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids.

Location: GCID's canal (RM 3).

Narrative description: A major challenge for the restoration of Stony Creek is passage of fish and water 

flow through the Glenn-Colusa Canal. During the irrigation season, the GCID constructs a gravel levee 

across Stony Creek at RM 3 as the eastern sidewall of the canal. The barrier is usually in place from April 

through November. It is removed during the month. In past years, the barrier has been in place year round, 

preventing flow to the Sacramento River and hence precluding the movement of salmon into the creek. 

After the levee is constructed, non-natal juvenile salmon that move from the Sacramento River into Stony 

Creek for rearing become stranded if caught below the levee or entrained to the GCID's canal if above the 

levee. In spring 1994, the gravel levee was erected in late February and an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 

juvenile salmon were left stranded in the creek (Maslin and McKinney 1994). Since the GCID's levee has 

been in place, adult chinook salmon were observed spawning in Stony Creek only once, in 1982. That was 

in a year with early and above-normal precipitation, making passage at the levee possible.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None. 

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should work with GCID to construct a 

siphon under Stony Creek. The construction of a siphon, including associated structures, is estimated to 

cost $3.4 million (CH2M Hill 1994). GCID is supportive and desires to pursue this option (Clark pers. 

comm.).

Potential obstacles to implementation: If funding is not provided, this action may not be possible.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-63

Predicted benefits: Restoration of Stony Creek will not occur without resolution of fish passage and 

necessary flow releases at the GCID's canal. The success of all other recommendations depends on 

resolving these two major issues. If they are not resolved, a salmon run cannot be re-established in Stony 

Creek. In 1982, when fish and water had passage at GCID, 393 adult salmon were estimated to spawn in 

Stony Creek (Reavis 1983). Potentially 24 miles of salmonid habitat would become available if passage is 

allowed at this structure.

Action 2: Develop water management release strategy for Black Butte Dam.

Objective: Provide adequate water flows.

Location: Black Butte Dam (RM 24).

Narrative description: Built for flood control in 1967, Black Butte Dam does not include provision for fish 

passage. Secondary uses of Black Butte Reservoir include recreation and water storage for the Orland Unit 

Water Users Association. Black Butte Dam blocks access to historical spawning habitat for chinook 

salmon and steelhead in Stony Creek. Consequently, the only potential anadromous fish habitat is now 

below the dam. The Corps manages Black Butte Reservoir for flood control. Flood peaks have been 

reduced to a fraction of pre-dam values (from 70% for Q2 to 25% for Q50) (Kondolf and Swanson 

1993).

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Even though there has been a reduction in 

peak flow and the duration of flow has increased, releases could potentially have a negative effect on 

salmon. Prolonged flows at sufficient discharge could attract salmon to migrate up Stony Creek, only to be 

left stranded when the water is "turned off". Similar situations could occur at any life stage. An IFIM study 

should be initiated after implementation of provisional salmon restoration flows.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and USFWS must work with the Corps to 

better manage water releases from Black Butte Dam for salmonids. Historically, an average of

approximately 50,000 af is released from Black Butte Reservoir from October to May of each year 

(Yaworsky pers. comm.). These releases could provide an average daily release of, at least, 150 cfs with 

higher spikes serving as migration cues. Professional opinions of the staff at the USFWS's Northern Central 

Valley Fishery Resource Office recommend a daily average of 150 cfs as sufficient flow for attraction, 

migration, spawning, incubation, rearing, and outmigration. The October to May dates coincide with fall-run 

and late fall-run salmon spawning and rearing.

Water releases from Black Butte Dam need to be coordinated with those from Stony Gorge and East Park 

Reservoir.
3-Xb-64 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Potential obstacles to implementation: There should be no major obstacles to implementing this 

action.

Predicted benefits: A sufficient and timely flow of water in Stony Creek should encourage salmon to utilize 

the stream for spawning through outmigration. Up to 24 miles of spawning and rearing habitat could be 

made available.

Action 3: Develop water management strategy for TCC releases.

Objective: Provide adequate water flows.

Location: Tehama-Colusa Canal (RM 12).

Narrative description: Water for Stony Creek could be supplied via the TCC. The TCC was built with a 

turnout to provide water to Stony Creek for mitigation of fish loss caused by the RBDD (USFWS 1967). 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Mitigation for the RBDD was to provide 

water to Stony Creek via TCC, at a minimum of 100 cfs per day and up to 500 cfs per day (USFWS 

1967); this mitigation commitment has not been met. On occasion, water has been supplied to Stony Creek 

via the TCC (Kelly pers. comm.), but it was never intended to benefit anadromous fish in Stony Creek. 

The amount and timing of release would depend on those releases from Black Butte Dam.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should work with the USBR to develop 

trades or transfers of TCC water that could be made in an effort to obtain water higher up in the system 

(i.e., Black Butte Dam).

Potential obstacles to implementation: There should be no major obstacles to implementing this 

action.

Predicted benefits: Twelve miles of potential spawning habitat could be made available, providing habitat 

for many additional spawners.

Action 4: Modify gravel extraction permits.

Objective: Provide suitable spawning habitat.

Location: Entire stream.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-65

Narrative description: Gravel mining should cease in Stony Creek. Black Butte Dam precludes the 

recruitment of new gravel, and mining is removing residual gravel.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Mining within the creek should be 

restricted to May through October, a time when salmon are less likely to be present in the stream. Access 

would be limited to only a few sites in order to protect the riparian habitat. Permits could be modified with 

provisions that ensure that gravel from 1 to 6 inches in diameter is left in the stream.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Other sources of gravel for the current mining 

operations should be sought. Kondolf and Swanson (1993) identified gravel sources in the immediate area. 

 Other potential gravel sources include the heads of reservoirs on Stony Creek or mining laterally to the 

creek channel. Mining permits could be purchased from extraction companies, or companies could be 

assisted in relocating operations. Discharge of fine sediments should be regulated with assistance from the 

Corps.

Potential obstacles to implementation: DFG should work with the permitting agency for gravel 

removal, the Glenn County Planning Commission, to complete preparation of a management plan for gravel 

mining aimed at reducing impacts on fish.

Predicted benefits: Reformed gravel mining activities will help to ensure that spawning-sized gravel remains 

in the stream, sedimentation of existing gravel is reduced, riparian habitat is protected, and moderate water 

temperatures are attained.

Action 5: Add spawning gravel to the Stony Creek.

Objective: Provide suitable spawning habitat.

Location: Below North Diversion Dam (RM 18), below TCC (RM 12), or other.

Narrative description: Suitable spawning habitat for salmon is lacking in Stony Creek. Black Butte Dam 

prevents recruitment of new gravel, and mining companies are removing or embedding the existing spawning 

gravel. Because of this, spawning-sized gravel needs to be placed in the creek. Placement of gravel below 

the North Diversion Dam is selected because passage at this dam is questionable and any gravel placed 

above the North Diversion Dam could eventually settle into the reservoir. The last evidence of spawning 

salmon in the creek was just below the diversion dam, suggesting potential for successful spawning (Reavis 

1983). Another option for the placement of gravel is below the TCC. This site is selected because in years 

that Black Butte Reservoir is unable to supply a sufficient amount of water, diversions could be made from 

the TCC.
3-Xb-66 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should work with the Glenn County 

Planning Commission. Permits could be modified to require mines located on the creek to leave gravel of 

1-6 inches in the river or provide gravel for reintroduction to the streambeds.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The success of this action depends on the success of Action 

4, modifying or eliminating gravel mining in the streambed.

Predicted benefits: Providing spawning-size gravel should increase the usable spawning area and increase 

the survival of eggs produced in this stream.

Action 6: Develop a distinct creek channel.

Objective: Provide suitable spawning habitat.

Location: From Black Butte Dam downstream.

Narrative description: The creation of a distinct creek channel below Black Butte Dam would provide the 

best use of the available water for spawning chinook salmon. Historically, the portion of Stony Creek 

below Black Butte Dam was fanlike, shallow, and braided (Kondolf and Swanson 1993) and probably did 

not support spawning salmon. With appropriate management of the reservoirs now extant on Stony Creek, 

this reach could provide spawning and rearing habitat for fall-run and perhaps late fall-run chinook salmon.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: A distinct creek channel would alleviate 

passage problems at various flows. Increased water velocities are needed for attraction, migration, 

incubation, rearing, and outmigration; regulated lower water temperatures are necessary; and the 

establishment of a riparian corridor is required. Well-defined creek channels exist below Black Butte Dam 

and in the area of the Highway 32 bridge resulting from the effects of the dam and gravel mining, 

respectively (Kondolf and Swanson 1993). Nonnatal rearing habitat occurs in the lower 3 miles of the 

creek (Maslin and McKinney 1994, Brown 1994), and care should be taken to avoid negatively affecting 

this function.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and USFWS and other appropriate 

agencies need to coordinate and fund channel restoration. It is an established technology (Rosgen 1991). It 

would require substantial excavation and revegetation activity within the existing streambed.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Funding, coordination, and cooperation between key 

organizations and land owners are important to the success of this action.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-67

Predicted benefits: Some of the benefits in developing a distinct creek channel include alleviating some 

passage problems, moderating water temperatures, enhancing the riparian corridor, sorting substrate, and 

cleaning gravels.

Action 7: Develop plan to establish riparian corridor.

Objective: Provide suitable water temperature.

Location: From Black Butte Dam to mouth.

Narrative description: A riparian corridor of native vegetation needs to be established. Because of gravel 

mining operations, many areas along the stream are nearly devoid of riparian vegetation. This is apparent at 

the Highway 32 bridge. Exotic plant species such as false bamboo have taken over many disturbed areas. 

In other areas, orchards grow up to the stream margins and cows graze at the stream bank. Eroded banks 

have been stabilized with riprap. A riparian canopy would help moderate water temperature, control 

erosion, and increase terrestrial insects for juvenile salmonids. A healthy riparian corridor will also provide 

diverse habitat and help maintain lower water temperatures. A plan needs to be developed for the 

establishment of a riparian corridor. Included in the plan should be provisions for protecting existing riparian 

habitat, planting native species, removing exotic species, developing a distinct creek channel, and modifying 

Black Butte Dam releases.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: All of these provisions should be 

considered for the creek below Black Butte Dam, and some may be worthwhile to consider above the 

reservoir. The Nature Conservancy has an office near the mouth of Stony Creek and may have an interest 

in becoming involved. Additionally, land owners need to be educated on the benefits of riparian corridors 

and how to establish and maintain them.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and USFWS need to develop a 

comprehensive technical plan to establish riparian corridors and coordinate riparian corridor rehabilitation 

and acquisition with private land owners. 

Potential obstacles to implementation: Funding and available agency staff could be limiting factors in 

successfully completing this action.

Predicted benefits: Developing a plan to establish a riparian corridor will help moderate water temperatures 

and enhance and preserve the existing salmonid habitat. The increase of riparian habitat will also benefit 

other fish and wildlife.

Action 8: Discontinue diversions into the TCC.
3-Xb-68 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Objective: Alleviate passage problems, ensure adequate flows, and prevent entrainment.

Location: Tehama-Colusa Canal (RM 12).

Narrative description: Temporary passage problems occur when water is diverted from Stony Creek to the 

TCC. During 1992 and 1993, a dam was created across Stony Creek so water could be diverted into the 

TCC via reverse operation of the constant head orifice. This affects fish passage and reduces downstream 

flows. Brown (1994) documented entrainment of resident and outmigrating fish by this diversion. This 

diversion was temporarily permitted for 1992 and 1993. The USBR has applied for a permanent diversion 

permit. CalSPA protested this application. As a result of negotiations, CalSPA agreed to withdraw its 

protest if the USBR met certain conditions. Passage problems are likely, and water for attraction, 

migration, spawning, and rearing of salmonids in Stony Creek is lost. Diverting water into the TCC entrains 

resident and outmigrating fish and would undoubtedly entrain juvenile salmon. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Among USBR=s commitments is the 

formation of a task force and technical team, as well as a work plan for development of a long-term fish, 

wildlife, and water use management plan for Stony Creek.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should coordinate the formation of a task 

force to manage the restoration of Stony Creek. Unmet demand for this seasonal water should be met 

through other means, otherwise alleviated, or left unmet.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Cessation of this diversion would make more water available for fish in Stony Creek, 

alleviate potential passage problems, and eliminate salmonid entrainment at this site.

Action 9: Correct problems associated with North Diversion Dam.

Objective: Provide fish passage for all life stages, provide adequate flows past dam, and prevent 

entrainment.

Location: North Diversion Dam (RM 18).

Narrative description: The North Diversion Dam is considered to be a migration barrier under most flows 

(Nick Villa, DFG, Rancho Cordova, CA, per. comm.). The magnitude of the passage problem needs to be 

evaluated. A possible mechanism to allow fish passage at the North Diversion Dam would be to raise the 

gates as early as possible, preferably at the beginning of October. Flow is most critical from October to 

May, and diversions should be kept to a minimum. Raising the gates would allow fish easier access to 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-69

additional spawning habitat. If passage problems persist, a fish ladder could then be constructed. If fish do 

spawn above the North Diversion Dam, the potential for entrainment would exist.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None. 

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Entrainment could be reduced if diversions 

were kept to a minimum. DFG should initiate discussions with the USBR to minimize diversions from 

December until February, the time at which most fry would hatch and then emigrate from this section of the 

stream. Screening the diversion is also an option that must be evaluated.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Potentially, 6 miles of stream will become available for spawning if passage is ensured.

Action 10: Develop plan to assess water quality.

Objective: Ensure adequate water quality for all life stages.

Location: Entire creek.

Narrative description: The water quality of Stony Creek is poor. Toxicants from agricultural runoff, 

elevated turbidities from gravel mining, and rubbish are just some of the problems.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Water quality may be a larger limiting 

factor than expected. 

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: A plan should be developed to assess water 

quality and develop solutions. DWR or EPA should conduct an assessment of Stony Creek. 

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Assessing water quality will provide an indication of creek health, identify problems, and 

define cleanup solutions.

Action 11: Conduct an IFIM study.

Objective: Determine preferred water flows for all life stages.
3-Xb-70 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Location: From Black Butte Dam to mouth.

Narrative description: Management of minimum flow releases from Black Butte Dam are necessary for 

anadromous fish production. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None. 

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and USFWS should conduct an IFIM 

study to determine the proper amount and timing of water released by Black Butte Dam and the TCC.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: An IFIM study will estimate the required flows necessary to sustain anadromous fish 

production.

Big Chico Creek -

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Loss to flood and agricultural diversion - A significant problem affecting the Big Chico 

Creek anadromous fishery results from diversions at the M&T Ranch pumps located at the end of a forebay 

just downstream of the Chico-Mud Creek confluence (Paul Ward, DFG, Red Bluff, and Paul Maslin, CSU, 

Chico, pers. comms.). The five unscreened pumps at this diversion have a combined pumping capacity of 

approximately 135 cfs, which often exceeds the creek flow. The resultant reversal of flow in the lower 0.75 

mile of creek would be expected to divert outmigrant juveniles and make it unlikely that upstream migrating 

adults will find the creek. (See discussion under "Upstream passage of adults".) Even when the creek is not 

reversed, these unscreened pumps are believed to take many juvenile salmon, both from Big Chico Creek 

and from the Sacramento River, because many juveniles move into the lower ends of Chico, Mud, and 

Rock Creeks for rearing (Maslin and McKinney 1994). The M&T Ranch has been cooperating in trying to 

find alternative water and leave the pumps off at critical times (Herringer pers. comm.). However, data 

obtained by Julie Brown (pers. comm.) and Maslin and McKinney (1994) show that critical times are more 

extensive than originally thought and vary from year to year.

At the Five-Mile Recreation Area (Bidwell Park), a 1963 Corps flood control project splits Big Chico 

floodflows into three channels. This project provides flood protection for the city of Chico. Box culverts 

were designed to limit the maximum flow that can pass down Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel to 1,500 

cfs and 6,000 cfs, respectively. Flow in excess of 7,500 cfs spills over an open weir through the Sycamore 

Diversion into Mud Creek. DWR is currently investigating whether the high-flow split still meets design 

capacity. A base flow split was also designed into the 1963 flood control project. The combined width of 

the box culverts in the Big Chico channel is 20 feet. A low concrete weir, with a 12-foot-wide notch at the 

same elevation as the bottom of the Chico box culverts, was constructed across the channel leading to the 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-71

Lindo Channel box culvert and Sycamore weir. This design was intended to split 12/32 of base flow down 

Lindo Channel, leaving 20/32 in Big Chico Creek. Unfortunately, design of the flow control structures 

creates an upstream stilling basin during flood events. This causes gravel to fall out above the diversion, 

creating a gravel bar that blocks subsequent low flow to Lindo Channel unless gravel is mechanically 

removed following each high water event. Because of variability in size and shape of the gravel bar, the 

minimum total flow that still has some spillage down Lindo Channel varies. Lindo Channel has often ceased 

to flow while total flow was still in excess of 200 cfs, sometimes trapping adults and downstream migrants 

several times during a single season.

Upstream passage of adults- When flow is reversed in the lower 0.75 mile of Big Chico 

Creek by The M&T Ranch pumps, upstream migrating adults are unlikely to find the creek. (See discussion 

under "Loss to Agricultural diversion".)

At about Stream Mile 13, in Upper Bidwell Park, Big Chico Creek has cut through the Lovejoy Basalt into 

softer marine sandstone, causing jumbles of house-size boulders to tumble into the channel, making 

upstream passage of salmonids difficult. The Iron Canyon fish ladder, built in the late 1950s to facilitate fish 

passage through this zone, has been severely damaged (Ward pers. comm.), delaying or preventing 

upstream migration in low-flow years and thereby forcing the adult spring-run salmon to hold or even 

oversummer downstream of the ladder where temperatures, human harassment, and poaching are serious 

problems.

The Five-Mile Recreation Area flood control project also delays or impedes upstream movement of adults. 

 Downcutting (approximately 8 ft) immediately below the Lindo culvert has resulted in fracturing of the 

concrete apron, making fish passage difficult in situations other than high flows.

Poor spawning habitat in lower creek - The Five-Mile Recreation Area flood control 

project also impedes gravel movement downstream. Only reduced amounts of relatively small gravel pass 

the Big Chico box culverts, very little gravel passes through the Lindo box culverts, and no gravel passes

over the Sycamore weir. Poor gravel recruitment and absence of flushing flows have resulted in armoring, 

compaction, and siltation of spawning gravel throughout the Chico channel. Cleaning of One-Mile Pool (a 

swimming pool in the Chico Channel) during summer low flows creates turbidity and silt build-up 

downstream, causing further deterioration of gravels. Present downstream siltation levels during pool 

cleaning exceed standards set up by the CVRWQCB. Lindo Channel is scoured to bedrock from the weir 

to the Longfellow Bridge, but still has good spawning gravel further downstream. The high flow volume of 

diverted Chico Creek floodwater has scoured essentially all gravel from Mud Creek downstream of the 

Sycamore Flood Diversion Channel.

Marginal summer holding temperatures - There is some evidence that temperatures in 

the summer holding reach for spring-run salmon adults, from Iron Canyon to Higgin's Hole, may approach 

critical levels in late summer, particularly in low-flow years (Ward pers. comm.). It is not known if summer 
3-Xb-72 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

temperatures currently average higher than existed historically when salmonids were more abundant in the 

creek. Possibly human-induced changes in the upper watershed (such as logging, development, grazing, 

and road building) may have altered base flow and summer temperatures. Because holding temperatures 

are marginal, any human harassment of the adults would be especially detrimental. Currently prime holding 

areas are in private ownership, with limited access. Future development of the land, resulting in greater 

public access, could have serious consequences for spring-run chinook salmon in Chico Creek.

Degraded rearing habitat in Mud and Rock Creeks- The principal anadromous fisheries 

reach of Mud Creek, from Highway 99E downstream, has been straightened, levied, and kept free of 

riparian vegetation by annual controlled burns or herbicide applications to facilitate its function as a flood 

diversion channel. Consequently, shade and cover are scarce, contributing to critically warm temperatures 

in late afternoons from mid-April through early May in most years. The high volume of diverted Chico 

Creek floodwater has also scoured this reach of Mud Creek to bedrock or clay, prohibiting salmonid 

spawning and further reducing diversity for rearing. To add to the problem for fish, existing regulations 

pertaining to riparian protection and waste disposal are poorly enforced with respect to Mud and Rock 

Creeks. Hazardous materials are often clandestinely dumped from bridges, particularly in Mud Creek, and 

some land owners along Rock Creek have damaged or eliminated riparian vegetation by bulldozing, 

burning, or spraying (Maslin pers. comm.).

Rock Creek has not been modified as a flood channel, but in several reaches has been straightened and 

levied to maximize agricultural land. These straight, canal-like reaches provide far less habitat for rearing 

salmonids than do unmodified reaches. Rock Creek receives sporadic inputs of agricultural overflow water 

between Highway 32 and West Sacramento Avenue. Under certain conditions, this may facilitate outmigration of juveniles.

Both creeks dry to intermittent pools as summer approaches. In years with adequate late-season 

precipitation, this occurs in May, by which time most juvenile salmon have outmigrated. In low precipitation 

years, the creeks dry down earlier and many young salmon, particularly fall-run juveniles, are trapped in 

isolated pools and ultimately devoured by avian predators.

Table 3-Xb-13. Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead

in Big Chico Creek and potential solutions to those problems.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Loss to flood and agricultural diversion 1. Substitute an alternative source of irrigation 

water for that currently supplied by the M&T 

Ranch pumps or move the pumps to the river 

and screen them

2. Split low flows between Big Chico Creek and 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-73

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Lindo Channel

Upstream passage of adults 1. Repair the Iron Canyon Fish ladder

2. Repair the Lindo Channel weir and fishway

3. Substitute an alternative source of irrigation 

water for that currently supplied by the M&T 

Ranch pumps or move the pumps to the river 

and screen them

Marginal summer holding temperatures Preserve from development and disturbance the 

primary summer holding area for spring-run chinook 

salmon to minimize additional stress

Poor spawning habitat in lower

creek

1. Replace spawning gravel in the channels 

modified for flood control

2. Improve cleaning procedure at One-Mile 

Pool

Degraded rearing habitat in

Mud and Rock Creeks

1. Revegetate denuded stream reaches

2. Restore a protected riparian strip

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Substitute an alternative source of irrigation water for that currently supplied by the M&T Ranch 

pumps.

Objective: Prevent loss of juvenile salmonids and permit sufficient attraction flows for adults.

Location: Just downstream of the Chico-Mud Creek confluence.

Narrative description: Four options exist: 1) the pumps could be moved to the river, set up to have bypass 

flow, and screened; 2) a siphon could be installed to carry Feather River water across Butte Creek and the 
3-Xb-74 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

pumps eliminated; 3) the irrigation water could be replaced with groundwater and the pumps eliminated; and 

4) effluent from the Chico Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant, although inadequate for total needs, could be 

discharged into irrigation canals to supply water needs during low demand periods and to supplement other 

sources at high demand periods. Because versatility in water delivery systems permits water from the M&T 

Ranch pumps, Butte Creek, the Feather River, or the Chico Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant to be 

delivered to a range of users, and because all sources except the sewage plant have their own share of 

problems with anadromous fisheries, the problem should be approached on a regional basis, rather than a 

watershed basis. A combination of options 1, 2, and 4 would probably provide the best long-range 

management for anadromous fisheries in Big Chico Creek, Butte Creek, and the Sacramento River. DFG is 

currently negotiating with water users to determine the best overall solution. Active pursuit of this 

negotiation should be continued by DFG, DWR, USFWS, the USBR, the M&T Ranch, and Western 

Canal Water District (WCWD).

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Improvement of the pumping situation at 

the mouth of Big Chico Creek would positively affect all actions that concern Big Chico Creek and its 

tributaries; therefore, it should be a priority.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG is currently negotiating with water users to 

determine the best overall solution. Active pursuit of this matter should be continued by DFG, DWR, 

USFWS, the USBR, the M&T Ranch, and the WCWD.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Costs of building a siphon, pumping groundwater, or moving 

and screening pumps could be an obstacle.

Predicted benefits: The present loss to these pumps of juvenile chinook salmon from both the Big Chico 

Creek fishery and the Sacramento River fishery would be prevented or at least reduced; Chico Creek 

adults would have an increased chance of finding the creek. Recent estimates of the numbers of adult 

salmon entering Chico Creek do not exist, but 26 adults were observed during a spring-run survey 

conducted in 1993. This number could reasonably be expected to at least double, as Chico Creek 

historically supported thousands of spring-run, fall-run, and late fall-run chinook salmon (Yoshioka pers. 

comm.).

Action 2: Repair the Iron Canyon Fish ladder.

Objective: Facilitate movement of adult spring-run chinook salmon and steelhead to favorable summer 

holding habitat.

Location: Iron Canyon upstream of Salmon Hole (Upper Bidwell Park).
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-75

Narrative description: The severely damaged Iron Canyon fish ladder should be repaired. The responsible 

agency is DFG, which plans to complete this project in summer 1995.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: This action would be augmented by Action 

5 (constructing a fishway at the Lindo Channel box culvert at the Five-Mile Diversion).

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG plans to complete this project in summer 

1995.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Cost of the project may be an obstacle.

Predicted benefits: More rapid movement through this area, particularly in years of low flows, will reduce 

stress and increase survival of spring-run salmon and steelhead adults.

Action 3: Split low flow between Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel.

Objective: Minimize trapping and subsequent loss of both adult and juvenile salmonids from periodic 

dewatering of Lindo Channel.

Location: At the divergence of Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel.

Narrative description: Two options exist for maintaining a minimum flow down Lindo Channel: 1) existing 

gates in the Big Chico box culverts at Five-Mile Diversion could be modified to permit operation under 

hydraulic head and adjusted as needed by city personnel to keep a suitable flow split and 2) city personnel 

could mechanically remove gravel deposits after each storm event. Because of infiltration losses in both 

channels at times when groundwater is low, a minimum of 75 cfs should be maintained in Big Chico Creek 

during March through May to facilitate upstream passage of adults. In critical low-flow years, sufficient 

water would not be available to maintain flow in Lindo Channel and fish would be lost. Unfortunately, flood 

control considerations preclude simply cutting off one channel or the other.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: This action would be augmented by Action 

8. If DWR determines the amount of riparian vegetation compatible with flood passage and salmon survival 

in Mud Creek, this information might be used or modified for Lindo Channel.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The responsible agencies are the City of Chico 

and California DWR.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The need for gravel removal after storm events may be an 

obstacle.
3-Xb-76 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Predicted benefits: Because many spring-run chinook salmon and steelhead juveniles and some adults travel 

by way of Lindo Channel, their survival would be enhanced. Survival of fall-run and late fall-run salmon 

redds and rearing fry in Lindo Channel would also be improved.

Action 4: Replace spawning gravel in the channels modified for flood control.

Objective: Improve spawning habitat for fall-run and late fall-run chinook salmon.

Location: In both Big Chico and Lindo Channels from the Five-Mile Diversion downstream through the city 

of Chico.

Narrative description: Gravel trapped at the Five-Mile Diversion stilling basin should be sorted and cleaned 

if necessary and moved to strategic locations downstream. This action should be executed by the Chico 

Parks Department and overseen by DFG.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: This action could be augmented by Action 

6 (improving of the cleaning procedure of One-Mile Pool) if gravel from Five-Mile Diversion was added 

downstream of One-Mile Pool

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: This action should be executed by the Chico 

Parks Department and overseen by DFG.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Costs of personnel and equipment required to sort, clean, 

and move the gravel could be obstacles.

Predicted benefits: Spawning success will be improved for fall-run and late fall-run chinook salmon.

Action 5: Repair the Lindo Channel weir and fishway.

Objective: Facilitate upstream passage of spring-chinook salmon and steelhead from Lindo Channel.

Location: At the Lindo Channel box culvert at the Five-Mile Diversion.

Narrative description: The downstream apron should be regrouted and a fishway constructed. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: This action would be augmented by Action 

3 (splitting flow between Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel).
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-77

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Planning and execution of this action should 

involve a collaboration between DFG, DWR, and the Corps.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Cost of building the fishway could be an obstacle.

Predicted benefits: Fewer adult spring-run chinook salmon and steelhead will be lost in Lindo Channel.

Action 6: Improve cleaning procedure at One-Mile Pool.

Objective: Reduce siltation of downstream spawning and rearing habitat.

Location: One-Mile Dam in Chico.

Narrative description: The following alternative approaches have been presented to the city (Swanson 

1994): 1) remove the swimming pool and dam and restore the natural stream and 2) modify the dam and 

divert stream flow during pool cleaning.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None known.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The responsible group for this action is the city 

of Chico.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Costs of modifying the dam for diversion during cleaning and 

public protest over removing the pool are potential obstacles to implementation.

Predicted benefits: Spawning success of fall-run and late fall-run chinook salmon would be enhanced 

because many spawn downstream of One-Mile Dam. Slight improvements in rearing habitat would also be 

expected.

Action 7: Preservation from development and disturbance of the primary summer holding area for springrun chinook salmon.

Objective: Obtain title or conservation easement on land adjacent to primary summer holding pools for 

spring-run chinook salmon. This is especially important considering the marginal summer temperatures and 

possibility of residential development in those areas. Additional disturbance would cause significant 

mortality.

Location: Higgin's Hole downstream to the upper end of Bidwell Park.
3-Xb-78 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Narrative description: Preservation can be accomplished by purchase of a conservation easement or 

purchase of the land.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None known.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The USFWS and DFG should collaborate with 

local land owners and private conservation groups such as The Nature Conservancy in achieving this goal.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Costs of acquiring the land and the landowners's

unwillingness to sell are potential obstacles to implementation.

Predicted benefits: This action would have minimum benefit in the immediate future, but is essential for

continued long-term production of spring-run chinook salmon and steelhead in Big Chico Creek.

Action 8: Revegetate denuded stream reaches and restore and maintain a protected riparian strip.

Objective: Expand the usable habitat, provide habitat diversity and cover from predators, and shade to 

keep the water cooler in late spring.

Location: All Central Valley reaches of Rock and Mud Creeks, with special attention given to the reach of 

Mud Creek from the confluence of Sycamore Creek to the junction of Mud and Big Chico Creeks and the 

reach of Rock Creek from the Nord-Cana Highway to the Nord-Gianella Road.

Narrative description: Restore and maintain a natural riparian corridor. An educational campaign to 

dispense knowledge about the value of small tributaries as salmon habitat, coupled with more stringent 

enforcement of existing prohibitions on dumping and riparian destruction, should help significantly to 

preserve and restore tributary habitat. Recruitment of school groups and local conservation groups for 

cleanup, riparian planting, fencing, and other restoration projects would contribute both to education and 

direct restoration. Critical stream reaches might be preserved by purchase of conservation easements.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: This action would be augmented by Action 

9 (replacing gravel in the flood-diversion reach of Mud Creek), which would help to increase the overall 

habitat quality and diversity.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Cooperation between DFG, DWR, and local 

conservation groups is essential. DWR will have to determine the amount of riparian vegetation compatible 

with flood passage and salmon survival in Mud Creek. Butte County must cooperate to allow that amount 

to remain while maintaining the channel.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Enforcing conservation laws may be difficult if there is a 

shortage of enforcement personnel.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-79

Predicted benefits: Trees, roots, and stumps at the stream edge create eddy currents during flood. The 

eddies scour out the deep holes the young salmon need for survival in dry years. The trees also shade the 

stream, contributing to lower stream temperatures, while the roots and fallen branches provide cover for 

juveniles to escape from predators. Resultant habitat diversity supports many forms of aquatic foods, while 

terrestrial insects, falling into the water from overhanging vegetation, also contribute to the food base. 

Recruitment of school groups and local conservation groups for cleanup, riparian planting, fencing, and other 

restoration projects would contribute both to education and direct restoration. 

Action 9: Replace gravel in the flood-diversion reach of Mud Creek.

Objective: Expand the usable habitat and provide habitat diversity for rearing salmon and their prey.

Location: The reach of Mud Creek from the confluence of Sycamore Creek to the junction of Mud and Big 

Chico Creeks.

Narrative description: Continual additions of gravel are required to compensate for scouring by the diverted 

Chico Creek floodwater. Gravel replacement would be necessary after each 10-year or larger flood event.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: This action could be augmented by Action 

4 (removing gravel trapped in the Five-Mile Diversion stilling basin and moving it to strategic locations 

downstream) if some gravel is placed in the flood-diversion reach of Mud Creek. This action would also be 

augmented by Action 8 (revegetate denuded stream reaches and restore and maintain a protected riparian 

strip).

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Responsible agencies are Butte County and 

DFG with supervision from DWR to ensure that flood transport capacity is not compromised.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Costs of continuous maintenance may be an obstacle to 

implementation.

Predicted benefits: Gravel replacement in Mud Creek would increase habitat diversity for rearing and 

permit adults straying into the creek to spawn successfully.

Future research needs- Further study is needed to determine if human-induced changes (such as 

logging, development, grazing, and road building) in the Big Chico Creek upper watershed may have altered 

base flow and summer temperatures, thereby making it hazardous for oversummering adult spring chinook 

salmon.
3-Xb-80 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Thermographs have been installed by DFG at strategic points in Big Chico Creek to evaluate holding habitat 

for spring-run adults. Temperature data needs to be gathered over a number of years, preferably spanning 

both wet and dry periods.

Considering the paucity of available data for Big Chico salmonids, installation and monitoring of an adult 

counting device and a trap for outmigrants are needed.

Both Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel receive storm drain runoff from the City of Chico, with its 

associated load of litter and pollutants. While this has not been implicated as a problem to the fishery, it 

should be monitored to ensure that no problem arises.

An investigation of the relationship of foothill diversions to downstream flow volume and water temperature 

in Mud and Rock Creeks would help with management decisions for those tributaries.

Butte Creek -

Limiting factors and potential solutions - Habitat needs within the Butte Creek system are 

complex and vary by area and time of year. Passage at dams and diversions, instream flows, and water 

temperature are the factors of most concern. Water rights in all of Butte Creek above the Western Canal 

Dam were adjudicated in 1942 (Butte Creek Judgment and Decree No. 18917). Additional issues that are 

more site specific include poaching, land development, and recreation (Table 3-Xb-14).

Table 3-Xb-14. Limiting factors for chinook salmon in Butte Creek

and potential solutions to those problems.

Limiting factor Potential solutions

Instream flows 1. Negotiate with PG&E to provide a minimum of 40 cfs below 

Centerville Diversion Dam at all times

2. Negotiate with water rights holders at Parrott-Phelan diversion 

(Diversion 50) to purchase or trade for right to water diverted 

from West Branch of Feather River (approximately 105 cfs), 

possibly as part of trade for relocation of M&T pumps on Big 

Chico Creek

3. Purchase existing water rights from diverters

4. Acquire water rights by replacement with Feather River water 

delivered through the Western Canal system as part of 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-81

Limiting factor Potential solutions

removal of up to five dams resulting from the proposed 

Western Canal siphon project

5. Adjudicate water rights and provide state Watermaster 

Service for the entire reach of Butte Creek on a year-round 

basis in conjunction with the existing adjudication

6. Initiate legal action to ensure adequate instream flows

Adult passage

Centerville Diversion Dam 1. Remove Centerville Diversion Dam, Forks of the Butte Dam, 

and Butte Creek Head Dam

2. Build and maintain ladders over the Centerville Diversion 

Dam, Forks of the Butte Dam, and the Butte Creek Head 

Dam

Natural barrier 0.5 mile 

below Centerville Diversion 

Dam

1. Build and maintain fish ladder

2. Physically modify barrier to facilitate passage

Durham Mutual Dam Build new high-volume fish ladder to replace existing ladders

Western Canal Dam Remove dam and install siphon

Adams, Gorrill, McGowan, 

and McPherrin dams

1. Remove dam and provide alternate sources of water as part 

of Western Canal siphon project

2. Build new high-volume fish ladders if dam cannot be removed

Sanborn Slough bifurcation Establish operational criteria for flow split either through existing 

legally binding agreements or as part of overall Butte Creek water 
3-Xb-82 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factor Potential solutions

right adjudication

White Mallard Dam Replace existing fish ladder with new high-volume fish ladder

White Mallard Duck Club 

outflow

Install culvert and riser at the point that the outflow meets Butte 

Creek to eliminate straying

Drumheller Slough outfall Rebuild and maintain existing culvert and riser at the point 

Drumheller Slough meets Butte Creek to eliminate straying

Butte Slough outfall 1. Develop operational criteria to provide continuous passage at 

outfall gates from February through June and October through 

December

2. Modify flap gates to allow upstream passage of adult salmon

East-West Diversion Weir 1. Establish operational criteria for timing and volume of flow 

splits between East and West Barrows

2. Install high-volume fish ladder

Sutter Bypass Weir #2 1. Establish operational criteria to specify dates of installation and 

removal of weir

2. Install high-volume fish ladder

Nelson Slough Establish operational criteria to specify time and volume of flows 

through Nelson Slough

Sutter Bypass Weir #5 1. Establish operational criteria to specify time of installation and 

removal of weir

2. Install high-volume fish ladder
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-83

Limiting factor Potential solutions

Sutter Bypass Weir #3 1. Establish operational criteria to specify time of installation and 

removal of weir

2. Install high-volume fish ladder

Sutter Bypass Weir #1 1. Establish operational criteria to specify time of installation and 

removal of weir

2. Install high-volume fish ladder

Juvenile Passage

Durham Mutual Dam Install fish screens on both diversions

Western Canal Dam Remove dam and install siphon

Adams, Gorrill, McGowan, 

and McPherrin dams

1. Remove dams and provide alternate sources of water as part 

of Western Canal siphon project

2. Install fish screens on gravity and pumped diversions if dams 

cannot be removed

Little Dry Creek pumps Install fish screens

Sanborn Slough bifurcation Install fish screen

White Mallard Dam Install fish screen

Butte Slough outfall gates Maintain positive flow into Sacramento River from October 

through December and January through June
3-Xb-84 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factor Potential solutions

Sutter Bypass, Butte Slough 

to Sacramento River

Investigate and screen diversions as necessary

Poaching Increase enforcement effort throughout portion of Butte Creek 

accessible to anadromous salmonids

Land Use 1. Develop and enforce land use plans that create buffer zones 

between the creek and development

2. Develop watershed management plan

Restoration actions - The following action items are generally prioritized relative to their overall value for 

restoring habitat and enhancing anadromous fish production. Those actions having the same primary 

number configurations are considered of equal priority (e.g., 1[a] vs. 1[b]). Those actions having the same 

primary numbers and subletters (e.g., 3[a][1] and 3[a][2]) are also of equal priority. The subnumerals (e.g., 

3[a][1] and 3[a][2]) are meant to act only as action identifiers, not indicators of priority. However, 

differences in primary numbers and/or subletters are indicative of differences in relative priority (e.g., 1[a] 

vs. 2[a] or 3[a][1] vs. 3[b][1]). Many action items are interdependent and could therefore change in 

priority, depending on completion of other actions or additional information. 

Action 1(a): Obtain rights to approximately 105 cfs of water from Parrott-Phelan Diversion.

Objective: Provide adequate instream flows for all life stages of salmonids.

Location: Parrott-Phelan Diversion.

Narrative description: Flow requirements within the Butte Creek system are a generic problem; however, 

they must be considered relative to site-specific requirements within the overall system and also by changing 

conditions during the year. There are generally no baseline studies to define fishery flow requirements within 

Butte Creek. The value of any additional water is increased by its location in the system. Additional water 

to increase instream flows includes a possible trade of rights to waters diverted by PG&E from the West 

Branch of the Feather River for power generation. The rights are currently owned by M&T and Parrott 

Ranches near Chico; however, alternate sources of water may be available as the result of a possible 

relocation of the M&T pumps, currently located on Chico Creek. Relocation of the M&T pumps, coupled 

with an increased capacity, would allow about 105 cfs of West Branch Feather River water to remain in 

Butte Creek. Rights acquired at the top of the anadromous portion of Butte Creek, such as the rights to 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-85

water diverted from the West Branch, are more valuable in resolving the overall issue than those that enter 

further down in the system. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: DFG currently has an application before 

the SWRCB's Division of Water Rights to convey some recently acquired water rights from above the 

Western Canal to the Sacramento River. The water rights in priority, time, and volume generally are not 

available during the period most important for fishery needs. However, an important issue could be 

resolved relative to changing the point of use to the Sacramento River.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, DWR, and USFWS should plan and 

carry out baseline studies to define fishery flow requirements within Butte Creek. They should define base 

fishery flows by location and time of year and acquire rights to the defined amounts. Passage of the 

required amounts of water through the system to the Sacramento River must be guaranteed.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Success of this action depends on obtaining the necessary 

funding and staffing resources and cooperation of the many water right holders.

Predicted benefits: Providing additional water will increase the amount of available habitat for all life stages 

of salmonids, thus increasing the productivity of the creek.

Action 1(b): Maintain a minimum 40 cfs instream flow below Centerville Diversion Dam.

Objective: Provide suitable holding, spawning, and rearing habitat.

Location: Centerville Diversion Dam.

Narrative description: Temperature modeling and IFIM studies have been completed by PG&E to define 

flow requirements for summer holding and spawning for spring-run salmon in the reach between the 

Centerville Diversion Dam and the Centerville Powerhouse. These studies indicated a need for a minimum 

of 40 cfs for summer temperature control and a minimum of 40 and 30 cfs for spawning and egg incubation, 

respectively (Steitz pers. comm.). As a result of these studies and additional negotiations with the resource 

agencies, FERC adopted in January 1992 a 40-cfs minimum flow between December 15 and October 31 

and a 30-cfs minimum flow between November 1 and December 14 during normal water years.

During dry years, however, the FERC license adequately addresses only summer flows (40 cfs minimum 

between June 1 and September 15) with a low 10-cfs minimum required the rest of the year. This 10-cfs 

minimum is considered inadequate for adult spawning and juvenile rearing. Therefore, a flow regime similar 

to that required for normal water years should also be required for dry years. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: In several recent dry years, PG&E has 

accommodated resource agency requests to provide additional flows (up to 30 cfs) for salmon spawning 
3-Xb-86 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

and egg incubation. These actions suggest that PG&E recognizes the need for additional minimum flows 

during dry years and may be open to further negotiations on this issue.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and USFWS should open negotiations 

with PG&E and FERC to obtain the necessary minimum flows needed to sustain adult spawning and 

juvenile rearing below the Centerville Diversion Dam during dry years.

Potential obstacles to implementation: PG&E is already providing nonmandated flows (30 cfs during 

dry years after September 15) and may be reluctant to provide these flows on a permanent legally binding 

basis.

Predicted benefits: Providing suggested water releases will ensure better holding and spawning conditions 

for spring-run chinook salmon. Additional benefits will also be afforded to rearing juvenile salmon and 

steelhead.

Action 1(c): Purchase existing water rights from diverters.

Objective: Ensure adequate instream flows.

Location: Any or all points of diversion.

Narrative description: Additional instream flow could come from purchasing water rights from willing 

sellers. Several water rights holders have expressed interest in selling. Additional water might be available 

through the Western Canal system and could potentially be acquired as a trade for other waters delivered 

through the SWP and Oroville Reservoir. When purchasing water, consideration should be given to sitespecific requirements within the overall system and changing conditions during the year.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None. 

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and USFWS should initiate negotiations 

with water rights holders to purchase their water.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Success of this action depends on necessary funding and the 

cooperation of water rights holders.

Predicted benefits: Any additional water obtained will benefit the system by increasing the available salmon 

and steelhead habitat. Obtaining water higher up in the system will have greater benefits to the entire 

system.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-87

Action 2(a): Build a new high-volume fish ladder at Durham Mutual Dam.

Objective: Provide adequate passage for adult salmonids.

Location: Durham Mutual Dam.

Narrative description: Durham Mutual Dam is a concrete-base, seasonally installed flashboard structure. 

Erosion below the dam now makes passage a problem under other than the highest flows. There are 

presently two existing fish ladders, only one of which is capable of passing fish under all flows. Diversions at 

this site occur throughout the entire year.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Potential for Western Canal siphon project 

to increase diversion amount at this site.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should assist the Durham Mutual Dam 

operators in developing means for better fish passage.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Improving fish passage could be too costly.

Predicted benefits: Recovery of salmon and steelhead on a sustainable basis requires adequate spawning 

and rearing habitat. Expedited passage at this site will reduce delays and injury and provide a significant 

benefit.

Action 2(b): Install fish screens on both diversions at Durham Mutual Dam.

Objective: Prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids.

Location: Durham Mutual Dam.

Narrative description: Durham Mutual Dam is a concrete-base, seasonally installed flashboard structure. 

Diversions at this site occur throughout the entire year. Neither of the diversions at this site is screened.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should coordinate design and placement of 

necessary screens at this diversion.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Cooperation of dam owners is necessary for this action to be 

successful.
3-Xb-88 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Predicted benefits: Screening this diversion will prevent loss of juvenile salmon and steelhead from 

entrainment and will likely increase production from the creek.

Action 3(a)(1): Develop and construct Western Canal siphon.

Objective: Eliminate adult passage and juvenile entrainment problems associated with five dams and obtain 

additional instream flows.

Location: Western Canal Dam.

Narrative description: WCWD diverts Feather River water into and across Butte Creek from January 

through December in some years. Flows range as high as 1,200 cfs during the peak of the irrigation season 

of April-August. Fall flows of greater than 200 cfs are routed down Butte Creek to supply the Butte Sink 

duck clubs during October through January. Adult salmonids are known to stray into the Western Canal, as 

well as into the many channels of Little Butte Creek, probably as the result of flows through the Western 

Canal. WCWD has proposed to remove its dam and install a siphon under Butte Creek. The WCWD 

completed a conceptual design study in 1992 and is currently proceeding with an additional feasibility level 

investigation of the potential to include removal of Adams, Gorrill, McGowan, and McPherrin dams as part 

of the project. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None. 

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, the USBR, and DWR should be involved 

with this activity and provide any assistance the WCWD needs to complete its feasibility study and project 

approval. Interaction by the agencies at this stage may be critical to the proposal's successful

implementation.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Without agency support, it is possible that the proposal 

would not be feasible based on costs or future water needs.

Predicted benefits: Construction of this siphon and removal of the four additional dams will eliminate several 

passage and entrainment problems.

Action 3(a)(2): Investigate the possibility of consolidation or replacement of additional diversions below 

the Western Canal siphon project.

Objective: Eliminate adult passage and juvenile entrainment problems and potentially obtain additional 

instream flows.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-89

Location: Entire stream.

Narrative description: There are numerous diversions below the proposed Western Canal siphon project 

that could potentially be consolidated or removed. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: The approval of WCWD's feasibility study 

(previously described for Action 3[a][1]) to remove its Western Canal Dam may provide the opportunity 

and impetus to develop alternative water sources or to remove additional downstream diversion dams.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, DWR, and USFWS, together with dam 

owners, should initiate an investigation to identify the possibility of developing alternate water sources or 

conveyance methods. Potential alternatives might include consolidation of diversions, transfers from other 

watersheds, utilization of groundwater or installation of screened pumps.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The success of this action depends on cooperative efforts 

with the dam owners.

Predicted benefits: Elimination of diversions will immediately benefit adult and juvenile passage and may 

potentially provide additional instream flows.

Action 3(a)(3): Acquire water rights as a part of the Western Canal siphon project.

Objective: Obtain adequate instream flows.

Location: Western Canal Dam.

Narrative description: There should be an investigation of the possibility of acquiring additional water rights 

as a part of the Western Canal siphon project supplement to Actions 1(a) and 1(c). Previously, DFG

acquired right to 60 cfs of excess Butte Creek flows below the Western Canal Dam. The 60-cfs DFG fish 

flows are available only after 462 cfs are supplied to priority right holders. Generally, during most critical 

periods for salmon passage of both adults and juveniles, far less than 462 cfs of the natural flow of Butte 

Creek remains, thus making DFG's water right of little practical value. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: This action is supplementary to Action 

1(b).
3-Xb-90 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, the USBR, DWR, and USFWS should 

initiate this study in cooperation with water right holders. This activity should be closely integrated with 

ongoing feasibility studies looking at removal of Western Canal Dam.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Lack of dedicated staff and funding could limit the success of 

this action. 

Predicted benefits: Additional instream flows will provide immediate benefits by increasing available habitat 

for all life stages of salmonids.

Action 3(b)(1): Adjudicate water rights and provide watermaster service or equivalent for entire creek.

Objective: Ensure adequate instream flows.

Location: Entire creek.

Narrative description: Adjudication of the creek below the Western Canal would be beneficial in 

maintaining adequate instream flow.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Butte Creek is currently adjudicated in the 

reach above the Western Canal (Butte Creek Judgment and Decree No. 18917). Watermaster service is 

currently provided from April through September from the headwaters to the Western Canal under the 

original adjudication.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, DWR, and USFWS should initiate 

actions to provide watermaster service or the equivalent, such as a water supervisor, in the entirety of Butte 

Creek to cover the entire year.

Potential obstacles to implementation: This action would probably involve much negotiation among 

water users and possible litigation and would be very costly.

Predicted benefits: Watermaster service resulting from adjudication, or its equivalent, such as a water 

supervisor, would serve to protect instream flows for the rest of the creek and for the rest of the year. 

Maintenance of defined instream flows throughout the entire creek will significantly benefit migratory 

salmonids.

Action 3(b)(2): Remove Western Canal Dam and replace with siphon.

Objective: Expedite adult passage, eliminate straying of adults, and prevent entrainment of juveniles.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-91

Location: Western Canal Dam.

Narrative description: The Western Canal Dam is a concrete-base, seasonally installed flashboard 

structure. Passage over the foundation with the dam not installed is somewhat restrictive, although large 

rocks have been used to stabilize downstream erosion. A single fish ladder is operational, although it is 

thought to be marginally effective as the result of size and volume of flow. The diversion is also unscreened. 

 WCWD diverts Feather River water into and across Butte Creek from January through December in some 

years. Flows range as high as 1,200 cfs during the peak of the irrigation season from April through August. 

 Fall flows of greater than 200 cfs are routed down Butte Creek to supply the Butte Sink duck clubs during 

October through January. Adult salmonids are known to stray into the Western Canal, as well as into the 

many channels of Little Butte Creek, probably as the result of flows through the Western Canal.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: This action is related to the success of 

Action 3(a)(1), which is a higher priority action. If Action 3(a)(1) does not evolve, then this action takes 

precedence.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The success of this action depends on 

cooperative efforts with WCWD.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Costs and staff resources could be the major limiting factors.

Predicted benefits: Recovery of salmonids on a sustainable basis requires access to adequate spawning and 

rearing habitat. Expedited adult salmon passage at this site will reduce delays and injury and provide a 

significant benefit salmonid production. Additionally, prevention of juvenile entrainment will also benefit 

production.

Action 3(b)(3): Establish operational criteria for Sanborn Slough Bifurcation.

Objective: Provide better passage for adult salmonids and prevent entrainment of juveniles.

Location: Sanborn Slough dam.

Narrative description: Flow splits at the Sanborn Slough Bifurcation Structure may cause delay and or 

stranding of juvenile and adult salmonids. The existing Sanborn Slough structure is an earthen cobble dam 

with two large gated culverts installed across the main channel of Butte Creek. Operational responsibility 

for the structure is unclear, although there is a loose arrangement between the duck clubs and agricultural 

users to provide diversions to meet the respective needs by time of year. In addition, Reclamation District 

1004 has an open application to appropriate additional Butte Creek waters that specifies operational criteria 

at this site. Depending on time and flows, this site may be a major barrier to adult migration and could 

divert significant numbers of juveniles into the Butte Sink.
3-Xb-92 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: If Actions 3(a)(1-3) are successful, the 

flow issues would be resolved. However, fish passage issues must still be addressed.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, with USFWS support, should lead an 

effort to bring together involved parties and develop operational criteria for flow splits, either through legally 

binding agreements, or as a part of an overall Butte Creek water right adjudication (Action 3[b][1]).

Potential obstacles to implementation: Cost and complexity of water right issues can slow this 

action.

Predicted benefits: Developing operational objectives will reduce or prevent entrainment and expedite 

passage of juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead.

Action 3(c): Develop operational criteria for, and potential modification to, Butte Slough outfall.

Objective: Provide sufficient attraction and passage flows for adults and outmigration flows for juveniles.

Location: Butte Slough outfall and Sutter Bypass.

Narrative description: The Butte Slough Outfall gates and the effects of the flow split into the Sutter Bypass 

may be causing passage problems due to insufficient attraction flows and due to the gates acting as a 

physical barrier. Potentially, a regulated flow split will be required to provide passage through both systems 

during the period when anadromous fish might be present.

Butte Slough outfall gates are controlled by DWR and Reclamation District 70 based on flood and 

agricultural needs. Flood needs are generally met by balancing flows between the Sacramento River and 

Butte Creek utilizing the gated culverts at the end of Butte Slough. Agricultural needs generally are met by 

completely closing these gates and routing all Butte Creek flows through the Sutter Bypass. The change in 

operation frequently occurs in the early spring at a time when adult spring chinook salmon would be 

migrating past the mouth of the Feather River, with the net result that attractant flows into Butte Creek 

would be changing in volume and point of entry between Butte Slough outfall and Sacramento Slough. Fish 

that would be attracted up the Sacramento River to attempt to enter Butte Creek via the Butte Slough 

outfall gates have an obstacle of unknown magnitude in the form of the flap gates on the Sacramento River 

side of Butte Slough culverts. In addition, changing flow regimens through the Sutter Bypass could serve to 

delay or prevent migration into upper Butte Creek. Operational objectives should be developed that 

provide continuous passage at the outfall gates from January to June and October through December.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Upstream adult fish passage issues must 

still be addressed.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-93

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should take the lead in supporting Action 

3(c) and incorporating appropriate flow passage needs either at the Butte Slough outfall gates or the 

Sacramento Slough. If flows are designed for fish upstream entry at the Butte Slough outfall, DFG, with 

USFWS support, should design and construct adult upstream passage facilities in conjunction with the gates 

that would be operational at high- and low-flow levels.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Necessary flows for fish passage at the Sacramento Slough 

entry and costs for a fish passage facility at this location can be high.

Predicted benefits: Developing and implementing operational criteria and potential modifications to the flap 

gates will facilitate movement of adult and juvenile salmon and steelhead and potentially significantly improve 

production.

Action 4(a)(1): Build new high-volume fish ladder at Adams Dam.

Objective: Improve adult fish passage.

Location: Adams Dam.

Narrative description: Adams Dam is a concrete-base, seasonally installed flashboard type structure. 

Severe erosion below the dam has resulted in significant passage problems for adults at low flows with the 

dam removed. The existing fish ladder is operational only with the dam installed and is extremely inefficient 

due to the size of the ladder, volume of water, and ineffective ladder entrance. If the Western Canal siphon 

project is not completed or Adams Dam is not included, Adams Dam should be modified.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Adams Dam has been identified for 

possible removal if the Western Canal siphon project is completed and an alternate conveyance system for 

a source of water can be identified.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If the dam is not removed, DFG should design 

and install a high-volume fish ladder.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Improving the fish ladder will expedite fish passage and reduce injury and stress to adult 

salmon and steelhead.
3-Xb-94 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Action 4(a)(2): Install fish screens on both diversions at Adams Dam.

Objective: Prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids.

Location: Adams Dam.

Narrative description: Adams Dam is a concrete-base, seasonally installed flashboard type structure. 

Neither of the diversions at Adams Dam is screened, which would be a necessity only if dam was not 

removed as part of the Western Canal siphon project (Action 3[a][1]). 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Adams Dam has been identified for 

possible removal if the Western Canal siphon project is completed and an alternate source of water and 

conveyance system can be identified.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If the Adams Dam remains, DFG should 

develop contingency plans to design screens and upstream passage facilities in conjunction with the dam 

operators.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None are anticipated at this time.

Predicted benefits: Installing fish screens will prevent entrainment at this site and increase production.

Action 4(a)(3): Build new high-volume fish ladder at Gorrill Dam.

Objective: Improve adult fish passage.

Location: Gorrill Dam.

Narrative description: Flows below Gorrill Dam are a significant passage issue during late spring and early 

fall. Late-arriving spring-run and early arriving fall-run chinook salmon are affected by ineffective passage at 

this site. Gorrill Dam is a concrete-base, seasonally installed flashboard structure. As with all the other 

diversion dams, erosion below the structure has caused significant passage problems for adult salmon. The 

existing structure has a low-flow center ladder that is marginally passable with the dam out. When the dam 

is installed, a second ladder is operational, although it is probably marginally effective as the result of size, 

volume of flow, and ineffective entrance characteristics.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Gorrill Dam has been identified for 

possible removal as part of the Western Canal siphon project if an adequate conveyance system and source 

of water can be identified.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-95

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If the dam is not removed, DFG should design 

and install a high-volume fish ladder.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The decision to design and build a fish ladder would 

probably be delayed until a decision has been made regarding the removal of Gorrill Dam.

Predicted benefits: Improving the fish ladder will expedite fish passage and reduce injury and stress to adult 

salmon and steelhead.

Action 4(a)(4): Install fish screens on diversions at McGowan Dam.

Objective: Prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids.

Location: McGowan Dam.

Narrative description: McGowan Dam, partially or entirely owned by DFG, diverts water to the DFG 

Upper Butte Basin Wildlife Area. Past operation of the diversion was generally restricted to MarchSeptember. With the change of usage to wildlife, the diversion will potentially be operated on a year-round 

basis depending on flow conditions in Butte Creek. McGowan Dam is a concrete-base, seasonally installed 

flashboard type structure. Diversions from this site are unscreened and include one large gravity diversion 

and two or more small pumped diversions.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: McGowan Dam has been identified for 

possible removal as part of the Western Canal siphon project if an adequate conveyance system and source 

of water can be identified.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If the dam is not removed, DFG should design 

and install screens on all of the diversions.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The decision to design and build fish screens would probably 

be delayed until a decision has been made about the removal of McGowan Dam.

Predicted benefits: Installing fish screens will prevent entrainment at this site and increase production.

Action 4(a)(5): Install fish screens on three diversions at McPherrin Dam.

Objective: Prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids.
3-Xb-96 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Location: McPherrin Dam.

Narrative description: McPherrin Dam, partially or entirely owned by DFG, diverts water to the DFG 

Upper Butte Sink Wildlife Area and others. As with the McGowan Dam, past operation was generally 

restricted to March-September. Acquisition of the wildlife area has resulted in a year-round operation 

dependent on flow conditions in Butte Creek. The dam is a concrete-base, seasonally installed flashboard 

structure. Three major gravity diversions and several pumped diversions are unscreened.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: McPherrin Dam has been identified for 

possible removal as part of the Western Canal Siphon project if an adequate conveyance system and 

source of water can be identified.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If the dam is not removed, DFG should design 

and install screens on all of the gravity and pumped diversions.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The decision to design and build fish screens would probably 

be delayed until a decision has been made regarding the removal of McPherrin Dam.

Predicted benefits: Installing fish screens will prevent entrainment at this site and increase production.

Action 4(b)(1): Install fish screens on both diversions at Western Canal Dam.

Objective: Prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids.

Location: Western Canal Dam.

Narrative description: The Western Canal Dam is a concrete-base, seasonally installed flashboard 

structure. The diversion is also unscreened. WCWD diverts Feather River water into and across Butte 

Creek from January through December in some years. Flows range as high as 1,200 cfs during the peak of 

the irrigation season from April through August. Fall flows of greater than 200 cfs are routed down Butte 

Creek to supply the Butte Sink duck clubs during October through January.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Western Canal Dam has been identified for 

possible removal as part of the Western Canal Siphon project if an adequate conveyance system and 

source of water can be identified.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If the dam is not removed, DFG should design 

and install screens.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-97

Potential obstacles to implementation: The decision to design and build fish screens would probably 

be delayed until a decision has been made about the removal of Western Canal Dam.

Predicted benefits: Prevention of juvenile entrainment will benefit production.

Action 4(b)(2): Build new high-volume fish ladder at Western Canal Dam.

Objective: Provide better adult fish passage.

Location: Western Canal Dam.

Narrative description: The Western Canal Dam is a concrete-base, seasonally installed flashboard 

structure. Passage over the foundation with the dam not installed is somewhat restrictive, although large 

rocks have been used to stabilize downstream erosion. A single fish ladder is operational, although it is 

thought to be marginally effective as the result of size and volume of flow. WCWD diverts Feather River 

water into and across Butte Creek from January through December in some years. Flows range as high as 

1,200 cfs during the peak of the irrigation season from April through August. Fall flows of greater than 200 

cfs are routed down Butte Creek to supply the Butte Sink duck clubs during October-January. Adult 

salmonids are known to stray into the Western Canal, as well as into the many channels of Little Butte 

Creek, probably as the result of flows through the Western Canal.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Western Canal Dam has been identified for 

possible removal as part of the Western Canal Siphon project if an adequate conveyance system and 

source of water can be identified.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If the dam is not removed, DFG should design 

and install a high-volume fish ladder.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The decision to design and build a high-volume fish ladder 

would probably be delayed until a decision has been made about the removal of Western Canal Dam.

Predicted benefits: Recovery of salmonids on a sustainable basis requires access to adequate spawning and 

rearing habitat. Expedited adult salmon passage at this site will reduce delays and injury and provide a 

significant benefit salmonid production.

Action 4(b)(3): Install fish screens on both diversions at Gorrill Dam.

Objective: Prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids.
3-Xb-98 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Location: Gorrill Dam.

Narrative description: Gorrill Dam is a concrete-base, seasonally installed flashboard structure with two 

unscreened diversions.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Gorrill Dam has been identified for possible 

removal as part of the Western Canal Siphon project if an adequate conveyance system and source of 

water can be identified.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If the dam is not removed, DFG should design 

and install screens on all of the gravity and pumped diversions.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The decision to design and build fish screens would probably 

be delayed until a decision has been made about the removal of Gorrill Dam.

Predicted benefits: Installing fish screens will prevent entrainment at this site and increase production.

Action 4(b)(4): Build new high-volume fish ladder at McPherrin Dam.

Objective: Improve adult fish passage.

Location: McPherrin Dam.

Narrative description: The dam is a concrete-base, seasonally installed flashboard structure. Adult passage 

with the dam removed is not a problem. The existing structure has an operational fish ladder that is believed 

to provide marginal passage resulting from fish not rapidly finding and traversing the ladder. McPherrin 

Dam, partially or entirely owned by DFG, diverts water to the DFG Upper Butte Sink Wildlife Area. As 

with the McGowan Dam, past operation was generally restricted to March-September. Acquisition of the 

Wildlife Area has resulted in a year-round operation dependent on flow conditions in Butte Creek. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: McPherrin Dam has been identified for 

possible removal as part of the Western Canal Siphon project if an adequate conveyance system and 

source of water can be identified.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If the dam is not removed, DFG should design 

and install a high-volume fish ladder.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The decision to design and build a high-volume fish ladder 

would probably be delayed until a decision has been made regarding the removal of McPherrin Dam.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-99

Predicted benefits: Improving the fish ladder will expedite fish passage and reduce injury and stress to adult 

salmonids.

Action 4(c)(1): Build a new high-volume fish ladder at McGowan Dam.

Objective: Improve adult fish passage.

Location: McGowan Dam.

Narrative description: McGowan Dam, partially or entirely owned by DFG, diverts water to the DFG 

Upper Butte Basin Wildlife Area. Past operation of the diversion was generally restricted to MarchSeptember. With the change of usage to wildlife, the diversion will potentially be operated on a year-round 

basis, depending on flow conditions in Butte Creek. McGowan Dam is a concrete-base, seasonally 

installed flashboard type structure. There are no known adult passage problems with the dam removed. 

Adult passage with the dam installed is generally a problem as the result of fish not rapidly finding and 

traversing the existing ladder. A high-volume fish ladder should be installed at the dam if it is not removed.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: McGowan Dam has been identified for 

possible removal as part of the Western Canal Siphon project if an adequate conveyance system and 

source of water can be identified.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If the dam is not removed, DFG should design 

and install a high-volume fish ladder.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The decision to design and build a high-volume fish ladder 

would probably be delayed until a decision has been made about the removal of McGowan Dam.

Predicted benefits: Improving the fish ladder will expedite fish passage and reduce injury and stress to adult 

salmon and steelhead.

Action 5(a)(1): Build new high-volume fish ladder at East-West Diversion Weir.

Objective: Provide passage for adult salmonids.

Location: East-West Diversion Weir.

Narrative description: Flows entering the East and West Barrows of the Sutter Bypass are regulated by a 

concrete flashboard structure referred to as the East-West Diversion Weir. This weir is operated by 

Meridian Farms Water Company. Flows are routed to the East and West Barrows to meet the needs of 
3-Xb-100 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

agriculture during spring. With the changing requirements for the elimination of rice straw in conjunction with 

waterfowl habitat, flows may also be regulated in fall and early winter. Flow manipulations at this site may 

therefore be significantly affecting passage of adults and juveniles of both races of chinook salmon. This 

weir does not contain a fish ladder and under some flows is a barrier. Construction of a high-volume fish 

ladder will alleviate most passage problems associated with this dam.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should design and install a high-volume fish 

ladder.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Cooperation by the dam owner, Meridian Farms Water 

Company, and funding are unknown factors at this time.

Predicted benefits: Installing a fish ladder will expedite fish passage and reduce injury and stress to adult 

salmon and steelhead.

Action 5(a)(2): Establish operational criteria for the East and West Barrows.

Objective: Improve adult fish passage.

Location: East-West Diversion Weir.

Narrative description: Diversions and their impacts in this reach are unknown; however, flows entering the 

East and West Barrows of the Sutter Bypass are regulated by a concrete flashboard structure operated by 

Meridian Farms Water Company. Flows are routed to the East and West Barrows to meet the needs of 

agriculture during spring. With the changing requirements for the elimination of rice straw in conjunction with 

waterfowl habitat, flows may also be regulated in fall and early winter. Flow manipulations at this site are 

affecting outmigration of juvenile salmonids.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and DWR, in cooperation with the 

Meridian Farms Water Company operators, need to develop operational criteria for timing and volume of 

flow splits between the East and West Barrows.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Cooperation by dam owner, Meridian Farms Water 

Company, and funding are unknown factors at this time. 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-101

Predicted benefits: Developing operational criteria will provide better passage flows for adult salmon and 

steelhead.

Action 5(a)(3): Establish operational criteria for Sutter Bypass Weir #2.

Objective: Improve adult fish passage.

Location: Sutter Bypass Weir #2.

Narrative description: Flow splits between the East and West Barrows and the impacts on anadromous fish 

are not well understood, particularly with the recent changes in water usage resulting from rice straw

decomposition and waterfowl needs in fall and winter. In general, the East Barrow has been identified as 

the most desirable migration route. Drainage flows enter the East Barrow at the Wadsworth Canal and are 

a mixture of various diversions from the Feather River. Adult salmon are periodically reported to have 

migrated up the Wadsworth Canal, presumably to have died without spawning. Weir #2, a concrete, 

seasonally installed flashboard structure, is located approximately 1 mile south of the Wadsworth Canal. A 

fish ladder installed on the west side of the weir is generally passable. Weir #2 is operated and maintained 

by DWR and is generally in place from March through early November. There is, however, a concern for 

delay and also for regulation of flows within the fish ladder, which are often found to be impassable. With 

the recent advent of waterfowl needs for the Sutter National Wildlife Refuge, and potential rice straw 

decomposition needs, Weir #2 is operated over a longer period and, as demonstrated in 1993-1994, was 

never removed. Thus, Weir #2 can be a major obstacle to anadromous fish migration.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and DWR, in cooperation with dam 

operators, need to develop operational criteria relative to installation date and removal of the weir.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Developing operational criteria will serve to identify and facilitate passage flows for adult 

and juvenile salmon and steelhead, while maintaining agricultural and wildlife needs.

Action 5(a)(4): Establish operational criteria for Nelson Slough.

Objective: Improve adult fish passage.

Location: Nelson Slough.
3-Xb-102 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Narrative description: Flows from the East Barrow, other than floodflows, historically have rejoined the 

West Barrow at several locations, including Gilsizer, Willow, and Nelson Sloughs. Problems in regulating 

flows through the three sloughs often resulted in stranded adult salmon. The result was a decision to route 

all flows during most of the year through Willow Slough, which was modified with a concrete denile fish 

ladder. Currently, Nelson Slough is the lowermost interconnection with the West Barrow and Sacramento 

Slough and generally flows only during flood events. During 1994, DWR installed a control structure that 

will allow regulation of flows into Nelson Slough during nonflood periods to facilitate better regulation of 

flows and elevations at the lower end of the East Barrow.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Even with the single route through Willow 

Slough and an improved fish ladder, delay and injury are probably still a factor at this site. Also, the newly 

installed control structure that will allow regulation of flows into Nelson Slough during nonflood periods has 

the potential to cause stranding of salmon and steelhead.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and DWR need to develop operational 

criteria relative to installation date and removal of the weir.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Funding is unknown at this time.

Predicted benefits: Developing operational criteria will serve to enhance passage and reduce stranding of 

salmon and steelhead.

Action 5(a)(5): Establish operational criteria for Sutter Bypass Weir #1.

Objective: Improve adult fish passage.

Location: Sutter Bypass Weir #1.

Narrative description: Weir #1, the lowermost of the West Barrow dams, is located immediately upstream 

of the Tisdale Bypass and is owned and operated by the USFWS for the Sutter National Wildlife Refuge. 

This weir is primarily utilized for the management needs of the refuge; however, it also provides for 

agricultural users. As with the other dams in the Sutter Bypass, changing conditions are resulting in yearround operations in some years, creating potentially significant impacts on migrating salmon and steelhead.

Weir #1 is a seasonally installed concrete flashboard structure, with an existing operational fish ladder. As 

with all of the other weirs and dams, Weir #1 creates a major blockage that, even with its operational fish 

ladder, contributes to delay and injury of migrating salmon.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-103

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Alternative sources of water for the Sutter 

Refuge are currently being developed. If an alternative is developed, the weir could potentially be 

eliminated or the time of use reduced.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, DWR, and USFWS need to develop 

operational criteria relative to installation date and removal of the weir and to explore alternative water 

sources to allow dam removal.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: The development of sound operational criteria or weir removal will benefit salmon and 

steelhead as well as wildlife.

Action 5(a)(6): Install fish screens at Sanborn Slough Bifurcation Structure.

Objective: Prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids.

Location: Sanborn Slough Bifurcation Structure.

Narrative description: Flow splits at the Sanborn Slough Bifurcation Structure may cause delay and or 

stranding for juvenile salmon and steelhead. The existing structure is an earthen cobble dam with two large 

gated culverts installed across the main channel of Butte Creek. The potential for installation of a fish screen 

at this site needs to be investigated. Operational responsibility for the structure is unclear, although there is a 

loose arrangement between the duck clubs and agricultural users to provide diversions to meet the 

respective needs by time of year. In addition, Reclamation District 1004 has an open application to 

appropriate additional Butte Creek waters that specifies operational criteria at this site. Depending on time 

and flows, this site may be a major migrational barrier and could divert significant numbers of juveniles into 

the Butte Sink.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None. 

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should coordinate screen design and 

installation.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: A fish screen at this site could prevent the loss of significant numbers of salmon and 

steelhead resulting from straying into the Butte Sink.
3-Xb-104 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Action 5(a)(7): Install fish screens at White Mallard Dam.

Objective: Prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids.

Location: White Mallard Dam.

Narrative description: Reclamation District 1004 diverts Butte Creek flows at the White Mallard Dam 

during the agricultural season, and White Mallard Duck Club diverts water at this site during the fall 

waterfowl season. The dam is an earthfilled, seasonally installed flashboard structure. There is an existing 

fish ladder that, in conjunction with the dam, is of questionable durability.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None. 

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, in conjunction with the USBR and 

USFWS, should design and install a new fish screen.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Installation of a fish screen will prevent the loss of juvenile salmon and steelhead at this 

dam.

Action 5(a)(8): Screen diversions within Sutter Bypass where necessary.

Objective: Prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids.

Location: Sutter Bypass, Butte Slough to Sacramento River.

Narrative description: Diversions and their impacts in this reach are largely unknown; however, flows 

entering the East and West Barrows of the Sutter Bypass are regulated by a concrete flashboard structure 

operated by Meridian Farms Water Company. Flows are routed to the East and West Barrows to meet 

the needs of agriculture during spring. With the changing requirements for the elimination of rice straw in 

conjunction with waterfowl habitat, flows may also be regulated in fall and early winter. None of the 

diversions within the Sutter Bypass are screened, and thus they potentially entrain significant numbers of 

juvenile salmon and steelhead.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Development of alternative water source 

for Sutter Refuge could eliminate need for one or more screens.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, with support from the USFWS, should 

investigate the need for fish screens and facilitate installation where necessary.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-105

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Fish screen installation has the potential to prevent the loss of juvenile salmon and 

steelhead.

Action 5(b)(1): Install culvert and riser at White Mallard Duck Club outfall.

Objective: Prevent straying of adult salmonids.

Location: White Mallard Duck Club outfall.

Narrative description: Reclamation District 1004 diverts Butte Creek flows at the White Mallard Dam 

during the agricultural season, and White Mallard Duck Club diverts water at this site during the fall 

waterfowl season. Tailwater from the diversion at the White Mallard Dam often results in stranding of adult 

salmon at the base of the White Mallard Duck Club bottom weir. Adult salmon, primarily fall-run salmon, 

are attracted out of Butte Creek approximately 0.5 mile to the base of the bottom weir.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, USFWS, and White Mallard Duck Club 

need to provide corrections to the system to avoid attracting and stranding salmon below the White Mallard 

Duck Club's bottom weir.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Elimination of stranding at this site will increase production in the creek.

Action 5(b)(2): Rebuild and maintain existing culvert and riser at Drumheller Slough outfall.

Objective: Prevent straying of adult salmonids.

Location: Drumheller Slough outfall.

Narrative description: Tailwater from Drumheller Slough at the point it enters Butte Creek, under current 

operating conditions, is known to attract adult fall-run chinook salmon, stranding them in the upper portion 

of the slough. Changing water needs for wildlife and rice straw decomposition may eventually cause 
3-Xb-106 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

impacts on late fall-run and spring-run chinook salmon and steelhead. The existing structure needs to be 

rebuilt and maintained.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Reclamation District 1004, with support from 

DFG and USFWS, needs to design, build, and maintain the existing culvert and riser at Drumheller Slough 

outfall to avoid attracting and stranding salmon and steelhead.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Rehabilitation of the existing culvert and riser at the outfall will prevent the loss of adult 

salmon due to straying and increase production in the creek.

Action 5(b)(3): Establish operational criteria for Sutter Bypass Weir #5.

Objective: Improve adult fish passage.

Location: Sutter Bypass Weir #5.

Narrative description: Anadromous fish migration is generally encouraged through the East Barrow; 

however, flows in the West Barrow are generally present and sufficient to attract anadromous fish. Three 

weirs (dams) are located within the West Barrow below the East West Diversion Structure. The uppermost 

dam, Weir #5, is a seasonally operated concrete flashboard structure located approximately 1 mile south of 

the Highway 20 bridge crossing. It is operated primarily for agricultural needs in spring, although it may 

have some use in fall flooding for waterfowl and rice straw decomposition. Fish passage at the site is not 

well understood and has the potential, under some flow conditions, to present a significant blockage to 

migrating adults.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, DWR, and USFWS, in cooperation with 

dam operators, need to develop operational criteria for this weir.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Developing operational criteria will facilitate passage for adult salmon and steelhead.

Action 5(b)(4): Establish operational criteria for Sutter Bypass Weir #3.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-107

Objective: Improve adult fish passage.

Location: Sutter Bypass Weir #3.

Narrative description: Weir #3, the second of the West Barrow dams, is located across from the mouth of 

the Wadsworth Canal. It is operated primarily for agricultural needs and, as with the other weirs, will 

potentially have increasing usage in fall and winter for waterfowl and rice straw decomposition. Fish 

passage at this site is not well understood; however, it is thought to be a problem under some flow conditions. Operational criteria need to be developed.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, DWR, and USFWS, in cooperation with 

dam operators, need to develop operational criteria for this weir.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Developing operational criteria will provide better passage flows for adult salmonids.

Action 6(a)(1): Initiate legal actions on diverters who are violating water right allocations.

Objective: Ensure sufficient instream flows.

Location: Entire creek.

Narrative description: In general, during most periods when impacts on anadromous fish would be of 

concern, adequate flows exist below the Western Canal. Cursory review has revealed however, that some 

users in this reach appear to be diverting water outside of their right or entitlement.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, with USFWS support, needs to 

investigate this problem and consider legal action only after other actions have failed (see Action 3[a][1]).

Potential obstacles to implementation: Cost and cooperation are important to the success of this 

action.
3-Xb-108 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Predicted benefits: Legally defined instream flows will provide significant benefit to migrating salmon and 

steelhead.

Action 6(a)(2): Install high-volume fish ladder on Sutter Bypass Weir #2.

Objective: Improve adult fish passage.

Location: Sutter Bypass Weir #2.

Narrative description: Flow splits between the East and West Barrows and the impacts on anadromous fish 

are not well understood, particularly with the recent changes in water usage resulting from rice straw 

decomposition and waterfowl needs in fall and winter. In general, the East Barrow has been identified as 

the most desirable migration route. Drainage flows enter the East Barrow at the Wadsworth Canal and are 

a mixture of various diversions from the Feather River. Adult salmon are periodically reported to migrate up 

the Wadsworth Canal and, presumably, to die without spawning. Weir #2, a concrete, seasonally installed 

flashboard structure, is located approximately 1 mile south of the Wadsworth Canal. A fish ladder is 

installed on the west side of the weir and is generally passable. There is a concern for delay and regulation 

of flows within the fish ladder, which is often impassable. Weir #2 is operated and maintained by DWR and 

is generally in place from March through early November. With the recent advent of waterfowl needs for 

the Sutter National Wildlife Refuge, and potential rice straw decomposition needs, Weir #2 is operated over 

a longer period and, as demonstrated in 1993-94, was never removed. Thus, Weir #2 can be a major 

obstacle to anadromous fish migration. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, in cooperation with DWR, needs to 

design and install a high-volume fish ladder.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Installation of a high-volume fish ladder will improve fish passage at this site.

Action 6(a)(3): Install high-volume fish ladder on Sutter Bypass Weir #1.

Objective: Improve adult fish passage.

Location: Sutter Bypass Weir #1.

Narrative description: Weir #1, the lowermost of the West Barrow dams, is located immediately upstream 

of the Tisdale Bypass and is owned and operated by the USFWS for the Sutter National Wildlife Refuge. 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-109

This weir is primarily utilized for the management needs of the refuge; however, it also provides for 

agricultural users. As with the other dams in the Sutter Bypass, changing conditions are resulting in yearround operations in some years, thus potentially having significant impacts on salmon and steelhead. Weir 

#1 is a seasonally installed concrete flashboard structure, with an existing operational fish ladder. As with all 

of the other weirs and dams, Weir #1 creates a major blockage, even with its operational fish ladder, that 

contributes to delay and injury of migrating salmon.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and USFWS need to install a high-volume 

fish ladder at this weir.

Potential obstacles to implementation: If an alternative source of water for Sutter Refuge is 

developed, the weir might be removed or the time of operation reduced.

Predicted benefits: Installation of a high-volume fish ladder will improve fish passage at this site.

Action 6(a)(4): Install fish screens on Little Dry Creek pumps.

Objective: Prevent entrainment or impingement of juvenile salmonids.

Location: Little Dry Creek pumps, approximately 1 mile below Afton Road.

Narrative description: The reach between McPherrin Dam and Sanborn Slough borders the Little Dry 

Creek Unit of the Upper Butte Basin Wildlife Area. Two unscreened pumps supply water to the Little Dry 

Creek Unit, while an unknown number of additional pumps exist in this reach. None of the pumps are 

screened.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and USFWS need to coordinate screening 

of all pumps on Butte Creek.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Screening will prevent loss of juvenile salmon and steelhead.
3-Xb-110 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Action 6(a)(5): Increase law enforcement of fishing regulations.

Objective: Eliminate or reduce poaching.

Location: Entire creek.

Narrative description: Poaching is considered to be a significant problem along the entire length of Butte 

Creek. One additional warden position was added by DFG during 1994 to patrol spring-run salmon 

streams. However, the one additional position is responsible for providing patrol on five or six tributaries. 

Additional intensive enforcement might be achieved by providing funding overtime to existing wardens in the 

key areas.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and USFWS need to provide the 

resources to accomplish this action.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Increased enforcement of fishing regulations will prevent loss of adult salmon and 

steelhead due to poaching.

Action 6(b)(1): Install high-volume fish ladder on Sutter Bypass Weir #5.

Objective: Improve adult fish passage.

Location: Sutter Bypass Weir #5.

Narrative description: See the narrative description for Action 5(b)(3).

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and USFWS need to install a high-volume 

fish ladder at this weir.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Installation of an improved ladder will aid in fish passage problems associated with this 

dam.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-111

Action 6(b)(2): Install high-volume fish ladder on Sutter Bypass Weir #3.

Objective: Improve adult fish passage.

Location: Sutter Bypass Weir #3.

Narrative description: See the narrative description for Action 5(b)(4).

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, DWR, and USFWS need to install a 

high-volume fish ladder at this weir.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Installation of an improved ladder will aid in fish passage problems associated with this 

dam.

Action 7(a)(1): Install high-volume fish ladder at White Mallard Dam.

Objective: Improve adult fish passage.

Location: White Mallard Dam.

Narrative description: Reclamation District 1004 diverts Butte Creek flows at the White Mallard Dam 

during the agricultural season and White Mallard Duck Club diverts water at this site during the fall 

waterfowl season. The dam is an earthfilled, seasonally installed flashboard structure. There is an existing 

fish ladder that, in conjunction with the dam, is of questionable durability.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and USFWS need to install a high-volume 

fish ladder at this dam.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Installation of an improved ladder will aid in fish passage problems associated with this 

dam.
3-Xb-112 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Action 7(a)(2): Develop and enforce land use plans that create buffer zones between the creek and 

development.

Objective: Protect existing salmonid habitat from further human development.

Location: Entire stream.

Narrative description: Local land use plans and regulations need to be implemented or modified to create 

buffer zones between the creek and any new development. An ecosystem approach needs to be developed 

to integrate any anadromous fishery management plans into an overall watershed management plan that will 

require participation of all federal, state, and local entities, including land owners and private groups. 

Formation of local advocacy groups should be encouraged to ensure that the legitimate needs of all 

stakeholders are considered and addressed. One such group, the Butte Creek Spring Run Restoration 

Committee, is currently addressing and reviewing spring-run restoration activities. DFG is in the process of 

developing a plan that would protect riparian habitats. Local groups should be encouraged to participate in 

such an effort.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: All agencies need to continue their interactions 

with local conservation groups to facilitate development and outside support of anadromous fish restoration 

plans.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: A healthy riparian corridor is important to the maintenance of the watershed.

Action 7(a)(3): Develop a watershed management program.

Objective: Protect existing salmonid habitat while providing for human use of the resources.

Location: Entire stream.

Narrative description: See the narrative description for Action 7(a)(2).

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-113

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: All agencies need to continue interagency and 

local conservation group interactions to facilitate collaborative development and outside support of 

anadromous fish restoration plans.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None. 

Predicted benefits: Preserving and protecting the existing watershed is very important to the restoration and 

continued existence of salmon and steelhead in Butte Creek.

Action 7(b): Enhance fish passage at natural barrier below Centerville Diversion Dam.

Objective: Increase the amount of available salmonid habitat.

Location: 0.5 mile downstream of the Centerville Diversion Dam.

Narrative description: A natural barrier exists approximately 0.5 mile below the Centerville Diversion Dam 

which, under most flow conditions, would preclude spring-run chinook salmon and steelhead from 

ascending. Some additional spawning and rearing habitat is available above this barrier. Potential solutions 

include construction of a fish ladder or physical modification of the barrier.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG should investigate the feasibility of 

removing or modifying this barrier for upstream movement of spring-run chinook salmon and steelhead.

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Some additional spring-run and steelhead habitat would be provided.

Action 8: Enhance fish passage at PG&E diversion dams.

Objective: Increase the amount of available salmonid habitat.

Location: Centerville Diversion Dam and above.

Narrative description: Within the upper watershed area above the Centerville Diversion Dam, flows are 

regulated by PG&E. Flows from Butte Creek are commingled with diversions from the West Branch of the 

North Fork of the Feather River for power generation at the PG&E Desabla and Centerville Powerhouses. 

 West Branch flows are augmented by storage in Round Valley and Philbrook Reservoirs. Currently, 
3-Xb-114 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

releases from the two reservoirs are based primarily on power generation needs, with some consideration 

given to recreation in Philbrook Reservoir and flow and temperature considerations below the Centerville 

Diversion Dam, a prime spring-run chinook salmon holding area. Salmon are currently blocked under 

almost all flow conditions from further upstream movement by the Centerville Diversion Dam.

If PG&E diversion dams in the Butte Creek system are to be considered permanent structures, the potential 

to enhance anadromous fish habitat above the dams can be achieved only by installation of fish ladders. 

This consideration would, of necessity, be incremental in nature due to the three-dam sequence blocking the 

original natural route to the extreme upper watershed area. The second of these, the Forks of Butte 

diversion, is a recent installation owned and operated by Energy Growth Partnership. In addition, natural 

barriers that existed prior to the dams or that formed after dam installation, would need to be evaluated for 

passage.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: PG&E is currently reevaluating the efficacy 

of maintaining and operating the DeSabla-Centerville Project. The FERC license (FERC 803), which 

expires in 2009, may significantly alter considerations relative to the continued existence of the dams and 

their operation.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, in conjunction with USFWS, should begin 

negotiating with PG&E and Energy Growth Partnership to facilitate fish passage. The success of this action 

is also depends on the completion of Action 7(b).

Potential obstacles to implementation: None.

Predicted benefits: Unimpeded passage, either through installation of fish ladders or removal of dams, 

would provide additional habitat that is thought to have been historically utilized by salmon and steelhead.

Colusa Basin drain -

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Migration barriers - Access to westside tributaries is currently blocked by the levee 

system along the Sacramento River. In addition, migration from the Colusa Basin Drain into the individual 

tributaries is often blocked by various dams and checks installed by irrigation and reclamation districts. To 

facilitate movement of salmon and steelhead, defined migrational corridors would have to be identified, constructed, and maintained.

Migrational flows- Most of the flow of the major westside tributaries is captured by the 

various irrigation and reclamation districts. Thus, it is virtually impossible for adults to consistently enter the 

system and for juveniles to consistently exit the system. To facilitate adult entrance and juvenile exit, defined 

instream flows have to be provided for each of the specified tributaries.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-115

Water temperatures- Temperature is probably limiting for juveniles and adults entering or 

exiting the system during April through October. Drain flows often exceed 2,000 cfs and water 

temperatures exceed 80 F. Drainage flows entering the Sacramento River at Knights Landing during April 

through June probably significantly affect Sacramento River temperatures below Knights Landing.

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Develop defined migrational routes.

Objective: Provide direct access to Westside Tributaries.

Location: Westside Tributaries entering Colusa Basin.

Narrative description: Before water development, westside tributaries that currently enter the Colusa Basin 

Drain probably entered the Sacramento River through various sloughs between the towns of Glenn and 

Knights Landing. Reclamation efforts have since blocked this access other than through the outfall gates at 

Knights Landing. In addition, within the basin, most tributaries are blocked or diverted by various irrigation 

and reclamation districts. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Migrational corridors have to be identified 

that would either provide river access similar to that existing historically or, alternatively, provide a defined 

route through the Colusa Basin Drain outfall into the tributaries. Either alternative would require significant 

structural work such as levees, fish screens, fish ladders, siphons, and bridges.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: It is necessary for DFG, USFWS, and DWR to 

reach consensus as to the feasibility of developing anadromous fish production potential in the Colusa Basin 

Drain, given the low potential for developing migration corridors and the necessary infrastructure to ensure 

successful passage and reproduction (small reservoirs, levees, fish screens, fish ladders, siphons, and 

bridges).

Potential obstacles to implementation: The cost to make necessary structural fixes to a complex 

irrigation drainage system to gain a potentially small anadromous fish production contribution and the high 

temperature input during May to June suggest that greater salmon production benefits could accrue from 

investing similar costs into major diversion screens located on the mainstem of the Sacramento River or 

enhancing higher production potential streams.

Predicted benefits: Potential benefits are unknown although defined access routes might allow sporadic 

opportunistic runs of fall-run salmon based on historical knowledge of the drainage. Alternatively, some 

o
3-Xb-116 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

unknown benefit to upper Sacramento River salmon stocks might result from excluding entry to the Colusa 

Basin Drain at the Knights Landing outfall gates. A greater benefit to salmon stocks, particularly fall-run, 

may be preventing entrance into the Colusa Basin Drain. Currently, it is believed that any fish entering the 

drain and respective tributaries are straying from the Sacramento River as the result of high return flows at 

the Knights Landing outfall gates.

Action 2: Develop defined migrational flows.

Objective: Provide direct access to Westside Tributaries.

Location: Westside Tributaries entering Colusa Basin.

Narrative description: Before water development, westside tributaries that currently enter the Colusa Basin 

Drain probably entered the Sacramento River through various sloughs between the towns of Glenn and 

Knights Landing. Most likely, historical flows were sporadic and confined to October through March.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Currently, during most of the year, flows 

are diverted by various irrigation and reclamation districts. Some potential might exist to enhance flows 

through implementation of a foothill reservoir project identified by DWR (1964) as a possible flood control 

alternative. In addition, significant structural work such as levees, fish screens, fish ladders, siphons, and 

bridges would be required.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: See roles and responsibilities discussed for 

Action 1.

Potential obstacles to implementation: As stated for Action 1, general benefits to salmon stocks, 

particularly fall-run stocks, might be improved by preventing entrance into the Colusa Drain. Again, it is 

believed that any fish entering the drain and respective tributaries are straying from the Sacramento River as 

the result of high return flows at the Knights Landing outfall gates. See potential obstacles discussed for 

Action 1.

Predicted benefits: Benefits are the same as stated for Action 1.

Action 3: Reduce water temperatures.

Objective: Enhance survival in Colusa Drain and westside tributaries.

Location: Westside tributaries entering Colusa Basin.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-117

Narrative description: Historically, water temperatures were probably a limiting factor that, in conjunction 

with inconsistent flows, served to limit salmon populations in the Colusa Basin Drain tributaries. Isolating 

flows through defined channels, in conjunction with enhanced flows from a foothill reservoir project, might 

provide some marginally lower water temperatures.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Temperature impacts on the Sacramento 

River from drain return flows are believed to be significant during the late spring and early fall periods. 

Enlargement of the Knights Landing Ridge Cut might facilitate allowing such flows to be routed into the Yolo 

Bypass, thereby eliminating impacts on the river at Knights Landing and below. 

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: See roles and responsibilities discussed for 

Action 1.

Potential obstacles to implementation: See potential obstacles discussed for Action 1.

Predicted benefits: Potential benefits are unknown although reduced temperatures facilitate sporadic 

opportunistic runs of fall-run salmon. Alternatively, some unknown benefit to upper Sacramento River 

salmon stocks might result by routing excess bypass flows during spring and fall into the Yolo Bypass. As 

stated for Action 1, general benefits to salmon stocks, particularly fall-run, might be improved by preventing 

entrance into the Colusa Drain. See predicted benefits discussed for Action 1.

Miscellaneous small tributaries -

Limiting factors and potential solutions - Table 3-Xb-15 lists key limiting factors for chinook 

salmon and steelhead in small tributaries and potential solutions. Small tributaries have been degraded in 

many ways. Some have been diverted into irrigation canals such as the Glenn-Colusa Canal and are no 

longer direct tributaries to the river. Others have been channeled for drainage or flood control and burned 

or sprayed with herbicides to keep channels free of plant obstructions. Irrigation diversions, usually in 

upstream areas where the stream is perennial, contribute to early dewatering of downstream reaches used 

for rearing by juvenile chinook salmon. Sometimes tributaries are damaged simply because local people fail 

to recognize their value and place burn piles where they destroy riparian vegetation or carelessly overspray 

the streams with herbicide or pesticide. Most small tributaries have been used as dumps for all sorts of 

waste, including car batteries, engine blocks, oil filters, animal carcasses, refrigerators, TVs, and household 

garbage, all of which may leach toxic substances into the water. In some cases, fish are lost to irrigation 

diversions that pull river water upstream near the mouth of the tributary. While chinook salmon rearing in 

most small tributaries is limited by one or more of the above problems, the smaller streams have not been 

studied enough to detail which reach of which stream needs particular restoration.
3-Xb-118 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Table 3-Xb-15. Key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead 

in small tributaries and potential solutions to those problems.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

Degraded rearing habitat Revegetate denuded stream reaches; restore a 

protected riparian strip

Loss to agricultural diversion Move pumps to the river where sufficient bypass 

flow exists to avoid entrainment of juvenile 

salmonids and avoid screen intakes

Presence of toxic materials in

streams

Remove existing hazardous materials; educate 

public about importance of small streams; 

enforce ordinances prohibiting dumping in 

streams

Early dewatering of streams Find alternative sources of water for upstream 

diversions

Blocked upstream passage for rearing 

juvenile chinook salmon

Replace bridge/ford combinations with bridges 

or enlarged culverts

Loss of rearing habitat due to interception 

of tributaries by canals

Provide siphons to get "beheaded" tributary 

streams past irrigation canals

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Revegetate denuded stream reaches and restore and maintain a protected riparian strip in all 

tributaries.

Objective: Expand the usable rearing habitat and provide habitat diversity, cover from predators, and shade 

to retain lower water temperatures in late spring.

Location: All Central Valley reaches of rearing tributaries.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-119

Narrative description: Restore and maintain a natural riparian corridor that is not sprayed, mowed, burned, 

channeled, or used as a garbage dump. Educational campaigns to dispense knowledge about the value of 

small tributaries as salmon habitat should help significantly to preserve and restore tributary habitat. Recruitment of school groups and local conservation groups for cleanup, riparian planting, fencing, and other 

restoration projects would contribute both to education and direct restoration. Critical stream reaches might 

be preserved by purchase of conservation easements.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: All of the actions in this report augment one 

another because they all improve rearing habitat for juvenile chinook salmon.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Cooperation between DFG, DWR, and local 

conservation groups is essential.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Enforcing conservation laws may be difficult if there is a 

shortage of enforcement personnel.

Predicted benefits: Trees, roots, and stumps at the stream edge create eddy currents during flood. The 

eddies scour out the deep holes that young salmon need for survival in dry years. The trees also shade the 

stream, keeping temperatures safe for juvenile salmon, while the roots and fallen branches provide cover for 

escape from predators. Resultant habitat diversity supports many forms of aquatic foods, while terrestrial 

insects, falling into the water from overhanging vegetation, also contribute to the food base. Improved 

habitat from riparian revegetation would result in greater survival of juvenile chinook salmon rearing in 

tributaries. Recruitment of school groups and local conservation groups for cleanup, riparian planting, 

fencing, and other restoration projects would contribute both to education and direct restoration.

Action 2: Move pumps to the river where sufficient bypass flow exists to avoid entrainment of juvenile 

salmonids. (Screen pumps.)

Objective: Reduce loss of juveniles to agricultural diversion.

Location: All Central Valley reaches of rearing tributaries where diversion pumps are located but designed 

to take water from both tributary and river.

Narrative description: Pumps are frequently located on a tributary just off the river to reduce damage and 

displacement from the meandering river. When functioning, they reverse the natural flow between them and 

the river. While convenient and cheaper for the water user, pumps are disastrous to anadromous fish. 

During winter or early spring, juvenile chinook salmon move up the tributaries for rearing (Maslin and 

McKinney 1994). If the pumps located in the tributaries are turned on before the salmon leave, most 
3-Xb-120 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

salmon will be lost. Such diversions should be relocated, moved to the river, and re-installed with screening 

and bypass flows. Federal and state funds should be made available to avoid excess hardship to small 

operators.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: See related actions discussed for Action 1.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: This action should be accomplished by a 

collaboration between DWR, DFG, the USBR, USFWS, and local water users.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The cost of moving and screening pumps could be an 

obstacle.

Predicted benefits: Thousands of juvenile chinook salmon would be saved annually (Maslin and McKinney 

1994).

Action 3: Find alternative sources of water for upstream diversions.

Objective: Prevent early dewatering of stream reaches used for rearing.

Location: All rearing tributaries with upstream diversion.

Narrative description: Small irrigation diversions exist in almost all of these streams, usually in the foothill 

region where streams are perennial. They cause reduced flow in downstream reaches, often resulting in 

early dewatering and associated loss of juvenile salmonids that would have successfully emigrated in a few 

weeks. Timing and quantity of agricultural diversion need to be changed to prevent early dry down in 

downstream reaches. Substitution of groundwater sources from mid-April to mid-May would improve 

survival, particularly of fall-run juveniles.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: See related actions discussed for Action 1.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: This action should be accomplished by 

collaboration between DWR, the USBR, and local water districts.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Lack of understanding of the importance of small tributaries 

may affect the cooperation of water users.

Predicted benefits: Fall-run juvenile chinook salmon that are almost to the smolt stage are often trapped as 

intermittent streams dry down in late April and early May. Leaving additional water in small tributaries at 

these critical times could permit survival of thousands of juvenile salmon (Maslin and McKinney 1994).
3-Xb-121 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Action 4: Survey tributaries for toxic materials, follow with cleanup projects as needed; expand 

enforcement of dumping ordinances.

Objective: Remove hazards and potential hazards such as car batteries, oil filters, and animal carcasses 

from streams. Prevent further use of streams for dumps.

Location: All Central Valley reaches of rearing tributaries.

Narrative description: The value of intermittent streams is often unrecognized, and, consequently, the 

streams are used as convenient waste receptacles. All sorts of waste, including car batteries, engine blocks, 

oil filters, animal carcasses, refrigerators, TVs, and household garbage, can be observed in these tributary 

streams. This problem can be addressed by a combination of cleanup, education, and enforcement of 

existing prohibitions on dumping.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: See related actions discussed for Action 1.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Cooperation between DFG, DWR, and local 

conservation groups is essential.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Lack of understanding of the importance of small tributaries 

may limit public cooperation. Enforcing conservation laws may be difficult if there is a shortage of 

enforcement personnel.

Predicted benefits: While it is impossible to estimate loss of juvenile salmonids due to toxic and oxygendemanding materials in streams, rampant illegal dumping is substantially degrading habitat.

Action 5: Replace bridge/ford combinations with bridges or larger culverts.

Objective: Expand the usable habitat in some tributaries.

Location: Central Valley reaches of rearing tributaries that have bridge/ford crossings.

Narrative description: Some rearing tributaries have low road crossings, usually constructed of concrete 

with small culverts so that low flows pass through the culverts at high velocity and higher flows spill over the 

road bed (e.g., Elder Creek by TCC, Dye Creek at Shasta Boulevard.) The high velocity and turbulence of 

water passing through these culverts prevent juvenile chinook salmon from migrating further upstream, 

sometimes blocking access to miles of channel suitable for rearing.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: See related actions discussed for Action 1 

above.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

B. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xb-122

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Resolution of this problem should be 

accomplished by a collaboration between the California Department of Transportation, DFG, and private 

land owners.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Costs of improving road crossings could be an obstacle.

Projected benefits: Additional rearing habitat would become accessible to juvenile salmon. The absolute 

benefit would vary with the proximity to the river of the crossing and the amount of potential rearing habitat 

upstream. Within a few miles of the river, a reasonable projection would be about 1,500 juveniles per 

stream mile.

Action 6: Provide siphons to get "beheaded" tributary streams past irrigation canals.

Objective: Expand the usable habitat.

Location: Central Valley streams that formerly were tributary to the Sacramento River but now emptying 

into an irrigation canal, especially on the west side of the Sacramento River in Glenn and Colusa counties.

Narrative description: Many tributaries now flow directly into canals. (e.g., Willow, Hunter's, Corral, 

Lurline, Freshwater, Sand, Oat Creeks.) Because water in these streams no longer reaches the river, their 

habitat is no longer available to anadromous fish. Some of these "beheaded" streams formerly supported 

minor spawning populations of fall-run chinook salmon; most provided rearing habitat.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: See related actions discussed for Action 1 

above.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Local water districts, DWR, DFG, and the 

USBR should cooperate to solve this problem.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The cost of providing siphons could be an obstacle.

Predicted benefits: Each tributary could provide rearing habitat for between 5,000 and 20,000 juvenile 

chinook salmon annually. Small spawning populations (50 to 100 adults) could be supported by some (Paul 

Maslin, professional opinion pers. comm.).






























































































SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-1

D. SAN JOAQUIN BASIN

Development of Flow Recommendations

Vernalis flow -

Regression model - The equation relating escapement of chinook salmon to April-June flow and 

exports during the year of outmigration was derived by Dr. Carl Mesick of Carl Mesick Consultants, using 

data supplied by DFG, DWR, and USGS (CMC 1994).

DFG has previously presented regression equations describing the relationship between adult escapement 

into the Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers and San Joaquin Basin outflow at the time of outmigration (DFG 

1992, 1993). Dr. Mesick's analyses differ from DFG's in three important respects: 1) Dr. Mesick=s 

analyses separated 2- and 3-year-old salmon according to the year when they were juveniles outmigrating 

through the Delta1; 2) the data used covered a longer period of time (1951-1993); and 3) in addition to San 

Joaquin Basin outflow, individual and combined effects of spawning stock numbers, ocean harvest, El Niño, 

Delta water quality, and total Delta exports were evaluated.

Escapement was best predicted by a model based on the ratio of Vernalis flow (QV) to maximum monthly 

exports at the SWP and CVP pumping facilities (XF,S) from April-June (adj-R

2

=0.76, p=0.000) and by a 

model incorporating April-June Vernalis flow and April-June maximum monthly exports as separate terms 

(adj-R

2

=0.68, p1= 0.000, p2 = 0.014). Spawning stock numbers, ocean harvest, El Niño conditions, and 

fall water quality were discarded because their relative contributions to prediction of escapement proved to 

be insignificant.

Selection of regression model - In developing Vernalis flow recommendations for the purposes of 

the AFRP, the model relying on the QV:XF,S ratio was rejected in favor of the model incorporating QV and 

XF,S as separate terms in the equation. Although the ratio model accounts for a slightly greater portion of 

 

1DFG regressed spring flow at Vernalis on escapement 2 years later; for each year escapement 

estimates were based on 3-year-old salmon, which were juveniles 2 years earlier, and 2-year-old 

salmon, which were juveniles 1 year earlier. Therefore, in the DFG regression, the portion of 

escapement composed of 2-year-old fish was not influenced by spring flow at Vernalis 2 years earlier.
3-Xd-2 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

the total variance associated with escapement, it has disadvantages associated with its greater potential for 

selecting flow and export combinations outside the range of observed conditions. For example, while a 

QV:XF,S ratio of 10 could be achieved by setting QV=100 and XF,S=10 or by setting QV=10,000 and 

XF,S=1000, it is unlikely that both scenarios would provide equal benefits for salmon.

Development of April-June Vernalis flow and export recommendations- The initial assumption 

was that doubling average baseline-period production (as indicated by escapement) of chinook salmon 

would require conditions that were better than those that occurred during the baseline period. With this in 

mind, XF,S was set to equal 200 taf/month (3,360 cfs), which is equivalent to about 50% of the mean export 

rate during the baseline period. Two hundred taf/month is the average value for XF,S over the five San 

Joaquin Basin water year types. XF,S was adjusted for each year type to reflect by year type distribution of 

total unimpaired runoff during the period of record (1922-1990) (Table 3-Xd-1) . Thus XF,S would exceed 

200 taf/mo in above-normal and wet years, but would be lower than 200 taf/mo in below-normal, dry, and 

critical years.

Table 3-Xd-1. Allocation of total combined Delta exports (CVP and SWP)

by percent occurrence of total unimpaired runoff (1922-1990).

Year type

Percent of total 

unimpaired runoff

(1922-1990)

Total monthly

exports for 5 years

Maximum

monthly

exports

Critical 0.09 x (200 x 5) = 90

Dry 0.13 x (200 x 5) = 130

Below normal 0.19 x (200 x 5) = 190

Above normal 0.23 x (200 x 5) = 230

Wet 0.35 x (200 x 5) = 350

When XF,S = 200 taf/month, the regression model indicates that a QV of 9,000 cfs is required to double 

escapement of chinook salmon into the Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers. As with exports, total QV was 

adjusted for year type to reflect percent distribution of total unimpaired runoff between year types during the 

period of record (1922-1990) (Table 3-Xd-2). 

Table 3-Xd-2. Allocation of San Joaquin River flow at Vernalis

based on percent occurrence of total unimpaired runoff (1922-1990).

Year type

Percent of total 

unimpaired runoff

(1922-1990)

Total monthly flow for 

5 years

Mean monthly

flow

Critical 0.09 x (9,000 x 5) = 4,050

Dry 0.13 x (9,000 x 5) = 5,850
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-3

Year type

Percent of total 

unimpaired runoff

(1922-1990)

Total monthly flow for 

5 years

Mean monthly

flow

Below normal 0.19 x (9,000 x 5) = 8,550

Above normal 0.23 x (9,000 x 5) = 10,350

Wet 0.35 x (9,000 x 5) = 15,750

Assuming that year types occur with equal frequency, the regression model predicts that implementing these 

standards would double the average baseline period escapement into the Tuolumne and Stanislaus rivers. 

Application of weighting factors to account for differences in year type frequency will be considered as a 

possible future refinement.

Another key assumption is that the unimpaired hydrograph (1922-1990) generally provides the best 

indication of the optimum timing of flow for chinook salmon. On the basis of this assumption, Vernalis flow 

was allocated between April, May, and June to reflect the pattern exhibited by unimpaired runoff. For 

example, on the average, distribution of total April-June unimpaired runoff during wet years was 25%, 39%, 

and 36% for April, May, and June, respectively. Thus, based on the wet-year flow value in Table 3-Xd-2, 

recommendations would be (0.25 X [3 X 15,570]) = 11,677 cfs in April, (0.39 X [3 X 15,570]) = 18,217 

cfs in May, and (0.36 X [3 X 15,570]) = 16,816 cfs in June.

Tributary flow recommendations -

Tributary flow recommendations were developed using estimated flow needs at Vernalis, unimpaired runoff 

from 1922 through 1990, and findings of previous IFIM studies. The following assumptions were applied:

1) In a given water year, flow at Vernalis is an index of conditions upstream in the tributaries 

and upstream in the San Joaquin River.

2) In a given month, unimpaired conditions represent the optimum distribution of total San 

Joaquin Basin outflow between the tributaries and the mainstem river.

3) Within a given water year, flow during April, May, and June is an index of flow during the 

other months of the year.

4) In a given water-year type, within each tributary and the mainstem, the unimpaired 

hydrograph represents optimum distribution of flow between months. 

5) An exception to 4 applies to the tributaries during late summer and fall. Unimpaired flows 

in the reaches that are currently accessible to salmon were often extremely low prior to and 
3-Xd-4 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

during spawning. Because access to upstream habitat has been prevented by the dams, 

higher than unimpaired flows are needed in most years to provide suitable conditions for 

spawning and incubation.

6) Flow should not be reduced between the onset of spawning and peak outmigration. 

Except during years when flows greater than unimpaired flows are released for spawning, 

this follows from assumption 3 above.

7) Although the regression model was based on combined escapement into the Stanislaus and 

Tuolumne rivers, the flows generated by the model were considered to be an index of 

conditions in the Merced River. Thus, Merced River flows were derived in the same 

manner as flows for the Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-5

For April, May, and June, tributary and upper mainstem river flows were developed by allocating total basin 

outflow (Vernalis flow) on the basis of mean, historic contribution to unimpaired runoff by year. Using the 

example for a wet year above, percent contributions to flow were 19% for the Stanislaus River, 28% for the 

Tuolumne River, 16% for the Merced River, and 38% for the mainstem San Joaquin River. Thus, the May 

flow recommendations would be 3,461 cfs, 5,101 cfs, 2,915 cfs, and 6,922 cfs for the Stanislaus River, the 

Tuolumne River, the Merced River, and the mainstem San Joaquin River (at Stevinson), respectively.

Within each year type, flows for October-March and July-September were developed using their 

proportional relationship to April-July flow under mean unimpaired conditions. On the average, for 1922-

1990, wet-year flows in the Stanislaus River are distributed as follows: October - 1%, November - 2%, 

December - 6%, January - 8%, February - 10%, March - 11%, April - 14%, May - 24%, June - 18%, 

July - 6%, August - 1%, and September - 1%. Returning to the original example, if AFRP \-generated 

wet-year flows for the Stanislaus River in April, May, and June are 1,985 cfs, 3,461 cfs, and 2,522 cfs, 

respectively. In an average wet year, 56% of the total annual unimpaired outflow for the Stanislaus River 

occurs during April-June. Flows for other months were obtained through multiplication of the percentage of 

the total annual flow occurring in each month by (1,985 + 3,461 + 2,522)/0.56. Flows developed using this 

approach generally range from 30% to 50% of those that would have occurred under unimpaired 

conditions.

Under unimpaired conditions, late summer and fall flows in the lower reaches of the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, 

and Merced rivers were probably insufficient to support chinook salmon spawning and over-summer 

rearing. Prior to the construction of dams, a large percentage of all spawning and rearing probably occurred 

upstream of the reaches that are currently accessible. Because flow recommendations developed by 

allocating Vernalis flow range from 30% to 50% of unimpaired flows, they cannot be expected to provide

adequate conditions for spawning and rearing in the lower reaches of the rivers during dryer year types. To 

compensate for this deficiency, the July-December tributary flows extrapolated from the QV/XF,S regression 

model were replaced with IFIM flows in cases in which the IFIM flows were higher. All values were 

subsequently adjusted to ensure that no reductions in flow occurred between the onset of spawning in 

October and peak outflow, which generally occurred in May.

Merced River
3-Xd-6 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Table 3-Xd-3. Limiting factors and potential solutions for San Joaquin

Basin fall-run chinook salmon in the Merced River.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Timing and magnitude of low 

are inadequate to provide 

conditions required for adult 

migration, spawning, 

incubation, rearing, and 

juvenile outmigration

Implement a flow schedule that will provide suitable 

conditions for all life stages of chinook salmon

2. Water temperature problems: 

(a) Elevated fall water 

temperatures delay adult 

migration and spawning, which 

may result in delayed outmigration and reduced survival 

of juveniles

(b) Elevated spring water 

temperatures reduce survival 

of juvenile outmigrants

1. Manage New Exchequer Dam, McSwain Dam, and 

Crocker-Huffman Diversion to reduce temperature 

of water discharged to the Merced River during fall

2. Modify timing and magnitude of flow

3. Restore bank and riparian vegetation

3. Egg mortality, redd 

dewatering, and juvenile 

stranding resulting from 

peaking power operation of 

hydroelectric facilities and 

rapid changes in reservoir 

discharge for other purposes

1. Prevent redd dewatering by prohibiting flow 

reduction from the completion of spawning through 

emergence

2. Reduce stranding by establishing suitable ramping 

rates

3. Evaluate benefits and impacts of redirecting flows 

released to meet peaking power demands into the 

canal system

4. Reduce egg mortality resulting from substrate 

mobilization by reducing the magnitude of peaking 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-7

Limiting factors Potential solutions

power fluctuations.

5. Re-regulate or stabilize flow fluctuations using 

Crocker-Huffman Dam.

4. Past and ongoing alteration of 

stream, riparian, and 

floodplain habitat

1. Provide funding to increase enforcement of state 

and federal laws pertaining to stream channel 

alteration

2. Increase public awareness; provide incentives for 

reporting violations

3. Provide funding for stream habitat restoration 

projects

5. Sedimentation of remaining 

spawning gravel

1. Facilitate transport of fine sediments by restoring the 

balance between river channel configuration and 

flow regime

2. Mechanically clean spawning gravels that have been 

degraded as a result of sedimentation

3. Construct retention basins and support land use 

practices that reduce sediment input.

6. Lack of spawning gravel 

recruitment

1. Increase spawning gravel recruitment from banks 

and floodplain by reestablishing river/floodplain 

hydrology and dynamics

2. Replenish spawning gravel from outside sources

7. Reduction in overall quantity of 

accessible spawning and 

rearing habitat resulting from 

obstruction of migration by 

dams

Determine feasibility of modifying major dams to 

reestablish adult chinook salmon access to upstream 

habitat and provide safe passage for outmigrating juvenile 

salmon

8. Entrainment of juvenile 

chinook salmon at six 

1. Provide other water sources and eliminate 

diversions
3-Xd-8 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factors Potential solutions

medium-sized diversions and 

68 small pumps 2. Screen or otherwise modify pumps and diversions 

to prevent entrainment of juvenile chinook salmon

9. Predation on rearing and 

outmigrating juvenile chinook 

salmon

1. Increase harvest limits on predator species and/or 

enlist anglers to implement a concerted predator 

reduction program

2. Eliminate or isolate predator habitat

10. Poor water quality resulting 

from point and nonpoint 

discharge of pollutants and 

toxic compounds

1. Provide funding to increase enforcement of state 

laws pertaining point- and nonpoint-source pollution

2. Strengthen existing water quality standards to 

provide protection for chinook salmon as needed

3. Increase public awareness; provide incentives for 

reporting violations

4. Manage reservoirs to provide sufficient flow to 

dilute existing pollutant and toxic chemical loading

11. Straying of adult chinook 

salmon into the mainstem San 

Joaquin River upstream of the 

Merced River confluence and 

into Salt and Mud Sloughs

1. Continue to install a fall barrier in the San Joaquin 

River upstream of the Merced River confluence

2. Provide adequate attraction flows in the Merced 

River

12. Illegal harvest of adult chinook 

salmon

1. Provide additional law enforcement from CrockerHuffman Diversion downstream to the confluence 

with the San Joaquin River during times when adult 

salmon are in the river

2. Increase incentives for reporting violations

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Modify existing flow schedule (Table 3-Xd-4).
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-9

Objective: Manage flows to benefit all life stages of chinook salmon.

Location: Merced River from Crocker-Huffman Diversion downstream to the confluence with the San 

Joaquin River.

Narrative description: New Exchequer Dam impounds Lake McClure, the largest reservoir (1.0-maf 

capacity) in the Merced River Basin; Crocker-Huffman Diversion is the barrier for upstream migration of 

salmon (Reynolds et al. 1993).

Existing flow requirements for the lower Merced River are from two sources: a Davis-Grunsky Contract, 

which requires Merced Irrigation District to maintain a continuous flow of 180-220 cfs from November 1 to 

April 1 in the reach from Crocker-Huffman Diversion to Shaffer Bridge; and FERC license no. 2179 for 

flow measured at Shaffer Bridge (Reynolds et al. 1993).

Current reservoir releases are insufficient to accommodate chinook salmon migration, spawning, egg 

incubation, juvenile rearing, and smolt emigration (Reynolds et al. 1993). Summer flows of 15-25 cfs are 

usually depleted by riparian diversions before reaching the river mouth, allowing water temperatures to 

exceed acceptable criteria for salmon (Reynolds et al. 1993). Additionally, water temperatures are often 

too high during adult migration and spawning in fall and during juvenile rearing and outmigration in spring.

A revised flow schedule for the lower Merced River has been formulated by DFG based on results of the 

Stanislaus River instream flow study and smolt survival data from the other San Joaquin River tributaries 

(Reynolds et al. 1993); although this schedule represents an improvement over existing conditions, it is not 

believed to be optimum or even adequate to meet the needs of all life stages of chinook salmon. Although 

further revision is planned by DFG following completion of instream flow and outmigration studies and water 

temperature modeling (Reynolds et al. 1993), the San Joaquin Basin Technical Team has recommended a 

flow schedule that it believes will achieve the goals of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP).

Table 3-Xd-4. Existing and AFRP-generated flow (cfs) schedules, Merced River,

Crocker-Huffman Diversion to San Joaquin River confluence by year type.

Existing a AFRPb

Month

Wet/

Normal Dry Wet

Above

Normal

Below

Normal

 

Dry Critical

October 50 15-60 350c300c300c 250c250c 

November 180-200 180-200 350c350c300c300c250c

December 180-200 180-200 600e550e300c300c250c
3-Xd-10 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Existing a AFRPb

Month

Wet/

Normal Dry Wet

Above

Normal

Below

Normal

 

Dry Critical

January 180-200 180-200 1,100e600e300c300d250d

February 180-200 180-200 1,450e1,050e500d300d250d

March 180-200 180-200 1,500e1,050e600d450d400d

April 75 60 1,800f1,350f1,150f950f750f

May 75 60 2,950f2,300f1,750f1,200f850f

June 25 15 2,850f1,450f1,150f650f450f

July 25 15 1,150g400g250h200h200h

August 25 15 350h300h250h200h200h

September 25 15 350h300h250h200h200h

Total (taf) 66-80 72-84 894 604 429 321 260 

Baseline (taf) NA NA 1,449 1,043 647 799 499 

Unimpaired (taf) NA NA 1,605 1,069 718 512 364 

Note: All flows have been rounded to the nearest 50 cfs.

a Existing flows stipulated in 1967 Davis-Grunsky Contract (Reynolds et al. 1993) and FERC license 

agreement.

b Water-year type for existing flow schedules based on Lake McClure storage and inflow; water-year 

type for proposed flow schedules based on San Joaquin Basin 60-20-20 Index.

c Flow based on IFIM spawning flow recommendations for similar-size drainages (Reynolds et al. 1993) 

and the assumption that flows greater than historical flows are needed to compensate for elimination of 

access to upstream habitat.

d Based on IFIM flow recommendations for similar-size drainages and the assumption that, to prevent 

redd dewatering or stranding of rearing juveniles, flow should not be reduced between spawning and 

outmigration.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-11

e Based on historical (1922-1990) percent monthly distribution of total annual unimpaired runoff for the 

Merced River Basin and the assumption that, to prevent redd dewatering or stranding of rearing 

juveniles, flow should not be reduced between spawning and outmigration.

f Based on Vernalis flow requirement and historical (1922-1990) percent monthly contribution to total 

annual unimpaired runoff.

g Based on historical (1922-1990) percent monthly contribution to total annual unimpaired runoff.

h

Flow based on IFIM flow recommendations for similar-size drainages (Reynolds et al. 1993) and the 

assumption that flows greater than historical flows are needed to compensate for elimination of access to 

upstream habitat.

Related actions: Existing Davis-Grunsky and FERC flow agreements. Vernalis flow

recommendations. Section 3408(h), purchase of land and water from willing sellers.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If the proposed flow recommendations were to 

be implemented, Merced Irrigation District, which operates New Exchequer and McSwain dams, would be 

responsible for providing flows to meet the AFRP flow schedule. USFWS and DFG would be responsible 

for monitoring and adjusting flow recommendations to ensure maximum benefits for chinook salmon.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Flows currently required or recommended are considerably 

lower than flows believed necessary to double natural production of chinook salmon in the Merced River. 

Because Lake McClure and Lake McSwain are not CVP impoundments, meeting technical team 

recommendations would require cooperation with water agencies and water right holders and acquisition of 

water from willing sellers.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that implementation of this flow 

schedule, in concert with other recommended actions, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon 

in the Merced River.

Action 2: Adjust reservoir operations and releases to meet chinook salmon temperature requirements.

Objective: Maintain water temperature within ranges suitable for chinook salmon spawning, incubation, 

rearing, and outmigration.

Location: Merced River from Crocker-Huffman Diversion downstream to the confluence with the San 

Joaquin River.
3-Xd-12 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Narrative description: Insufficient flows allow water temperatures to exceed acceptable levels for salmon. 

Other factors contributing to higher water temperatures include a degraded riparian corridor and gravel 

capture pits. Water temperatures are often too high during adult migration in fall and during juvenile rearing 

and smolt outmigration in spring. High temperatures are thought to delay migration and spawning (DFG 

1992), reduce egg survival, and increase mortality of rearing and outmigrating juveniles (Reynolds et al. 

1993). The following water temperatures should be maintained to the downstream boundary of the 

spawning area during fall and to the mouth of the river during spring.

Dates Water temperature

October 15 - February 15 56 F

April 1 - June 31 65 F

Related actions: Flow recommendations and stream habitat restoration. Section 3408(h), purchase 

of land and water from willing sellers.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If this action is implemented, Merced Irrigation 

District would be responsible for operating New Exchequer Dam and Lake McClure to meet temperature 

standards. USFWS and DFG would be responsible for monitoring and adjusting flow recommendations to 

ensure maximum benefits for chinook salmon. 

Potential obstacles to implementation: Maintaining adequate temperatures may require flows higher 

than those specified under Action 1. Increasing the proportion of water allocated to meeting fish needs 

would reduce water available to meet needs of other user groups. Therefore, implementation would require 

purchase of additional water. Maintaining water temperature of 65 F during June may not be possible.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that meeting these prescribed 

temperature standards, in concert with other actions recommended by the team, would double production 

of fall-run chinook salmon in the Merced River.

Action 3: Reduce impacts of rapid flow fluctuations.

Objective: Increase hatching success and juvenile survival by reducing ramping rates and eliminating flow 

fluctuation during key periods.

Location: Merced River from Crocker-Huffman Diversion downstream to the San Joaquin River 

confluence.

o

o

o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-13

Narrative description: Potential adverse impacts of rapid flow fluctuations resulting from peaking power 

operation and short-duration reservoir releases for other purposes may disrupt adult salmon migration and 

spawning, scour or dewater redds, mobilize spawning gravel and kill eggs during incubation, and affect 

emerging salmon fry by stranding, downstream displacement, and exposure to predation (Reynolds et al. 

1993). The potential for adverse impacts is especially great during January and February, when fry are 

abundant and rely on passive dispersal to reach suitable habitat (Reynolds et al. 1993). Stranding of 

juvenile salmon following rapid changes in discharge has been documented at several sites along the lower 

Merced River and may be a principal factor affecting salmon survival in years when power peaking occurs 

(Reynolds et al. 1993).

The window of vulnerability for adverse impacts of rapid flow fluctuation corresponds to the period when 

juvenile fish are present in the river, essentially from the onset of spawning in October through outmigration 

in late May or early June. The team recommends establishing periods when flow fluctuation is prohibited or 

incorporating standards for ramping rates that will prevent premature downstream transport and stranding. 

Peaking power operation has the potential to be used as a tool to stimulate outmigration if ramping rates are 

maintained within a range suitable to prevent stranding. Redirection of flow into canal systems has been 

proposed by other groups to allow continued peaking power operation while minimizing impacts on anadromous fish (Reynolds et al. 1993). This type of scheme should be evaluated to determine effectiveness and 

costs in terms of reduced ability to meet needs of fish and other water user groups at other times of the year. 

Also, the potential of Crocker-Huffman Dam to re-regulate or stabilize flow fluctuations should be 

investigated. 

Dates Recommendation

October 1 - March 31 Cease peaking power operation or establish a minimum stage to 

prevent redd dewatering and ramping rates to prevent premature 

transport and stranding of juvenile fish. Reduce magnitude of 

fluctuations to prevent sediment mobilization.

April 1 - May 1 Reduce the rate of recession for peaking flows to prevent stranding of 

juvenile fish.

Related actions: Flow and temperature recommendations.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Merced Irrigation District and FERC in 

cooperation with DFG and USFWS would be responsible for establishing the schedule and standards for 

ramping rates.
3-Xd-14 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Potential obstacles to implementation: Modifying hydroelectric plant operations to protect juvenile 

fish could restrict operational flexibility and reduce revenues generated by the sale of electricity during 

periods of high demand. Redirection of peaking flows into canals could reduce the quantity of water 

available during other times and for other uses.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that implementation of this action, in 

concert with other actions recommended by the team, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon 

in the Merced River.

Action 4: Conduct sequential restoration of instream and riparian habitat.

Objective: Ensure the long-term sustainability of physical, chemical, and biological conditions needed to 

meet production goals for chinook salmon through restoration and protection of the stream ecosystem.

Location: Crocker-Huffman Diversion downstream to the confluence with the San Joaquin River.

Narrative description: Physical habitat for salmon spawning and rearing has deteriorated as a result of a 

number of factors, many of them related to reduced instream flow. Problems include siltation of spawning 

gravel, loss of side channels and channel diversity, and reduced recruitment of spawning gravel to the active 

stream channel (Reynolds et al. 1993).

Gold dredging in the early 1900s removed substantial quantities of spawning gravel from the river channel. 

In many riffles, substantial armoring has occurred, with only large cobble remaining. Dams currently prevent 

recruitment of additional gravel from upstream in the watershed. Consequent depletion of gravel in reaches 

downstream of dams has resulted in channel incision and reduction in floodplain width (Reynolds et al. 

1993). During periods of high discharge, river stage within the incised channel may increase dramatically, 

and high velocities and lack of cover may result in premature downstream displacement of juvenile salmon.

Gravel mining has also resulted in the creation of onstream ponds that provide ideal habitat for predators 

and function as barriers to outmigrating juvenile salmon (DWR 1994). On-channel gravel pits are prevalent 

downstream of Highway 59. Loss of juvenile salmon to bass predation is not well documented but is 

potentially high, particularly under drought conditions, when flow during outmigration is low. Gravel pits 

may also act as traps for gravel mobilized during high flows.

Abandonment of much of the historical floodplain has resulted in confinement of riparian communities to 

narrow corridors within the banks of the incised channel (Reynolds et al. 1993). Riparian vegetation has 

also been removed to facilitate agricultural practices, grazing, urban development, and gravel mining. 

Reduced coverage by riparian vegetation is probably an important factor contributing to increased ambient 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-15

air and water temperatures in river reaches that are currently used by chinook salmon (Reynolds et al. 

1993).

Description of the proposed action:

1) Spawning gravel restoration, replacement, and maintenance.

2) Elimination of connected, off-channel pools that increase water temperature and provide 

habitat for predators.

3) Surveying to determine possible and practical goals for restoration of river/floodplain 

functions under the probable flow regime.

4) Acquisition of floodplain and riparian lands required to meet restoration goals established 

under 3.

5) Reestablishment of channel configuration and river/floodplain and riparian relationships.

6) Management of the watershed to reduce inputs of sediment, pesticides, and other 

substances with potential deleterious effects. Measures considered would include land 

purchase, incentives to improve land use practices, and construction of sediment retention 

basins.

Related actions: Flow and water temperature actions.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The action would require cooperation and 

coordination between multiple federal, state, and local agencies and numerous private land owners and 

interest groups.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Available funds may be insufficient for purchasing lands 

needed for comprehensive restoration. Accelerating development and construction within the river 

floodplain will increase opposition to acquisition and restoration. Land owners and others may object to 

changes and restrictions in allowed uses for riparian lands.

Projected benefits: The team believes that implementing this action has the potential to reduce the 

magnitude of flows needed to restore natural production of chinook salmon in the Merced River. 

Reestablishing the natural stream channel, eliminating on-channel gravel pits, and restoring riparian

vegetation would contribute to reducing water temperature. Reducing bank and floodplain erosion and 

increasing sediment transport capability by reconfiguring the stream channel should increase egg survival by 

maintaining clean spawning gravel. Increases in clean gravel should increase production of invertebrates that 
3-Xd-16 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

provide food to juvenile salmon and other species. Increased instream cover would be expected to reduce 

juvenile mortality by providing refuge from predators. The technical team believes that implementation of 

this action, in concert with other recommended actions, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon 

in the Merced River. A return to more natural conditions would be expected to benefit native fish species 

besides chinook salmon and steelhead. Although Section 3406(b)(1) does not establish goals for these 

species, implementing actions that will provide benefits for them is consistent with the intent of the CVPIA. 

Action 5: Install and maintain fish protection devices at riparian pumps and diversions; prior to installation, 

restrict pumping to daylight hours.

Objective: Reduce or eliminate loss of juvenile chinook salmon resulting from entrainment by pumps and 

diversions.

Location: Merced River from Crocker-Huffman Diversion downstream to the San Joaquin River 

confluence.

Narrative description: Substantial numbers of juvenile salmon are potentially vulnerable to entrainment at six 

medium-sized irrigation diversions within the salmon spawning reach of the Merced River. Although the 

magnitude of the resulting losses is not known, there are indications it could be substantial (Hallock and Van 

Woert 1959). Rock screens have been installed at four of these diversions, but these have been only 

moderately effective at preventing juvenile salmon entrainment. In addition, there are 68 small pump 

irrigation diversions, none of which are adequately screened to prevent juvenile salmon entrainment.

The available data for chinook salmon is other systems indicate that much of the downstream movement of 

fry occurs at night (Healy 1991). To reduce entrainment prior to installation of fish protection devices, 

interim guidelines restricting pumping and diversion to daylight hours should be adopted. 

Related actions: CVPIA screening program (3406[b][21]) required by Title 34.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG has already begun an inventory of riparian 

diversions. USFWS will be administering a screening program as one element of the CVPIA.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Protection devices might reduce the efficiency of diversions or 

require additional maintenance effort on the part of diverters. 

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that installation of effective protection 

devices, in concert with other actions recommended by the team, would double production of fall-run 

chinook salmon in the Merced River.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-17

Action 6: Provide additional law enforcement.

Objective: Increase spawning success, reduce entrainment, and prevent additional destruction of stream 

habitat. 

Location: Merced River from Crocker-Huffman Diversion downstream to the confluence with the San 

Joaquin River.

Narrative description: Provide additional law enforcement coverage to protect salmon habitat downstream 

of Crocker-Huffman Diversion through diligent enforcement of screening, water pollution, and streambed 

alteration Fish and Game Code sections (DFG 1993). If this cannot be accomplished through year-round 

appointments, at least increase law enforcement efforts during the period of October-December to curb 

poaching losses (San Joaquin River Management Program Advisory Council 1993).

Related actions: Installation of fish protection devices; habitat restoration and protection.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Implementation of this action would primarily be 

the responsibility of DFG, although other law enforcement or regulatory authorities might be involved.

Potential obstacles to implementation: DFG funding and manpower constraints.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that implementation of this action, in 

concert with other actions recommended by the team, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon 

in the Merced River.

Action 7: Provide fish passage around reservoirs.

Objective: Increase production and minimize impacts on water interests by providing access to additional 

spawning/rearing habitat upstream of reservoirs.

Location: Lake McClure, Lake McSwain, and Crocker-Huffman Diversion.

Narrative description:

1) Evaluate feasibility, benefits, and costs in terms of fish production and impacts on water 

users and other interest groups.

2) Depending on the outcome of the evaluation, design and construct fish passage structures.
3-Xd-18 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

3) Modify operation of reservoirs to facilitate downstream migration of juvenile salmon.

Related actions: Because it has the potential to reduce the level of restoration needed in the lower 

reach of the river, providing passage around dams is related to all other actions. Reservoir drawdown to 

facilitate juvenile outmigration has the potential to affect downstream flow. Providing adequate reservoir 

releases to maintain suitable water temperatures for migrating chinook salmon during spring and fall would 

continue to be important. 

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Evaluating feasibility would be the responsibility 

of DFG, USFWS, and the appropriate reservoir management authority. Implementation would necessitate 

cooperation between multiple agencies and water users groups.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The feasibility of this approach has not been evaluated, and 

the costs of constructing functional fish passage structures for juvenile and adult salmon would probably be 

high. The suitability of habitat for meeting anadromous salmonid life history requirements in stream reaches 

above existing reservoirs is not well known. Operation of reservoirs to facilitate fish passage could entail 

higher water costs than meeting fish flow needs in downstream reaches. Feasibility and cost/benefit analyses 

would be conducted in the evaluation phase and would determine whether this action presents a viable 

option for anadromous fish restoration. The types of activities required to move fish around reservoirs may 

not be consistent with provisions and the intent of Title 34.

Projected benefits: The team believes that providing access to stream reaches above reservoirs could result 

in increases in natural production that would exceed the goals established under the AFRP. By increasing 

the quantity of habitat available for spawning and rearing, installation of functional fish passage structures has 

the potential to reduce the scope of restoration actions required in the reach from Crocker-Huffman 

Diversion to the San Joaquin River confluence and reduce costs to other user groups. Providing access to 

reaches upstream of dams may be essential if restoration efforts are going to have any benefits for steelhead 

production in the Merced River.

Tuolumne River

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Table 3-Xd-5. Limiting factors and potential solutions for San

Joaquin Basin fall-run chinook salmon in the Tuolumne River.

Limiting factor Potential solutions

1. Timing and magnitude of 

flow are inadequate to 

provide conditions required 

Implement a flow schedule that will provide suitable 

conditions for all life stages of chinook salmon
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-19

Limiting factor Potential solutions

for adult migration, 

spawning, incubation, 

rearing, and juvenile 

outmigration

2. Water temperature 

problems:

(a) Elevated fall water 

temperatures delay adult 

migration and spawning, 

which may result in delayed 

outmigration and reduced 

survival of juveniles

(b) Elevated spring water 

temperatures reduce survival 

of juvenile outmigrants

1. Manage New Don Pedro and LaGrange reservoirs to 

reduce temperature of water discharged to the 

Tuolumne River during fall

2. Modify timing and magnitude of flow

3. Restore bank and riparian vegetation

3. Egg mortality, redd 

dewatering, and juvenile 

stranding resulting from 

peaking power operation of 

hydroelectric facilities and 

rapid changes in reservoir 

discharge for other 

purposes

1. Prevent redd dewatering by prohibiting flow reduction 

from the completion of spawning through emergence

2. Reduce stranding by establishing suitable ramping rates

3. Evaluate benefits and impacts of redirecting flows 

released to meet peaking power demands into the 

canal system

4. Reduce egg mortality due to substrate mobilization by 

reducing the magnitude of peaking power fluctuations.

5. Re-regulate or stabilize flow fluctuations using 

LaGrange Dam.

4. Degradation of conditions 

for chinook salmon resulting 

from alteration of stream, 

riparian, and floodplain 

1. Provide funding to enforce state and federal laws 

pertaining to stream channel alteration

2. Increase public awareness; provide incentives for 
3-Xd-20 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factor Potential solutions

habitat reporting violations

3. Provide funding for stream habitat restoration 

5. Sedimentation of remaining 

spawning gravel

1. Facilitate transport of fine sediments by restoring the 

balance between river channel configuration and flow 

regime

2. Mechanically clean spawning gavels that have been 

degraded as a result of sedimentation

3. Construct retention basins and support land use 

practices that reduce sediment input.

6. Lack of spawning gravel 

recruitment

1. Increase spawning gravel recruitment from banks and 

floodplain by reestablishing river/floodplain hydrology 

and dynamics

2. Replenish spawning gravel from outside sources

7. Reduction in overall quantity 

of accessible spawning and 

rearing habitat as a result of 

obstruction of migration by 

dams

Determine feasibility of modifying major dams to reestablish 

adult salmon access to upstream habitat and provide safe 

passage for outmigrating juvenile salmon.

8. Entrainment of juvenile 

chinook salmon at 36 small, 

unscreened pump diversions

1. Provide other water sources and eliminate diversions

2. Screen or otherwise modify pumps and diversions to 

prevent entrainment of juvenile chinook salmon

9. Predation on rearing and 

outmigrating juvenile 

chinook salmon

1. Increase harvest limits on predator species and enlist 

anglers to implement a concerted predator 

reduction/control program

2. Eliminate or isolate predator habitat

10. Poor water quality resulting 

from point and nonpoint 

discharge of pollutants and 

1. Provide funding to increase enforcement of state laws 

pertaining point- and nonpoint-source pollution
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-21

Limiting factor Potential solutions

toxic compounds 2. Strengthen existing water quality standards to provide 

protection for chinook salmon as needed

3. Increase public awareness; provide incentives for 

reporting violations

4. Manage reservoir releases to provide adequate dilution 

of pollutants and toxic compound loading rates

11. Illegal harvest of adult 

chinook salmon

1. Provide additional law enforcement from LaGrange 

Dam downstream to the confluence with the San 

Joaquin River during times when adult salmon are in 

the river

2. Increase incentives for reporting violations

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Modify existing flow schedule (Table 3-Xd-6).

Objective: Provide adequate flow for all life stages of chinook salmon.

Location: Tuolumne River from LaGrange Dam downstream to the confluence with the San Joaquin River.

Narrative description: New Don Pedro Reservoir is the largest reservoir (2.0 maf) on the Tuolumne River; 

LaGrange Dam is the downstream barrier to salmon migration. In 1964, FERC issued a license to the 

Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts (TID/MID) to operate the New Don Pedro Project. The license 

agreement included minimum instream flow requirements. Additionally, Article 39 of the license called for a 

20-year fisheries evaluation by cooperating agencies, including TID/MID, DFG, and USFWS, to determine 

measures needed to ensure continuation and maintenance of the lower Tuolumne River chinook salmon 

populations. At the end of the evaluation period, all parties were to submit recommendations to FERC. 

This study began in 1971 and, because of the extended drought conditions, is ongoing. In 1986, the study 

agreement was amended to include two additional flow schedules for normal water-year conditions.

The 1986 agreement does not provide adequate flow for adult migration, spawning, egg incubation, juvenile 

rearing, smolt emigration, or oversummering rearing of yearlings (Reynolds et al. 1993). In 1992, the 

districts reached an agreement with DFG on a revised flow schedule for a 10-year interim period or until 
3-Xd-22 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

issuance of a new FERC license order. The districts filed results of their studies pursuant to Article 39; 

however, the agreement has not been implemented because of lack of FERC approval. USFWS and the 

City and County of San Francisco have been unwilling to sign the agreement and have filed their own 

instream flow recommendations with FERC (TID/MID 1992).

FERC is presently preparing an EIS that will address fisheries issues for the New Don Pedro Project. 

Various entities with an interest in the FERC process are attempting to reach a negotiated settlement with 

the assistance of a federal mediator.

There is a positive relationship between smolt survival and spring flow in the Tuolumne River. Under the 

1986 agreement, DFG allocates as much flow as possible to the spring smolt migration period, but the total 

amount of water available is insufficient to meet needs during all times of the year. Instream flow studies by 

DFG and USFWS indicate that substantially higher flows are needed for salmon spawning and rearing on 

the lower Tuolumne River than are possible with the present flow allocations. Summer flows are too low to 

sustain either salmon or steelhead but are sufficient to sustain large populations of predator fish that 

contribute to losses of young salmon.

Table 3-Xd-6. Existing and AFRP-generated flow schedules for the Tuolumne River

from LaGrange Dam to the San Joaquin River confluence (cfs) by year type.

AFRPb

Month Existinga Wet

Above

normal

Below 

normal Dry Critical

October 150-300 750c300c300c200c150c

November 200-300 1,250d800d350c300c150c

December 150-250 1,400d1,050d350c350c200d

January 150-250 1,700d1,150d500d400c250d

February 250 2,100d1,700d950d700d500d

March 300-250 2,300d1,700d1,300d1,000d900d

April 250-500 2,950e2,450e2,350e1,900e1,500e

May 100-200 5,150e4,200e3,350e2,500e1,850e

June 3 5,000e3,250e2,600e1,550e1,000e

July 3 2,150f900f650f250f200f

August 3 450f200f100g100g50g

September 3 350g150g150g100g50g

Total (taf) 128 1,544 1,078 782 564 411 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-23

AFRPb

Month Existinga Wet

Above

normal

Below 

normal Dry Critical

Baseline (taf) NA 1,291 737 355 327 155 

Unimpaired 

(taf) NA 2,892 2,074 1,499 1,091 805 

Note: All flows have been rounded to the nearest 50 cfs.

a Year type based on San Joaquin Basin 60-20-20 Index.

b Existing flows based on FERC license agreement with TID/MID.

c Based on USFWS IFIM spawning flow recommendations (USFWS unpublished data) and the 

assumption that flows greater than historical flows are needed to compensate for elimination of access to 

upstream habitat.

d Based on historical (1922-1990) percent monthly distribution of total annual unimpaired runoff for the 

Tuolumne River Basin and the assumption that flow should not be reduced between spawning and 

outmigration to prevent redd dewatering or stranding of rearing juveniles.

e Based on Vernalis flow requirement and historical (1922-1990) percent monthly contribution to total 

annual unimpaired runoff.

f Based on historical (1922-1990) percent monthly distribution of total annual unimpaired runoff.

g

Flow based on USFWS IFIM recommendations.

Related actions: Existing flow agreement, recommendations, and FERC negotiation process. 

Vernalis flow recommendations. Section 3408(h), purchase of land and water from willing sellers.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If the proposed flow recommendations were to 

be implemented, TID/MID, which jointly operate New Don Pedro Reservoir, would be responsible for 

meeting the AFRP flow schedule. USFWS and DFG would be responsible for monitoring and adjusting 

flow recommendations to ensure maximum benefits for chinook salmon.
3-Xd-24 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Potential obstacles to implementation: Flows currently required or recommended are considerably 

lower than flows that the San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes would be required to double 

production of chinook salmon in the Tuolumne River. Because Don Pedro Reservoir is not a CVP 

impoundment, meeting technical team recommendations would require acquisition of water from willing 

sellers.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that implementation of this flow 

schedule, in concert with other recommended actions, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon 

in the Tuolumne River.

Action 2: Adjust reservoir operations and releases to meet chinook salmon temperature requirements.

Objective: Maintain water temperature within ranges suitable for chinook salmon migration, spawning, 

incubation, rearing, and outmigration.

Location: Tuolumne River from LaGrange Dam downstream to the confluence with the San Joaquin River.

Narrative description: Elevated water temperature can delay migration and spawning activity in fall, 

decrease egg survival, and increase mortality of outmigrating smolts in spring (Reynolds et al. 1993).

Water temperatures in October frequently exceed acceptable levels for salmon spawning in at least a 

portion of the reach of the river used by spawning salmon (Reynolds et al. 1993). This condition 

contributes to delayed upstream migration and spawning. During the recent drought, the first spawners 

arrived in the lower Tuolumne River in early November, rather than in October as in previous years.

Elevated water temperatures in the lower Tuolumne River during the spring migration period may be a 

significant factor affecting smolt survival. Smolts migrating from the Tuolumne River during April and May 

commonly encounter water temperatures that approach lethal levels (DFG 1992).

Description of the proposed action:

Dates Water Temperature

October 15 - February 15 56 F

April 1 - June 31 65 F

Related actions: Flow recommendations, restoration of riparian and instream habitat. Riparian and 

instream habitat restoration and protection measures (Action 4) would facilitate efforts to maintain suitable 

water temperatures in the Tuolumne River.

o

o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-25

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If this action is implemented, TID/MID would 

be responsible for operating New Don Pedro Reservoir to meet the AFRP flow schedule. USFWS and 

DFG would be responsible for monitoring temperatures and adjusting flow and reservoir operation 

recommendations to ensure maximum benefits for chinook salmon.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Maintenance of adequate temperatures may require flows 

higher than those recommended in Action 1. Increasing the proportion of water allocated to meeting fish 

needs would reduce water available to meet needs of other user groups. Implementation would require the 

purchase of additional water. Maintaining a water temperature of 65 F during June may not be possible

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that implementation of this action, in 

concert with other actions recommended by the team, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon 

in the Tuolumne River.

Action 3: Reduce impacts of rapid flow fluctuations.

Objective: Increase hatching success and juvenile survival by reducing ramping rates and eliminating flow 

fluctuation during key periods.

Location: Tuolumne River from LaGrange Dam downstream to the San Joaquin River confluence.

Narrative description: Hydroelectric power releases into the lower Tuolumne River from the New Don 

Pedro Project during the late spawning and rearing period (December through February) can cause 

fluctuations in downstream flow that commonly range from 200 cfs to 4,500 cfs over a 24-hour period. 

These releases are typically made in water years when there are no diversions for irrigation and when 

releases are made in anticipation, or as a direct result, of flood control requirements.

Potential adverse impacts of rapid flow fluctuations resulting from peaking power operation 

and short-duration reservoir releases for other purposes may disrupt adult salmon migration and spawning, 

scour or dewater redds, and affect emerging salmon fry by stranding, downstream displacement, and 

exposure to predation (Reynolds et al. 1993). The potential for adverse impacts is especially great during 

January and February, when fry are abundant and rely on passive mechanisms of dispersal to reach suitable 

habitat (Reynolds et al. 1993). Stranding of juvenile salmon following rapid changes in discharge has been 

documented at several sites along the lower Tuolumne River and may be a principal factor affecting salmon 

survival in years when power peaking releases occurs (Reynolds et al. 1993).

The window of vulnerability for adverse impacts of rapid flow fluctuations corresponds to the period when 

juvenile fish are present in the river, essentially from the onset of spawning in October through outmigration 

in late May or early June. The team recommends establishing periods when flow fluctuation is prohibited or 

o
3-Xd-26 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

incorporating standards for ramping rates that will prevent premature transport and stranding. If ramping 

rates were low enough to prevent stranding, peaking flows could be used to stimulate and facilitate juvenile 

outmigration during April and May. Redirection of flow into canal systems has been proposed by other 

groups to allow continued peaking power operation while minimizing impacts on anadromous fish (Reynolds 

et al. 1993).

Dates Recommendation

October 1 - March 31 Cease peaking power operation or establish minimum stream stage to 

prevent redd dewatering and ramping rates to prevent premature 

transport and stranding of juvenile fish. Reduce magnitude of 

fluctuations to prevent sediment mobilization.

April 1 - May 1 Reduce the rate of recession for peaking flows to prevent stranding 

of juvenile fish.

Related actions: Flow and temperature recommendations.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: MID/TID and FERC, in cooperation with DFG 

and USFWS, would be responsible for establishing the schedule and standards for ramping rates.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Modifying hydroelectric plant operations to protect juvenile 

fish could result reduced operational flexibility and a reduction in revenues generated by the sale of 

electricity during period of high demand. Redirection of peaking flows into canals could reduce the quantity 

of water available during other times and for other uses.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that implementation of this action, in 

concert with other actions recommended by the team, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon 

in the Tuolumne River.

Action 4: Conduct sequential restoration of instream and riparian habitat.

Objective: Ensure the long-term sustainability of physical, chemical, and biological conditions needed to 

meet production goals for chinook salmon through restoration and protection of the stream ecosystem.

Location: LaGrange Dam downstream to the confluence with the San Joaquin River.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-27

Narrative description: Physical habitat for salmon spawning and rearing has deteriorated as a result of a 

number of factors, many of them related to reduced instream flow. Problems include siltation of spawning 

gravel, loss of side channels and channel diversity, and reduced recruitment of spawning gravel to the active 

stream channel (Reynolds et al. 1993).

In-channel gravel mining has removed spawning gravel and resulted in the creation of onstream ponds that 

provide ideal habitat for predators and function as barriers to outmigrating juvenile salmon (DWR 1994). 

Loss of juvenile salmon to predation is not well documented but is potentially high, particularly under 

drought conditions, when flow during outmigration is low.

Dams have eliminated the natural process of gravel recruitment from upstream reaches. As a consequence, 

gravel in reaches downstream of dams has become depleted, resulting in channel incision and reduction in 

floodplain width (Reynolds et al. 1993). During periods of high discharge, river stage within the incised 

channel may increase dramatically, and high velocities and lack of cover may result in premature downstream displacement of juvenile chinook salmon.

Abandonment of much of the historical floodplain has resulted in confinement of riparian communities to 

narrow corridors within the banks of the incised channel (Reynolds et al. 1993). Riparian vegetation has 

also been removed to facilitate agricultural practices, cattle grazing, urban development, and gravel mining. 

Reduced coverage by riparian vegetation is an important factor contributing to increased ambient air and 

water temperatures in river reaches that are currently used by chinook salmon (Reynolds et al. 1993).

The proposed action consists of the following:

1) Spawning gravel restoration, replacement, and maintenance.

2) Elimination of connected, off-channel pools that increase water temperature and provide 

habitat for predators.

3) Surveying to determine possible and practical goals for restoration of river/floodplain 

functions under the probable flow regime.

4) Acquisition of floodplain and riparian land required to meet restoration goals established 

under 3.

5) Reestablishment of channel configuration and river/floodplain and riparian relationships.
3-Xd-28 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

6) Management of the watershed to reduce inputs of sediment, pesticides, and other 

substances with potential deleterious effects. Measures considered would include land 

purchase, incentives to improve land use practices, and construction of sediment retention 

basins.

Related actions: Flow and water temperature recommendations.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Action would require cooperation and 

coordination between multiple federal, state, and local agencies and numerous private land owners and 

interest groups.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Available funds may be insufficient for purchasing lands 

needed for comprehensive restoration. Land owners and others may object to changes and restrictions in 

allowed uses for riparian lands. Accelerating development and construction within the river floodplain will 

increase opposition to acquisition and restoration.

Projected benefits: The team believes that implementing this action has the potential to reduce the magnitude 

of flows needed to restore natural production of chinook salmon in the Tuolumne River. Reestablishing the 

natural stream channel, eliminating on-channel gravel pits, and restoring riparian vegetation would contribute 

to reducing water temperature. Reducing bank and floodplain erosion and increasing sediment transport 

capability by reconfiguring the stream channel should increase egg survival by maintaining clean spawning 

gravel. Increase in clean gravel should increase production of invertebrates that provide food to juvenile 

salmon and other species. Increased instream cover would be expected to reduce juvenile mortality by 

providing refuge from predators. The technical team believes that implementation of this action, in concert 

with other recommended actions, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon in the Tuolumne 

River. A return to more natural conditions would be expected to benefit native fish species besides chinook 

salmon and steelhead. Although Section 3406(b)(1) does not establish goals for these species,

implementing actions that will provide benefits for them is consistent with the intent of the CVPIA. 

Action 5: Install fish protection devices at riparian pumps and diversions; prior to installation, restrict 

pumping to daylight hours.

Objective: Reduce or eliminate loss of juvenile chinook salmon resulting from entrainment by pumps and 

diversions.

Location: Tuolumne River from LaGrange Dam downstream to the San Joaquin River confluence.

Narrative description: Thirty-six small pump diversions, none of which are adequately screened to protect 

juvenile salmon, are located on the lower Tuolumne River (Reynolds et al. 1993). The cumulative loss of 

young salmon at these diversions resulting from entrainment is not known but is potentially substantial 

(Hallock and Van Woert 1959).
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-29

The available data for chinook salmon in other systems indicate that downstream movement of fry occurs 

mainly at night (Healy 1991). To reduce entrainment prior to installation of adequate fish protection 

devices, interim guidelines restricting pumping and diversion to daylight hours should be adopted. 

Related actions: The CVPIA screening program (3406[b][21]) required by Title 34 is a likely 

source of funding.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: A DFG survey of unscreened diversions in the 

San Joaquin Basin is underway. The action would be implemented by USFWS and DFG under 

3406(b)(21) and would require cooperation with private land owners and other water right holders.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Protection devices might reduce the efficiency of diversions 

or require additional maintenance effort on the part of diverters.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that installing fish protection devices at 

riparian diversions, in concert with other actions recommended by the team, would double production of 

fall-run chinook salmon in the Tuolumne River.

Action 6: Provide additional law enforcement coverage to protect against illegal take of salmon, stream 

alteration, and water pollution and to ensure adequate protection for juvenile salmon at pumps and 

diversions.

Objective: Increase spawning success, reduce entrainment, improve water quality, and prevent additional 

destruction of stream habitat.

Location: Tuolumne River from LaGrange Dam to the confluence with the San Joaquin River.

Narrative description: Increased enforcement of sections of the Fish and Game Code pertaining to illegal 

harvest of adult salmon, screening, water pollution, and streambed alteration would provide additional 

protection for chinook salmon (Reynolds et al. 1993).

Related actions: Continuing prohibition on recreational harvest, screening, and habitat restoration 

and protection.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Implementation of this action would primarily be 

the responsibility of DFG, although other law enforcement or regulatory authorities might be involved.

Potential obstacles to implementation: DFG funding constraints.
3-Xd-30 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that increased enforcement of the 

specified sections of the California Fish and Game Code, in concert with other actions recommended by the 

team, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon in the Tuolumne River.

Action 7: Provide fish passage around reservoirs.

Objective: Increase production and minimize impacts of anadromous fish restoration on water interests by 

providing access to additional spawning/rearing habitat upstream of reservoirs.

Location: LaGrange and New Don Pedro reservoirs.

Narrative description:

1) Evaluate feasibility, benefits, and costs in terms of fish production and impacts on water 

users and other interest groups.

2) Depending on the outcome of the evaluation, design and construct fish passage structures.

3) Modify operation of reservoirs to facilitate downstream migration of juvenile salmon.

Related actions: Because it has the potential to reduce the level of restoration needed in the lower 

reach of the river, providing passage around dams is related to all other actions. Reservoir drawdown to 

facilitate juvenile outmigration has the potential to affect downstream flow. Providing adequate reservoir 

releases to maintain suitable water temperatures for migrating chinook salmon during spring and fall would 

continue to be important.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Evaluating feasibility would be the responsibility 

of DFG, USFWS, and the appropriate reservoir management authority. Implementation would necessitate 

cooperation between multiple agencies and water user groups.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The feasibility of this approach has not been evaluated, and 

the costs of constructing functional fish passage structures for juvenile and adult salmon would probably be

high. The suitability of habitat for meeting anadromous salmonid life history requirements in stream reaches 

above existing reservoirs is not well known. Operation of reservoirs to facilitate fish passage could entail 

higher water costs than meeting fish flow needs in downstream reaches. Feasibility and cost/benefit analyses 

would be conducted in the evaluation phase and would determine whether this action presents a viable 

option for anadromous fish restoration. The types of activities required to move fish around reservoirs may 

not be consistent with provisions and the intent of Title 34.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-31

Projected benefits: The team believes that providing access to stream reaches above reservoirs could result 

in increases in natural production that would exceed the goals established under the AFRP. By increasing 

the quantity of habitat available for spawning and rearing, installation of functional fish passage structures has 

the potential to reduce the scope of restoration actions required in the reach from LaGrange Dam to the San 

Joaquin River confluence and reduce costs to other user groups. This action may be essential if restoration is 

going to benefit steelhead production in the Tuolumne River.

Stanislaus River

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Table 3-Xd-7. Limiting factors and potential solutions for San

Joaquin Basin fall-run chinook salmon in the Stanislaus River.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Timing and magnitude of flow 

are inadequate to provide 

conditions required for adult 

migration, spawning, 

incubation, rearing, and 

juvenile outmigration

Implement a flow schedule that will provide suitable 

conditions for all life stages of chinook salmon

2. Water temperature problems:

(a) Elevated fall water 

temperatures delay adult 

migration and spawning, which 

may result in delayed 

outmigration and reduced 

survival of juveniles 

(b) Elevated spring water 

temperatures reduce survival of 

juvenile outmigrants

1. Manage New Melones, Tulloch, and Goodwin 

reservoirs to reduce temperature of water 

discharged to the Stanislaus River during fall

2. Modify timing and magnitude of flow

3. Restore bank and riparian vegetation

4. Modify or remove Old Melones Dam to facilitate 

fall release from New Melones Reservoir of water 

within the temperature range suitable for spawning 

and incubation

3. Degraded instream, riparian, 

and floodplain habitat

1. Provide funding to increase enforcement of state 

and federal laws pertaining to stream channel 

alteration
3-Xd-32 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factors Potential solutions

2. Increase public awareness; provide incentives for 

reporting violations

3. Provide funding for stream habitat restoration

4. Sedimentation of remaining 

spawning gravel

1. Facilitate transport of fine sediments by restoring 

the balance between flow regime and river channel 

configuration

2. Mechanically clean spawning gravel that have been 

degraded as a result of sedimentation

3. Construct retention basins and support land use 

practices that reduce sediment input

5. Lack of spawning gravel 

recruitment

1. Increase spawning gravel recruitment from banks 

and floodplain by reestablishing river/floodplain 

hydrology and dynamics

2. Replenish spawning gravel from outside sources

6. Reduction in overall quantity of 

accessible spawning and 

rearing habitat as a result of 

obstruction by dams

Determine feasibility of modifying major dams to 

reestablish adult salmon access to upstream habitat and 

provide safe passage for outmigrating juveniles

7. Entrainment of juvenile chinook 

salmon at 44 small, unscreened 

pumps

1. Provide other water sources and eliminate 

diversions

2. Screen or otherwise modify pumps and diversions 

to prevent entrainment of juvenile chinook salmon

8. Predation on rearing and 

outmigrating juvenile chinook 

salmon

1. Increase harvest limits on predator species and 

enlist anglers to implement a concerted predator 

reduction program

2. Eliminate or isolate predator habitat
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-33

Limiting factors Potential solutions

9. Poor water quality resulting 

from point and non-point 

source discharge of toxic 

chemicals and other pollutants

1. Provide funding to enforce state laws pertaining to 

point- and nonpoint- source pollution

2. Strengthen existing water quality standards to 

provide protection for chinook salmon as needed

3. Increase public awareness; provide incentives for 

reporting violations

4. Provide funding for stream habitat restoration 

projects

10. Illegal harvest of adult chinook 

salmon

1. Provide additional law enforcement from Goodwin 

Dam downstream to the confluence with the San 

Joaquin River during times when adult salmon are in 

the river

2. Increase public awareness and incentives for 

reporting violations

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Modify existing flow schedule (Table 3-Xd-8).

Objective: Manage flows to benefit all life stages of chinook salmon.

Location: Stanislaus River from Goodwin Dam downstream to the confluence with the San Joaquin River.

Narrative description: While New Melones Reservoir is the largest impoundment (2.4 maf) in the Stanislaus 

River Basin, Goodwin Dam is the downstream barrier for salmon migration (Reynolds et al. 1993). Existing 

releases to meet needs of chinook salmon in the lower Stanislaus River are specified in a 1987 study 

agreement between DFG and USBR (DFG and USBR 1987). This agreement specifies interim annual flow 

allocations of 98,300 af to 302,100 af, depending on New Melones Reservoir carryover storage and 

inflow. Since the agreement was signed, water shortages have limited the quantity of water allocated to 

meeting fish needs to 98,300 af in all years. This quantity has proven to be inadequate for survival of all life 

stages of chinook salmon (Loudermilk 1994). New Melones Reservoir releases to meet Sacramento-San 
3-Xd-34 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Joaquin Delta water quality requirements have provided additional benefits for Stanislaus River chinook 

salmon in some years.

The DFG/USBR agreement provides for a 7-year study with seven study elements that are in various stages 

of completion. To date, results of smolt survival studies by DFG and a 1992 instream flow study by 

USFWS have yielded sufficient data to allow formulation of minimum instream flow schedules with 

increased allotments for fish. In August 1992, DFG submitted revised flow schedules to USBR and DWR. 

 The revised flows range from 185,280 af to 381,498 af (Reynolds et al. 1993). DFG has indicated that 

these are minimum flows that are subject to revision upon completion of the remaining studies (Reyno1ds et 

al. 1993). The purpose of establishing minimum flows is to maintain the current population or prevent 

further decline as water demands increase (Reynolds et al. 1993); a key assumption of the technical team 

was that doubling natural production would require flows higher than the specified minimum flows.

Escapement of adult chinook salmon into the Stanislaus River is associated with spring outflow in both the 

San Joaquin River at Vernalis and the Stanislaus River at Ripon (DFG 1987). Delay of adult migrating and 

spawning resulting from factors related to low flow in fall is also a concern (DFG 1992). Unfortunately, the 

existing allocation has proven insufficient to meet both fall and spring flow needs.

The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team has recommended a flow schedule that it believes will achieve the 

goal of doubling natural production (Table 3-Xd-8).

Table 3-Xd-8. Existing and proposed flow schedules for the Stanislaus River

from Goodwin Dam to the San Joaquin River confluence (cfs) by year type.

AFRPb

Month Existinga Wet

Above

normal

Below

normal Dry Critical

October -- 350c350c300c250c250c

November -- 400c350c300c300c250c

December -- 850e650e300c300c250c

January -- 1,150e800e300d300d250d

February -- 1,450e1,150e700e450d300d

March -- 1,550e1,150e850e650e550e

April -- 2,100f1,800f1,750f1,250f950f

May -- 3,500f2,750f2,050f1,400f900f

June -- 2,650f1,600f1,300f700f450f

July -- 900g400g350h200h250h
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-35

AFRPb

Month Existinga Wet

Above

normal

Below

normal Dry Critical

August -- 350h300h250h200h200h

September -- 350h300h250h200h200h

Total (taf) 98 - 302 943 701 525 375 290 

Baseline (taf) 1,015 722 406 242 269 

Unimpaired (taf) 1,772 1,291 920 631 449 

Note: All flows have been rounded to the nearest 50 cfs.

a Year type based on San Joaquin Basin 60-20-20 Index.

b Existing flows based on agreement between USBR and DFG (DFG and USBR 1987). Actual schedule 

determined on an annual basis.

c

Flow based on USFWS IFIM spawning recommendations (Aceituno 1993, Reynolds et al. 1993) and 

the assumption that flow greater than unimpaired flow is needed at this time of the year to compensate 

for elimination of access to upstream habitat. 

d Based on USFWS IFIM spawning flow recommendations and the assumption that flow should not be 

reduced between spawning and outmigration to prevent redd dewatering and stranding of rearing 

juveniles.

e Based on historical (1922-1990) percent monthly contribution to total annual unimpaired runoff for the 

Stanislaus River Basin and the assumption that flow should not be reduced between spawning and 

outmigration to prevent redd dewatering or stranding of rearing juveniles.

f

Stanislaus River contribution to Vernalis flow standard. Based on historical monthly contribution of the 

Stanislaus River to total unimpaired runoff for the San Joaquin River Basin, 1922-1990.

g Based on historical (1922-1990) percent monthly contribution to total annual unimpaired runoff for the 

Stanislaus River Basin.

h Based on USFWS IFIM flow and assumption that flow greater than unimpaired flow is needed to 

compensate for eliminations of access to upstream habitat.
3-Xd-36 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Related actions: Existing flow agreement between USBR and DFG. Vernalis flow recommendations. 

 Section 3406(b)(2) of Title 34, annual dedication of 800,000 af of water for fish, wildlife, and habitat 

restoration purposes. Section 3408(h), purchase of land and water from willing sellers.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Implementation of this action will require 

cooperation and coordination between USFWS, DFG, USBR, and numerous water user groups and 

irrigation districts.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Neither the existing USBR/DFG agreement nor the 800,000 af 

of water dedicated to fish and wildlife purposes by 3406(b)(2) of Title 34 are sufficient to meeting flow 

needs identified by the AFRP. Implementing this flow schedule would reduce water available to meet needs 

of other user groups and would thus require purchase of additional water.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that implementation of this flow 

schedule, in concert with other recommended actions, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon 

in the Stanislaus River.

Action 2: Operate New Melones, Tulloch, and Goodwin reservoirs to meet chinook salmon temperature 

requirements.

Objective: Maintain water temperature within ranges suitable for chinook salmon spawning, incubation, 

rearing, and outmigration.

Location: Stanislaus River from Goodwin Dam downstream to the confluence with the San Joaquin River.

Narrative description: Water temperature in the lower Stanislaus River is influenced by ambient air 

temperature, flow, channel width, New Melones Reservoir storage, diversions and thermocline

development, and Tulloch Reservoir temperatures and operations (Reynolds et al. 1993). When fall storage 

in New Melones Reservoir is low, water temperature throughout spawning reaches of the river can exceed 

56 F until November (Pisano 1992). During the recent drought, the initial date on which salmon entered 

the river to spawn was delayed from October until mid-November (DFG 1992). In addition to delaying the 

onset of spawning, temperatures in excess of 56 F may result in increased mortality of eggs (Pisano 1992).

In spring, elevated water temperatures in the Stanislaus River, the San Joaquin River, and the Delta reduce 

survival of outmigrating smolts. During May, salmon smolts migrating downstream in the Stanislaus River 

typically encounter water temperatures that cause physiological stress (DFG 1992). Because their 

emergence and migration are delayed, the progeny of late-spawning fish are at greater risk of being exposed 

to stressful or lethal water temperatures (DFG 1992).

o

o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-37

Although there is good evidence to support the need for a temperature standard, the understanding of the 

relationship between temperature and flow in the Stanislaus River is incomplete. Linking an existing USBR 

temperature model (Rowell 1993) with a USFWS instream flow model (Aceituno 1993) should provide the 

additional information needed for managing water temperatures by modifying timing and magnitude of 

reservoir releases.

The proposed action consists of the following:

Dates Water temperature

October 15-February 15 56 F

April 1-June 31 65 F

Related actions: Flow recommendations, comprehensive restoration of riparian and instream habitat, 

and modification of Old Melones Dam. Riparian and instream habitat restoration and protection measures 

(Action 4) would facilitate efforts to maintain suitable water temperatures in the Stanislaus River.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USBR would be responsible for operating New 

Melones Reservoir to meet temperature standards. USFWS and DFG would be responsible for monitoring 

and adjusting recommendations to ensure maximum benefits for chinook salmon.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Maintenance of adequate temperatures may require higher 

flows than those recommended under Action 1. Increasing the proportion of water allocated to meeting fish 

needs would reduce water available to meet needs of other user groups. Therefore, implementation would 

require purchase of additional water. Maintaining a water temperature of 65 F during June may not be 

possible.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that meeting the recommended 

temperature criteria, in concert with other actions recommended by the team, would double production of 

fall-run chinook salmon in the Stanislaus River.

Action 3: Conduct sequential restoration of instream and riparian habitat.

Objective: Ensure the long-term sustainability of physical, chemical, and biological conditions needed to 

meet production goals for chinook salmon.

Location: Stanislaus River from Goodwin Dam downstream to the confluence with the San Joaquin River.

o

o

o
3-Xd-38 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Narrative description: Physical habitat for salmon spawning and rearing has deteriorated as a result of a 

number of factors, many of them related to reduced instream flow. Problems include siltation of spawning 

gravel, loss of side channels and channel diversity, and reduced recruitment of spawning gravel to the active 

stream channel (Reynolds et al. 1993).

In-channel gravel mining has removed spawning gravel and resulted in the creation of onstream ponds that 

provide ideal habitat for predators and function as barriers to outmigrating juvenile salmon (DWR 1994). 

Loss of juvenile salmon to bass predation is not well documented but is potentially high, particularly under 

drought conditions, when flow during outmigration is low.

Upstream of the town of Riverbank, habitat has been lost as of result of relocation and channelization to 

accommodate construction of Highway 108-120 (Reynolds et al. 1993). In contrast, the river downstream 

of Riverbank has retained much of its original sinuosity (Reynolds et al. 1993). High sinuosity is associated 

with greater habitat diversity and relatively good retention of gravel during flood events (Reynolds et al. 

1993).

Dams have eliminated the natural process of gravel recruitment from upstream reaches. As a consequence, 

gravel in reaches downstream of dams has become depleted, resulting in channel incision and reduction in 

floodplain width (Reynolds et al. 1993). During periods of high discharge, river stage within the incised 

channel may increase dramatically, and high velocities and lack of cover may result in premature 

downstream displacement of juvenile chinook salmon (Reynolds et al. 1993). 

Abandonment of much of the historical floodplain has resulted in confinement of riparian communities to 

narrow corridors within the banks of the incised channel (Reynolds et al. 1993). Reduced coverage by 

riparian vegetation is an important factor contributing to increased ambient air and water temperatures in 

river reaches that are currently used by chinook salmon (Reynolds et al. 1993).

The proposed action consists of the following:

1) Spawning gravel restoration, replacement, and maintenance.

2) Elimination of connected, on-channel ponds that increase water temperature and provide 

habitat for predators.

3) Surveying to determine possible and practical goals for restoration of river/floodplain 

functions under the probable future flow regime.

4) Acquisition of floodplain and riparian land required to meet restoration goals established 

under 3.

5) Reestablishment of channel configuration and river/floodplain and riparian relationships. 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-39

6) Management of the watershed to reduce inputs of sediment, pesticides, and other 

substances with potential deleterious effects. Measures considered would include land 

purchase, incentives to improve land use practices, and construction of sediment retention 

basins.

Related actions: Flow and water temperature actions.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: This action would require cooperation and 

coordination between multiple federal, state, and local agencies and numerous private land owners and 

interest groups.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Available funds may be insufficient to purchase lands needed 

for comprehensive restoration. Land owners and others may object to changes and restrictions in allowed 

uses for riparian lands. Accelerating development and construction within the river floodplain will increase 

opposition to acquisition and restoration.

Projected benefits: The team believes that implementing this action has the potential to reduce the 

magnitude of flows needed to restore natural production of chinook salmon in the Stanislaus River. 

Reestablishing the natural stream channel, eliminating on-channel gravel pits, and restoring riparian

vegetation would contribute to reducing water temperature. Reducing bank and floodplain erosion and 

increasing sediment transport capability by reconfiguring the stream channel should increase egg survival by 

maintaining clean spawning gravel. Increases in clean gravel should increase production of invertebrates that 

provide food to juvenile salmon and other species. Increased instream cover would be expected to reduce 

juvenile mortality by providing refuge from predators. The technical team believes that implementation of 

this action, in concert with other recommended actions, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon 

in the Stanislaus River. A return to more natural conditions would be expected to benefit native fish species 

besides chinook salmon and steelhead. Although Section 3406(b)(1) does not establish goals for these 

species, implementing actions that will provide benefits for them is consistent with the intent of the CVPIA. 

Action 4: Install and maintain fish protection devices at riparian pumps and diversions.

Objective: Reduce or eliminate loss of juvenile chinook salmon resulting from entrainment by pumps and 

diversions.

Location: Stanislaus River from Goodwin Dam downstream to the San Joaquin River confluence.

Narrative description: Forty-four small pump diversions, none of which are adequately screened to protect 

juvenile salmon, are located on the lower Stanislaus River. The cumulative loss of young salmon at these 

diversions resulting from entrainment is not known but is potentially substantial (Hallock and Van Woert 

1959). 
3-Xd-40 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

The available data for chinook salmon in other systems indicate that downstream movement of fry occurs 

mainly at night (Healy 1991). To reduce entrainment prior to installation of fish protection devices, interim 

guidelines restricting pumping an diversion to daylight hours should be adopted.

Related actions: CVPIA screening program (3406[b][21]) required by Title 34.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: A DFG survey of unscreened diversions in the 

San Joaquin Basin is underway. This action would be implemented by USFWS and DFG

under 3406(b)(21) and would require cooperation with private land owners and other water right holders.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Protection devices might reduce efficiency of diversions or 

require additional maintenance effort on the part of diverters.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that installation of effective protection 

devices, in concert with other actions recommended by the team, would double production of fall-run 

chinook salmon in the Stanislaus River.

Action 5: Provide additional law enforcement to protect against illegal take of salmon, stream alteration, 

and water pollution and to ensure adequate screening of pumps and diversions.

Objective: Increase spawning success, reduce entrainment, improve water quality, and prevent additional 

destruction of stream habitat.

Location: Stanislaus River from Goodwin Dam to the confluence with the San Joaquin River.

Narrative description: Increased enforcement of sections of the Fish and Game Code pertaining to illegal 

harvest of adult salmon, screening, water pollution, and streambed alteration would provide additional 

protection for chinook salmon (Reynolds et al. 1993).

Related actions: Installation of fish protection devices; habitat restoration and protection.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Implementation of this action would primarily be 

the responsibility of DFG, although other law enforcement or regulatory authorities might be involved.

Potential obstacles to implementation: DFG funding and manpower constraints.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that implementation of this action, in 

concert with other actions recommended by the team, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon 

in the Stanislaus River.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-41

Action 6: Remove or modify Old Melones Dam.

Objective: Reduce fall water temperatures in the Stanislaus River. 

Location: New Melones Reservoir.

Narrative description: Warm water temperatures during the fall are believed to result in delayed spawning, 

decreased egg survival, and high juvenile mortality (DFG 1992). Fall water temperatures depend partially 

on the late summer reservoir storage level, thermocline development, and the depth of diversions from New 

Melones Reservoir (Reynolds et al. 1993). When fall storage is low, Old Melones Dam, which is located 

within the reservoir, limits deep circulation and results in the release of water drawn directly from the 

reservoir surface (Reynolds et al. 1993). When these conditions occur, fall water temperatures may exceed 

56 F throughout most of the spawning reaches of the Stanislaus River (Reynolds et al. 1993); this 

deleterious condition prevails until ambient air temperatures cool the river, usually in November (Hallock 

and Van Woert 1959).

Related actions: Flow and temperature recommendations.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: As the agency in charge of operating New 

Melones Reservoir, USBR would have the primary responsibility for implementing this action.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Cost and feasibility are currently unknown.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that implementation of this action, in 

concert with other actions recommended by the team, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon 

in the Stanislaus River.

Action 7: Provide fish passage around reservoirs.

Objective: Increase production and minimize impacts of anadromous fish restoration on water interests by 

providing access to additional spawning/rearing habitat upstream of reservoirs.

Location: Goodwin, Tulloch, and New Melones reservoirs.

Narrative description:

1) Evaluate feasibility, benefits, and costs in terms of fish production and impacts on water 

users and other interest groups.

o
3-Xd-42 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

2) Depending on the outcome of the evaluation, design and construct fish passage structures.

3) Modify dams and operation of reservoirs to facilitate downstream migration of juvenile 

salmon.

Related actions: Because it has the potential to reduce the level of restoration needed in the lower 

reach of the river, providing passage around dams is related to all other actions. Reservoir drawdown to 

facilitate juvenile outmigration has the potential to affect downstream flow. Providing adequate reservoir 

releases to maintain suitable water temperatures for migrating chinook salmon during spring and fall would 

continue to be important. 

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Evaluating feasibility would be the responsibility 

of DFG, USFWS, and the appropriate reservoir management authority. Implementation would necessitate

cooperation between multiple agencies and water user groups.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The feasibility of this approach has not been evaluated, and 

the costs of constructing functional fish passage structures for juvenile and adult salmon would probably be 

high. The suitability of habitat for meeting anadromous salmonid life history requirements in stream reaches 

above existing reservoirs is not well known. Operation of reservoirs to facilitate fish passage could entail 

higher water costs than meeting fish flow needs in downstream reaches. Feasibility and cost/benefit analyses 

would be conducted in the evaluation phase and would determine whether this action presents a viable 

option for anadromous fish restoration. The types of activities required to move fish around reservoirs may 

not be consistent with provisions and the intent of Title 34.

Projected benefits: The team believes that providing access to stream reaches above reservoirs could result 

in increases in natural production that would exceed the goals established under the AFRP. By increasing 

the quantity of habitat available for spawning and rearing, installation of functional fish passage structures has 

the potential to reduce the scope of restoration actions required in the reach from Goodwin Dam to the San 

Joaquin River confluence and reduce costs to other user groups. This action may be essential if restoration 

efforts are going to benefit steelhead production in the Stanislaus River.

Mainstem San Joaquin River

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Table 3-Xd-9. Limiting factors and potential solutions for San

Joaquin Basin fall-run chinook salmon in the San Joaquin River.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-43

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Direct and indirect impacts of 

exports at Harvey O. Banks 

(SWP) and Tracy (CVP) 

pumping plants on juvenile 

chinook salmon migrating 

through the lower San Joaquin 

River and Delta

1. Increase San Joaquin River flow to facilitate 

migration of juvenile fish through the lower San 

Joaquin River and Delta

2. Reduce exports when juvenile chinook salmon are 

migrating through the lower San Joaquin River and 

Delta

3. Reduce entrainment by installing the head of Old 

River barrier during juvenile outmigration

4. Improve survival of fish entrained at fish salvage 

facilities

5. Reduce or eliminate predators in channels leading 

to pumps

6. Reduce pumping at night

2. Unsuitable temperatures for 

juvenile chinook salmon in the 

mainstem San Joaquin River 

and Delta

1. Restore riparian and bank vegetation along the 

mainstem and tributaries

2. Operate reservoirs to reduce the temperature of 

discharged water

3. Evaluate strategies for reducing temperature by 

increasing tributary and mainstem outflow during 

outmigration

3. Entrainment of juvenile chinook 

salmon at the Patterson, El 

Soyo, West Stanislaus, and 

Banta-Carbona diversions on 

the mainstem San Joaquin 

River

1. Install and maintain effective screens or other fish 

exclusion devices during the period when juvenile 

chinook salmon are migrating through the 

mainstem San Joaquin River

2. Reduce diversion rates when juvenile chinook 

salmon are migrating through the mainstem San 

Joaquin River
3-Xd-44 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factors Potential solutions

4. Dissolved oxygen and ammonia 

barrier to adult migration in the 

San Joaquin River at Stockton

1. Prohibit dredging in the Stockton ship channel 

during periods when chinook salmon are migrating 

through the lower San Joaquin River

2. Establish stronger standards for City of Stockton 

wastewater discharge

3. Increase flows in the San Joaquin River at 

Stockton when chinook salmon are present (could 

include installation of the head of Old River 

barrier) and monitoring indicates that water quality 

is unsuitable

5. Effects of legal harvest of 

migrating adult salmon in the 

Delta reach of the San Joaquin 

River from Mossdale to 

Chipps Island

Extend the prohibition on the harvest of adult salmon 

from Mossdale downstream to Chipps Island

6. Illegal harvest of adult salmon 

in the San Joaquin River 

upstream of Mossdale and in 

the tributaries from their 

confluences with the San 

Joaquin River upstream to the 

dams

1. Increase law enforcement efforts during periods 

when adult salmon are in the river

2. Increase general public and angler awareness to 

improve compliance and encourage reporting of 

poaching

7. Loss of genetic 

integrity/diversity

1. Reduce risk by implementing habitat restoration 

measures

2. Investigate feasibility of establishing a gene bank to 

ensure preservation of genetic material of San 

Joaquin River fall-run chinook salmon

3. Selectively harvest hatchery fish

4. Use "natural" fish in captive breeding programs
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-45

Limiting factors Potential solutions

5. Complete genetic differentiation studies for San 

Joaquin Basin fall-run chinook salmon stocks

6. Establish a genetic advisory committee to review 

impacts of hatchery operations and release 

strategies and examine Merced River Hatchery 

practices and develop strategies to ensure that 

further increases in hatchery production do not 

adversely affect wild stocks.

7. If the decline of San Joaquin chinook salmon 

continues, and extinction appears imminent, 

consider hatchery spawning and rearing of wild 

fish as an interim measure

8. Straying of adult chinook 

salmon into the mainstem San 

Joaquin River upstream of the 

Merced River confluence, and 

into Salt and Mud Sloughs

1. Continue to install a fall barrier in the San Joaquin 

River upstream of the Merced River confluence

2. Provide adequate fall attraction flows in the 

Merced River

9. Entrainment of juvenile chinook 

salmon at four major 

diversions and numerous 

smaller diversions on the 

mainstem San Joaquin River

1. Reduce or prohibit operation of pumps and 

diversions at times when juvenile salmon are 

present

2. Install screens or other protective devices to 

prevent entrainment when pumps or diversions are 

being operated

10. Limits imposed by overallocation of existing water 

supply

1. Evaluate and, if feasible, establish a conjunctive 

water use program

2. Pursue opportunities for land fallowing and 

purchase of water from willing sellers

3. Investigate opportunities for water augmentation
3-Xd-46 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Implement Vernalis flow schedule (Table 3-Xd-10) or measures that provide equivalent 

protection for San Joaquin fall-run chinook salmon.

Objective: Provide adequate flow for all life stages of chinook salmon.

Location: San Joaquin River at Vernalis.

Narrative description: The timing, amount, and quality of flow affects the migration and survival of both 

juvenile and adult chinook salmon. Declines in escapement to San Joaquin Basin tributaries have been 

attributed to inadequate streamflow in the mainstem San Joaquin River and its tributaries (DFG 1987). 

During spring, low basin outflow and Delta exports result in both direct and indirect mortality of outmigrating 

smolts and fry (Reynolds et al. 1993); conversely, higher smolt survival has been observed in years when 

spring flows in the mainstem river and tributaries have been high (CMC 1994, Reynolds et al. 1993). In 

some years, upstream migration of adult salmon into San Joaquin River tributaries is delayed because of the 

lack of attraction flow, elevated water temperatures, and low dissolved oxygen concentration (DOC), which 

commonly occur in the San Joaquin River in fall (SJRMP1993, DFG 1992). Diversion of water through 

Delta facilities, Port of Stockton operations, City of Stockton waste discharges, channel dredging, tidal 

action, and San Joaquin River inflow are important factors that are mediated by flow and that affect survival 

of outmigrating juvenile salmon. There are no specific flow requirements in place in the mainstem San 

Joaquin River to meet the needs of migrating salmon.

In estimating Vernalis flow needed to meet the goal of doubling natural production of San Joaquin fall-run 

chinook salmon, maximum export rates from April through June were assumed to be restricted to one half 

of the average for the baseline period (1967-1991). If combined state and federal exports were further 

reduced, the regression equation predicts that doubling could be achieved with lower San Joaquin River 

flow; conversely, higher export rates would necessitate higher flow. Disadvantages of lower spring flow 

include elevated water temperatures and reduced habitat quality for juveniles in the tributaries.

Table 3-Xd-10. San Joaquin River flow (cfs) at Vernalis.

AFRPa

Month Existingb

Wet

Above

normal

Below

normal Dry Critical

October -- 1,450c 950c 900c 700c 650c

November -- 2,000c 1,500c 950c 900c 650c

December -- 2,850c 2,250c 950c 950c 700c

 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-47

AFRPa

Month Existingb

Wet

Above

normal

Below

normal Dry Critical

January -- 3,950c2,550c1,100c1,000c750c

February -- 5,000c3,900c2,150c1,450c1,050c

March -- 5,350c3,900c2,750c2,100c1,850c

April -- 12,000d8,250d7,300d5,850d4,450d

May -- 18,600d13,700d10,200d7,400d5,200d

June -- 17,300d9,750d7,650d4,600d2,950d

July -- 4,200c1,700c1,250c650c650c

August -- 1,150c800c600c500c450c

September -- 1,050c750c650c500c450c

Total

(taf)

-- 4,521 3,019 2,200 1,606 1,196 

Baseline (taf) 4,691 3,020 1,609 1,617 1,042 

Unimpaired (taf) 10,417 6,830 4,648 3,375 2,361 

Note: All flows have been rounded to the nearest 50 cfs. Flow schedule would have to be implemented 

in conjunction with appropriate export restrictions (Table 3-Xd-11).

a Year type based on San Joaquin Basin 60-20-20 Index.

b Existing flow requirements dictated by December 15, 1994 Delta Accord.

c

Sum of flow from the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers.

d

Flow required to meet salmon production goals based on the following regression relationship:

ES,T = (1.820QV)-(0.051XF,S)-18,417.3 (CMC 1994)

where, for a given year class, ES,T is the sum of escapement into the Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers of 2-

and 3-year-olds, QV is average San Joaquin River flow (cfs) at Vernalis from April 1 through June 30 in 
3-Xd-48 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

the year of outmigration, and XF,S is total combined monthly exports (af) for the federal (CVP) and state 

(SWP) water projects from April 1 through June 30 in the year of outmigration. Flow is allocated 

between April, May, and June on the basis of historical occurrence of unimpaired runoff.

Related actions: Existing flow requirements and flow recommendations for San Joaquin River 

tributaries. Section 3408(h), purchase of land and water from willing sellers.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Implementation of this action would require 

cooperation between multiple government agencies and private entities.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Flows are higher than those that have been recommended in 

other forums. Implementing these flow standards would reduce the quantity of water available to other user 

groups.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that implementation of the proposed 

flow schedule, in concert with other actions recommended by the team, would double production of fall-run 

chinook salmon in the lower San Joaquin basin tributaries.

Action 2: Implement proposed export restrictions for the state (SWP) and federal (CVP) Delta pumping 

plants.

Objective: Reduce direct and indirect mortality of outmigrating San Joaquin chinook salmon smolts.

Location: CVP and SWP pumping plants.

Table 3-Xd-11. Combined maximum exports (cfs)

at SWP and CVP pumping facilities.

Year typea

Month Wet 

Above

normal

Below

normal Dry Critical

April 6,950b3,950b3,100b2,200b1,550b

May 6,950b3,950b3,100b2,200b1,550b

June 6,950b3,950b3,100b2,200b1,550b

Total (af) 1,254 713 560 397 280 

Notes: All exports have been rounded to the nearest 50 cfs.

Restrictions would have to be implemented in conjunction with AFRP flows (Table 3-Xd-10) to 

double natural production of San Joaquin basin chinook salmon.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-49

a Year type based on San Joaquin Basin 60-20-20 Index.

b

Flow required to meet salmon production goals based on the following regression relationship:

ES,T = (1.820QV)-(0.051XF ,S)-18,417.3 (CMC 1994)

where, for a given year class, ES,T is the sum of escapement into the Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers of 2-

and 3-year-olds, QV is average San Joaquin River flow (cfs) at Vernalis from April 1 through June 30 in 

the year of outmigration, and XF,S is total combined monthly exports (af) for the federal (CVP) and state 

(SWP) water projects from April 1 through June 30 in the year of outmigration.

Related actions: Related to flow recommendations. Higher export rates require higher flow at 

Vernalis to meet production goals. Section 3408(h), purchase of land and water from willing sellers.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Restricting exports would require cooperation 

between multiple agencies and private entities.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Export restrictions would reduce the quantity of water 

available to other user groups. Because state pumping facilities are not under the authority of the CVP, 

there is little incentive for them to adhere to export restriction for the purposes of the AFRP.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that implementing the recommended 

export restrictions, in concert with other actions recommended by the team, would double production of 

fall-run chinook salmon in lower San Joaquin Basin tributaries.

Action 3: Establish Stevinson flow standards.

Objective: Manage instream flow to benefit all life stages of chinook salmon.

Location: San Joaquin River at Stevinson (immediately upstream of the confluence with the Merced River).

Table 3-Xd-12. Existing and AFRP-generated flow schedules

for the San Joaquin River at Stevinson (cfs) by year type.
3-Xd-50 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Wet

Above 

normal

Below

normal Dry Critical

April -- 5,150c 2,650c 2,050c 1,750c 1,250c

May -- 7,000c 4,450c 3,050c 2,300c 1,600c

June -- 6,800c 3,450c 2,600c 1,700c 1,050c

Total (taf) -- 1,141 637 464 347 235 

Note: All flows have been rounded to the nearest 50 cfs.

a There are no existing flow requirements at this site.

b Year type based on San Joaquin Basin 60-20-20 Index.

c San Joaquin River contribution to Vernalis flow standard. Based on Vernalis flow standards and the 

historical percent contribution of the San Joaquin River to total unimpaired San Joaquin Basin runoff.

Related actions: Existing and proposed flow schedules for all tributaries. Section 3408(h), 

purchase of land and water from willing sellers. Temperature recommendations.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Implementation of this action would require 

cooperation between multiple government agencies and private entities.

Potential obstacles to implementation: There are no existing flow requirements for the San Joaquin 

River above the Merced River confluence. Implementing a Stevinson flow standard would reduce the 

quantity of water available to other user groups. Although Millerton Reservoir, on the mainstem San 

Joaquin River, is a CVP impoundment, availability of water for the AFRP is uncertain.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that implementation of this action, in 

concert with other actions recommended by the team, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon 

in the lower San Joaquin basin tributaries.

Action 4: Install and maintain fish protection devices at the Banta-Carbona, West Stanislaus, Patterson, 

and El Soyo diversions.

Objective: Reduce or eliminate loss of juvenile chinook salmon resulting from entrainment by the four 

largest diversions on the San Joaquin River.

AFRPb
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-51

Location: Banta-Carbona, West Stanislaus, Patterson, and El Soyo diversions on the mainstem San 

Joaquin River between the Merced River confluence and the Delta.

Narrative description: There are four major unscreened diversions on the mainstem San Joaquin River 

downstream of the Merced River confluence. The El Soyo diversion has a maximum capacity of 80 cfs, 

and the Banta-Carbona, Patterson, and West Stanislaus diversions have a maximum capacity of 249 cfs 

each (Reynolds et al. 1993). Cumulatively, the four diversions are capable of withdrawing a substantial 

proportion of the total mainstem San Joaquin River flow, particularly during dry water-year types. Although 

impacts on juvenile chinook salmon are not well documented, there is evidence to suggest they may be 

substantial (Hallock and Van Woert 1959). Screens installed in the late 1970s were later abandoned; 

operation of these facilities in the ensuing period is believed to have contributed to low survival of 

outmigrating juveniles (SJRMP 1993).

The available data for chinook salmon in other systems indicate that downstream movement of fry occurs 

mainly at night (Healy 1991). To reduce entrainment prior to installation of fish protection devices, interim 

guidelines restricting pumping an diversion to daylight hours should be adopted.

Related actions: CVPIA screening program (3406[b][21]) required by Title 34.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: A DFG survey of unscreened diversions in the 

San Joaquin Basin is underway. USFWS will be administering a screening program as one element of the 

CVPIA. Implementation of a San Joaquin Basin screening program would require cooperation between 

USFWS, DFG, and the Banta-Carbona, West Stanislaus, Patterson, and El Soyo Irrigation Districts.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Screens might reduce efficiency of diversions or require 

additional maintenance effort on the part of the irrigation districts, although a substantial portion of the costs 

would probably be covered by funds available under 3406(b)(21).

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that implementation of this action, in 

concert with other actions recommended by the team, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon 

in the lower San Joaquin basin tributaries.

Action 5: Install and maintain fish protection devices at small agricultural diversions.

Objective: Increase survival of juvenile salmon by reducing or eliminating entrainment at small pumps and 

diversions.

Location: San Joaquin River from the Merced River confluence downstream to the Delta.
3-Xd-52 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Narrative description: Additional small- and medium-sized irrigation diversion on the mainstem San Joaquin 

River entrain juvenile salmon (Reynolds et al. 1993); cumulative effects are not known but have the 

potential to be substantial (Reynolds et al. 1993, Hallock and Van Woert 1959).

The available data for chinook salmon in other systems indicate that downstream movement of fry occurs 

mainly at night (Healy 1991). To reduce entrainment prior to installation of fish protection devices, interim 

guidelines restricting pumping an diversion to daylight hours should be adopted.

Related actions: CVPIA screening program (3406[b][21]) required by Title 34, install and maintain 

fish protection devices at major diversions.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USFWS will be administering a screening 

program as one element of the CVPIA. DFG, which is in the process of conducting an inventory and 

assessment of San Joaquin Basin diversions, would be the agency likely to implement a screening effort. 

Cooperation and coordination with USFWS, irrigation districts, and land owners would be necessary.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Fish protection devices might reduce efficiency of diversions 

or require additional maintenance effort on the part of diverters, although most of the costs should be 

covered by funds available under 3406(b)(21).

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that installing effective fish protection 

devices at small agricultural diversions, in concert with other actions recommended by the team, would 

double production of fall-run chinook salmon in the lower San Joaquin basin tributaries.

Action 6: Continue the prohibition on sport harvest of chinook salmon in the San Joaquin Basin upstream 

of Mossdale; extend closure on the mainstem San Joaquin River downstream to Chipps Island.

Objective: Increase spawning success by preventing the harvest of adult chinook salmon escaping into San 

Joaquin River tributaries.

Location: San Joaquin River upstream from Mossdale and the San Joaquin River tributaries.

Narrative description: When escapement is low, as it has been during the recent years of drought, legal 

harvest has the potential to remove a substantial percentage of the total number of spawning adults (SJRMP 

1993) and, consequently, reduce juvenile production. Many of the adult salmon harvested in the San 

Joaquin River between Mossdale and Chipps Island are migrating to spawning grounds in the Stanislaus, 

Tuolumne, and Merced rivers (SJRMP 1993). Harvest of salmon is currently prohibited in the mainstem 

San Joaquin River upstream of Mossdale and in the tributaries upstream to the dams. The San Joaquin 

Basin Technical Team recommends extending the closure in the mainstem river downstream to Chipps 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-53

Island and leaving the closure in effect until it has been determined that San Joaquin Basin chinook salmon 

stocks have recovered.

Related actions: Additional law enforcement to reduce illegal harvest.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Implementation of this action would primarily be 

the responsibility of DFG, although the involvement of local law enforcement authorities would increase 

chances for success.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Continued prohibition on recreational harvest has the 

potential to reduce support of anglers' groups for the restoration program.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that maintaining a prohibition on 

harvest of adult salmon will be necessary for recovery. The team believes that this action, in concert with 

other actions recommended by the team, would at least double natural production of fall-run chinook 

salmon in the three lower San Joaquin Basin tributaries.

Action 7: Prohibit the dredging of the Stockton ship channel during critical periods.

Objective: Prevent DOC sag during periods when adult or juvenile salmon are migrating through the lower 

San Joaquin River and Delta.

Location: San Joaquin River near Rough and Ready Island.

Narrative description: During fall, DOC is commonly low in the San Joaquin River near Stockton (DFG 

1993, SJRMP 1993). Adult salmon migration is inhibited by exposure to DOC below 5 parts per million 

(ppm). Low DOC often results from dredging in the Stockton Ship Channel and turning basin, flow 

reversals resulting from high Delta exports, and effluent discharge from the Stockton Municipal Sewage 

Treatment Plant and other sources. DWR installs a rock barrier at the head of Old River in fall to improve 

DOC levels when the San Joaquin River flow at Vernalis drops below 1,800 cfs. Modifications of sewage 

treatment plant operation benefitted salmon by improving water quality. However, in fall 1992, a DOC sag 

occurred in the San Joaquin River near Rough and Ready Island; conditions in the Stockton Deepwater 

Ship Channel were associated with this oxygen sag.

Related actions: Head of Old River barrier, flow recommendations, and export limits, all of which 

would improve water quality in the mainstem San Joaquin River.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Preventing future DOC sags in the San Joaquin 

River near Stockton will require coordination with the Corps regarding restrictions on timing and location of 
3-Xd-54 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

dredging, with DWR for installation of the head of Old River barrier, and with state and local water quality 

authorities on effects of point- and nonpoint-source discharge.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Lack of funding to adequately address point- and nonpointsource discharge problems.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that alleviating conditions that lead to 

development of a dissolved oxygen barrier in the San Joaquin River near Stockton, in concert with other 

actions recommended by the team, would double production of fall-run chinook salmon in the lower San 

Joaquin basin tributaries.

Action 8: Install the head of Old River barrier.

Objective: Improve water quality for migrating adults and reduce entrainment of outmigrating smolts.

Location: San Joaquin River at the head of Old River.

Narrative description: DWR installs a rock barrier at the head of Old River in fall to improve DOC in the 

lower San Joaquin River when flow at Vernalis drops below 1,800 cfs (Reynolds et al. 1993). Beginning in 

1992, the barrier was installed in spring (April 15-21) (DWR 1992) to reduce diversion and probable 

entrainment at the CVP and SWP pumping plants of chinook salmon smolts migrating down the San 

Joaquin River. Feasibility and benefits of the barrier are reduced when San Joaquin River flow is high.

Related actions: Flow recommendation, export restrictions, and measures to prevent DOC sag in 

the San Joaquin River near Stockton.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DWR would be responsible for implementing 

this action. DFG and USFWS would be responsible for monitoring to determining benefits and impacts on 

other fish species.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Potential impacts on Delta smelt and other native species 

may limit the length of time for which the barrier can remain installed in the spring. It is uncertain what level 

of protection can be obtained by installing the barrier for only a portion of the period when smolts are 

actually present and vulnerable to entrainment.

Projected benefits: This action has the potential to improve water quality in the San Joaquin River, facilitate 

adult migration, and provide protection to outmigrating smolts with reduced water costs. Similar or higher 

levels of protection can be obtained by implementing recommended flow and export schedules.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-55

Action 9: Establish spring and fall water temperature goals for the mainstem San Joaquin River. Goals 

would be achieved through a combination of changes in reservoir operations, enhanced flows, and riparian 

restoration.

Objective: In fall, prevent delays in adult migration and resulting increases in egg and juvenile mortality; in 

spring, increase survival of outmigrating juveniles by reducing stress and mortality associated with high water 

temperatures.

Location: San Joaquin River from Merced River confluence to the Delta.

Narrative description: Elevated fall water temperatures in the San Joaquin River are believed to delay 

upstream migration and spawning (DFG 1992). This may lead to delays in emergence and outmigration of 

juveniles (DFG 1992) and increase the risk of exposure to stressful or lethal water temperatures. Elevated 

water temperatures during spring result in conditions that have been found to reduce survival of juvenile 

salmon (DFG 1992, 1987). DFG has determined that when flow at Vernalis is 5,000 cfs or less in May, 

water temperatures are at levels associated with chronic stress to salmon (DFG 1987). The effects of such 

stress are cumulative and increase effects of other mortality factors, such as entrainment/impingement at 

water diversions, predation, and salvage handling at Delta fish facilities.

Following are recommended water temperature standards that should be maintained to the 

downstream boundary of the spawning area during fall and the mouth of the river during spring.

Dates Water temperature

October 15-February 15 56 F

April 1-June 31 65 F

Related actions: Mainstem and tributary flow recommendations and sequential habitat restoration, 

especially recommendations to restore bank and riparian vegetation. Riparian and instream habitat 

protection and restoration proposals discussed in Action 4 should further reduce water temperatures.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Implementation of this action would require 

cooperation and coordination of multiple government agencies and private entities and would probably 

require acquisition of additional water from willing sellers.

Potential obstacles to implementation: It is anticipated that meeting temperature goals may require 

greater quantities of water than those indicated by flow recommendations. This would result in a substantial 

reduction in the quantity of water available for other purposes. Restoration of riparian habitat could reduce 

o

o
3-Xd-56 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

the quantity of water necessary to meet temperature standards. Maintaining a water temperature of 65 F 

during June may not be possible.

Projected benefits: The San Joaquin Basin Technical Team believes that meeting the recommended 

temperature goals in the San Joaquin River, in concert with other actions recommended by the team, would 

double production of fall-run chinook salmon in the lower San Joaquin basin tributaries.

Action 10: Establish a basinwide Conjunctive Water Use Program.

Objective: Obtain adequate water to meet anadromous fish flow requirements while minimizing impacts on 

other water users.

Location: Entire San Joaquin River Basin.

Narrative description:

1) Evaluate benefits and costs of a conjunctive use program, including 

potential increases in water supply to meet fish needs.

2) Develop and implement a program, ensuring a net gain in water allocated 

to meeting anadromous fish requirements.

Related actions: Potential to increase the feasibility and reduce impacts of actions involving flow.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Establishing an effective conjunctive use 

program would require cooperation and coordination between all government agencies and private entities 

involved in water use or resource management in the San Joaquin River Basin.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Net benefits for anadromous fish may be great but depend 

on many factors and have not been evaluated.

Projected benefits: A conjunctive use program has the potential to reduce the adverse impacts on other 

water users of implementing flow recommendations. Such a program may be an essential tool to obtain 

water needed to meet fish flow needs.

Action 11: Reduce predator populations.

Objective: Increase survival of juvenile salmon by reducing predator populations.

o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

D. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xd-57

Location: San Joaquin River and tributaries.

Narrative description: Predatory fish such as largemouth and smallmouth bass are a potential cause of 

increased mortality of rearing and outmigrating salmon. Abandoned gravel pits on the tributaries provide 

excellent habitat for these species (Reynolds et al. 1993).

Following are the elements of this action:

1) Increase sport harvest of predators, primarily largemouth bass.

2) Reduce predator habitat, primarily abandoned gravel pits and other pools that are 

connected to river channels.

Related actions: Sequential habitat restoration on San Joaquin River tributaries; ongoing

DWR/DFG habitat restoration efforts (DWR 1994).

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Increasing harvest would primarily be the 

responsibility of DFG. Reducing predator habitat would require cooperation and coordination between 

various agencies and riparian land owners.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Potential objection from some segments of the angling 

population. May not be practical or even possible. Magnitude of problems and benefits resulting from 

implementing this action are poorly documented.

Projected benefits: Impacts of predation on juvenile salmon are not known but are believed to be 

substantial under some conditions. Predation is generally lower when flow is high. 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

E. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xe-1

E. SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA

General Approach

The goal of the Delta Salmon and Steelhead Technical Team was to develop a list of actions that would 

double baseline (1965-1989) salmon smolt survival in the Delta for all races of chinook salmon. It is likely 

that as smolt survival increases, resulting adult production two and a half years later (1967-1991) will also 

increase.

Although we know that salmonid fry may rear in the Delta for up to several months (Kjelson et al. 1982), 

limiting factors for fry are generally not well understood. Relative comparisons between upper river and 

Delta fry survival have been made, but the relative importance of fry rearing in the Delta compared with that 

upstream has not been quantified (USFWS 1987).

Additionally, very little information exists on the limiting factors for adult salmon and steelhead migrating 

upstream through the Delta (Hallock 1970).

Although it is theoretically possible to double adult production by only doubling smolt survival in the Delta, 

actions that would benefit all life stages of salmonids (including steelhead) in the Delta were preferentially 

selected. In most cases the limiting factors and potential solutions identified for salmon smolts are likely to 

be similar for all salmonid juveniles rearing and/or migrating through the Delta. In cases in which the unique 

needs of the different salmonid life stages were known, they were incorporated into the list of actions, but 

there may be other areas that have not been adequately explored or addressed.

No action items targeted to improve juvenile salmonid survival were recommended for July-September 

because very few juveniles are present in the Bay or Delta during those months, presumably because of high 

water temperatures in the Delta that may be lethal to salmon (USFWS 1987).

Smolt survival between 1965 and 1989 was estimated using Delta salmon survival models that relate habitat 

conditions in those years to survival. Two separate models have been used, one for smolts emigrating from 

the Sacramento River (Kjelson et al. 1989, USFWS 1992a) and one for smolts emigrating from the San 

Joaquin River (Brandes 1994). The models are based on survival indices generated from coded-wiretagged (CWT) fall-run hatchery smolts released at various locations in the Delta and recovered within a few 

weeks after release by midwater trawl at Chipps Island. Survival indices were calculated based on the 

number recovered at Chipps Island corrected for effort in both time and space (USFWS 1987).

Both models split the Delta into various reaches and use backward-stepping multiple-regression analyses to 

identify environmental variables (exports, flows, and temperature) important to survival in each reach. 

Professional judgment by the authors was used to some extent in choosing which variables were considered. 
3-Xe-2 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

 Both the Sacramento and San Joaquin models assume that smolts enter the various reaches of the model in 

the same proportion as flow.

The Delta smolt survival model, developed for fall-run smolts emigrating from the Sacramento River Basin, 

has been slightly modified to better index survival of Sacramento River juvenile winter-run and late fall-run, 

and Mokelumne River fall-run chinook salmon in the Delta. The equations used for each reach of the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin models and the modifications made for the various races are listed in Table 3-

Xe-1. Temporal distribution in the Delta for each race of juvenile chinook salmon used to estimate annual 

Delta survival is listed in Table 3-Xe-2. Although none of the models estimate absolute survival, they are 

our best tool for obtaining an index of baseline survival, integrating the various action items, and determining 

what is needed for doubling survival.

Table 3-Xe-1. Formulas used in the models to calculate mortalities

Fall run, Sacramento 

Dayflow and Operation Study

m1 (-2.45925+(0.0420748*Freeport temp)

m2 (-0.5916024)+(0.017968*Freeport temp)+(4.34E-05*(CVP+SWP))

m3 (-1.613493+(0.0319584*Freeport temp))

m23 ((M2*P2)+(M3*(1-P2))

m123 (M1+M23-(M1*M23))

s123 (1-M123)

Late fall run, Sacramento

Dayflow and Operation Study

m1 (-2.45925+(0.0420748*Freeport temp)

m2 (-0.5916024)+(0.017968*Freeport temp)+(5.4E-05*(CVP+SWP))

m3 (-1.613493+(0.0319584*Freeport temp))

m23 ((M2*P2)+(M3*(1-P2))

m123 (M1+M23-(M1*M23))

s123 (1-M123)

Winter run, Sacramento

Dayflow and Operation Study

m1 (-2.45925+(0.0420748*Freeport temp)

m2 (-0.5916024)+(0.017968*Freeport temp)+(5.4E-05*(CVP+SWP))

m3 (-1.613493+(0.0319584*Freeport temp))

m23 ((M2*P2)+(M3*(1-P2))

m123 (M1+M23-(M1*M23))

s123 (1-M123)
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

E. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xe-3

Fall run, Mokelumne 

Dayflow and Operation Study

m1 0.000

m2 (-0.5916024)+(0.017968*Freeport temp)+(4.34E-05*(CVP+SWP))

m3 0.000

m23 (M2*1)+(M3*(1-1))

m123 (0+M23-(0*M23))

s123 (1-M123)

Fall run, San Joaquin 

Dayflow and Operation Study

m2 (1.01045-3E-05*Upper Old River Flow)

m3 (0.87634-7.1E-05*Stockton low)

m4 (-3.65867+0.058492*Jersey Pt temp+5.1E-05*(CVP+SWP))

m34 (M3+M4)-(M3*M4)

m234 (P2*M2)+(P3*M34)

s234 (1-M234)

Table 3-Xe-2. Assumed temporal distributions, by percent, of fall-, late fall-, and winter-run

 chinook salmon for the Sacramento, Mokelumne, and San Joaquin rivers.

Distributions were input to survival models.

Month

Race River Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Sacramento 0 0 0 0 0 17 65 18

Mokelumne 0 0 0 0 0 17 65 18

Fall run

San Joaquin 0 0 0 0 0 45 55 0

Late fall run Sacramento 25 50 25 0 0 0 0 0

Winter run Sacramento 0 0 0 13 57 30 0 0

The models indicate that survival in the Delta cannot be doubled for Sacramento fall-, winter-, and late fallrun and Mokelumne River fall-run stocks of chinook salmon. The team believed that the Sacramento model 

underestimates the benefits associated with the elimination of CVP and SWP exports because many limiting 

factors for all juvenile salmonid life stages would cease to exist. Therefore, the team believed that if CVP 

and SWP exports were eliminated, juvenile salmonid survival in the Delta would likely greatly increase and 
3-Xe-4 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

adult production could potentially double. Although this was the technical team's first recommendation as 

the most likely to ensure doubled survival in the Delta, the team recognized the need to provide minimal 

exports to satisfy health and safety concerns. We have assumed that these health and safety concerns 

would be satisfied with combined CVP and SWP exports of 1,200 cfs.

For the races of juvenile salmon for which we were unable to double survival, we have proposed a 

combination of action measures that would have the greatest effect toward the doubling goal.

In some cases, restoration actions were not limited to the variables contained in the models. If available 

evidence indicated that there were other needs of salmonids in the Delta, restoration actions were 

developed to address these factors. Flow toward the western Delta (QWEST) is an example of this 

deviation. Many of the parameters selected as action items are similar to recommendations made in past 

reports by biologists familiar with juvenile salmon data from the Delta (USFWS 1992b).

In an effort to provide relevant information on the value of a specific action, we have summarized data in the 

narrative description. Although much of these data are included in the models that integrate many of the 

action items, we believed it was more straightforward to rely solely on the specific experiments and resulting 

data to justify the specific actions.

The smolt survival model for smolts emigrating from the San Joaquin River indicates that doubling baseline 

smolt survival in the Delta would be possible, and we have therefore proposed an action to achieve this, 

based on model simulations.

As noted initially, the Delta fish habitat team has attempted to meet the goal of doubling salmon production 

using only Delta restoration actions without considering potential benefits of upstream actions. This 

approach was taken to ensure that the goal of at least doubling production would be met. It is possible that 

a combination of Delta and upstream restoration actions could also achieve the goal of doubling production, 

but analysis of such a combination of actions has not been completed and is complicated by our inability to 

quantify the benefits of restoration actions both upstream and in the Delta. Further difficulties arise from 

other aspects of the population status and the time frame for meeting the restoration goal.

One could argue that, theoretically, if Delta actions provided salmon survival through the Delta at levels of 

the 1965-1989 baseline period and if upstream actions yielded a doubling of production there, the goal of 

doubling would be achieved. As additional knowledge is gained on the benefits of restoration actions, we 

will be better able to define how a combination of Delta and upstream actions can best meet the restoration 

goals.

There may be potential for compounding benefits resulting from restoration actions in both the Delta and 

upstream areas: improved salmon production one year could reflect greater production the next year and so 

on, if more adults return to unsaturated spawning grounds and harvest remains stable. Unfortunately, we do 

not know what potential there is for a compounding process to be realized, but even if such compounding is 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

E. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xe-5

possible in part, it could allow the doubling production goal to be met more quickly or with less aggressive 

actions than if no compounding occurred.

It also should be noted that during a period of decline (as all natural Central Valley anadromous salmonid 

stocks are experiencing), compounding of negative effects may be occurring. Prompt action is imperative, 

and the longer declines are allowed to continue, the greater the magnitude of increase in production needed 

to realize the same benefit.

Limiting factors and potential solutions

Many of the limiting factors observed in the Delta are known or hypothesized to be either directly or 

indirectly related to exports. Indirect losses are defined as juvenile salmon mortalities attributed to the CVP 

and SWP export process that occur in the Delta outside the CVP intake and the entrance to the SWP's 

Clifton Court Forebay. These losses are considered to be of much greater magnitude than the direct losses; 

thus, they have been identified first in Table 3-Xe-3. These indirect losses are primarily tied to the increased 

diversion of juvenile salmon off the mainstem rivers and the higher mortality in the central and south Delta. 

The CVP and the SWP have actually increased the amount of water being diverted into the central and 

south Delta and are hypothesized to be responsible (at least in part) for the higher mortality observed in the 

central and southern Delta. The most likely mechanism for the increased mortality is the increase in reverse 

flows in the central and southern Delta (USFWS 1987, 1992b). In addition to these indirect losses, many 

direct losses result from CVP and SWP pumping and are listed in the Table 3-Xe-3.

Although some limiting factors cause mortality and lessen production, we have not included them as 

necessitating key actions critical in gaining the most benefit toward doubling survival. However, when the 

final restoration program is developed, all actions that are feasible and reasonable, however small their 

benefits, should be taken to aid in restoration.

Table 3-Xe-3. Key limiting factors in order of importance and potential solutions 

for chinook salmon and steelhead in the Delta.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Mortality of juvenile salmonids 

indirectly resulting from CVP 

and SWP impacts:

(a) Increased diversion of juvenile 

salmon into the central and south 

Delta (where mortality is high) as a 

result of:

1. Prevent or decrease the number of juvenile 

salmon diverted off the mainstem rivers 

into the central and south Delta by:

- closing the DCC gates (NovemberJune);

- increasing Delta inflow;
3-Xe-6 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factors Potential solutions

- construction of the Delta Cross 

Channel (DCC) for water 

conveyance by USBR in 

1951, allowing a greater 

percentage of flow (and 

presumably juvenile salmon) 

to be diverted;

- lower spring Delta inflows 

causing a higher proportion 

of flow to be diverted into 

the central and south Delta 

(Rick Oltman pers. comm.);

- exports causing the percentage 

of flow diverted into upper 

Old River to increase (DWR 

pers. comm.); and

- increased net flow toward the 

pumping plants

- reducing or eliminating reverse flows;

- installing an acoustical barrier in 

Georgiana Slough; or

- installing a full barrier at the head of 

upper Old River during the spring 

migration of San Joaquin smolts 

through the Delta

(b) Relatively high juvenile 

mortality in the central and south 

Delta, presumably resulting from:

- inability of juveniles to "find" 

their way to the ocean as a 

result of net reverse flows 

and complex channel 

configurations;

- a longer migration route 

(increased exposure time to 

mortality factors, such as 

predation); and

2. Increase survival in the central Delta by:

- severely curtailing or eliminating CVP 

and SWP exports during the period 

when salmon are using the Delta 

(November-June); or

- reducing or eliminating reverse flows by 

increasing San Joaquin River flows
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

E. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xe-7

Limiting factors Potential solutions

- exposure to higher (relative to 

mainstem) spring water 

temperatures

(c) Reduction of shallow-water 

and riparian habitat as a result of 

dredging and scouring in water 

conveyance channels and bank 

stabilization efforts (removal of 

riparian vegetation and bank 

armoring)

3. Increase riparian vegetation and decrease 

or eliminate bank stabilization efforts

(d) Reduction of spring inflow into 

and out of the Delta (causes 

decreases in transport flows for 

migration and increased 

temperatures as a result of 

upstream storage and diversion)

4. Increase Delta inflows

2. Mortality of juvenile salmonids 

directly resulting from CVP and 

SWP pumping plant impacts

1. Severely curtail or eliminate CVP and 

SWP exports during the period when 

salmon are using the Delta for rearing 

and migration (November-June)

2. Screen Clifton Court Forebay and 

combine the CVP and SWP diversion 

points

3. Substantial losses that occur as a 

result of the following factors, 

although the export facilities for 

both the CVP and the SWP 

include fish salvage facilities 

designed to prevent the loss of 

entrained fish:

- Prescreen losses occur at the 

3. Implement measures to reduce 

entrainment, handling, transport, and 

release losses associated with present 

facilities
3-Xe-8 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factors Potential solutions

trash racks of both fish 

facilities and in Clifton Court 

Forebay

- The screen (louvers) systems at 

both facilities are less than 

100% efficient in bypassing 

juvenile fish to the holding 

facilities

- Losses occur with the bypass 

and holding facilities as a 

result of predation, debris, 

and other factors

- Some losses occur during 

handling and trucking

- Survival after release may be 

reduced by enhanced 

predatory fish densities at 

release sites

3. Poor survival of San Joaquin 

smolts resulting from low San 

Joaquin River flows in the Delta

Increase flows at Vernalis

4. Poor water quality:

(a) Mortality of fall-run smolts 

resulting from high spring water 

temperatures

1. Decrease water temperature:

- Restore riparian vegetation along Delta 

channels

- Continue to evaluate ways to reduce 

Delta water temperatures

(b) Low dissolved oxygen at 

Stockton inhibiting migration of 

San Joaquin River fall-run adults

2. Increase dissolved oxygen levels at 

Stockton

- Increase flows at Vernalis
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

E. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xe-9

Limiting factors Potential solutions

- Install the barrier at the head of upper 

Old River between September and 

December (DFG pers. comm.)

(c) In-Delta agricultural and 

industrial return flows of poor 

quality and a source of toxics

3. Reduce toxics

- Reduce or eliminate agricultural drain 

water in or above the Delta

- Treat agricultural runoff before it is 

returned to the river

- Increase flows

5. Entrainment at in-Delta agricultural, 

municipal, and industrial 

diversions

1. Eliminate in-Delta agricultural and industrial 

diversions

2. Screen in-Delta diversions

3. Curtail diversions during critical periods

6. Other factors (losses from these 

other factors are exacerbated 

when populations are low and 

stressed as a result of the other 

limiting factors mentioned 

above):

(a) Competition between natural 

and hatchery stocks

Keep natural salmonid populations as high and 

ecosystem as healthy as possible by providing 

favorable environmental conditions. Also, the 

following actions could be taken:

- Investigate interactions between 

hatchery and natural stocks to ensure 

that natural stocks are not being 

displaced

(b) Interaction with exotic species - Prevent introduction of exotic species 

into the system by supporting ballast 

water legislation, strict enforcement, 

and other measures

(c) Illegal fishing of races of low - Continue education and enforcement to 
3-Xe-10 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factors Potential solutions

abundance reduce poaching

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Provide protection from direct and indirect impacts of CVP and SWP exports for juvenile 

salmonids migrating through the Delta from November 1 through June 30, equivalent to protection provided 

by restricting exports to minimal levels (those needed for health and safety, estimated at 1,200 cfs total).

Objective: Increase in-Delta survival of all juvenile salmonid life stages (and potentially adults) affected by 

CVP and SWP exports. These include juveniles migrating through the Delta using the mainstem rivers as 

well as juveniles diverted into the central and southern portions of the Delta and juveniles emigrating from 

the San Joaquin Basin. 

Location: CVP's Tracy and SWP's Harvey O. Banks pumping plants.

Narrative description: Because there are a variety of limiting factors for juvenile salmonids in the Delta 

related to both the indirect and direct impacts of CVP and SWP pumping, the most comprehensive solution 

to Delta problems under the present system of using Delta channels for water conveyance would be to 

eliminate all CVP and SWP exports. As mentioned above, the team realized this was impractical and the 

final action item has allowed for minimal exports. 

The effects of exports are most acute for San Joaquin Basin juveniles migrating through the Delta and for 

Sacramento Basin juvenile salmon diverted into the central Delta via the DCC, Georgiana Slough, and 

Threemile Slough.

Fall-run CWT smolts released in the North Fork, South Fork, and lower Mokelumne River show lower 

survival indices to Chipps Island than are shown by groups released in the mainstem Sacramento River 

(Ryde). Even lower survival is observed for smolts released into the southern Delta (lower Old River) 

(Table 3-Xe-4). In general, indices of survival appear to decline the closer the smolts are released to the 

CVP and SWP pumps. In contrast, salvage rates at the fish facilities tend to be greater the closer the smolts 

are released to the pumps. Even though smolts released near the pumping plants are salvaged in greater 

numbers, survival to Chipps Island is lower.

Table 3-Xe-4. Survival indices of CWT fall-run chinook salmon smolts released at 

several locations in the Delta from 1983 to 1986 and recovered by trawl

at Chipps Island.

Release site 1983 1984 1985a1986a
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

E. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xe-11

Above diversionb (Courtland gates open) 0.70 0.32 (0) 0.35 (8)

Above diversion (Courtland gates closed) 1.23

Below diversionc (Ryde gates open) 0.73 0.77 (0) 0.68 (0)

Below diversion (Ryde gates closed) 1.39d

N. Fork Mokelumne Rivere0.56 0.28 (14) 0.37 (0)

S. Fork Mokelumne Rivere0.70 0.23 (89) 0.26 (372)

Lower Mokelumne Riverf1.17

Lower Old Riverg0.35 0.16 0.21 (14,774) 0.25 (6,190)

a Expanded fish facility (SWP/CVP) recoveries are included in parentheses for 1985 and 1986. No 

comparable fish facility sampling was conducted in 1983 and 1984.

b Release site 3.5 miles above Walnut Grove on the Sacramento River (Courtland site).

c Release site 3.0 miles below Walnut Grove on the Sacramento River (Ryde site).

d Release site at Isleton.

e Release site at Thornton Road.

f Release site 2 miles above the junction with the San Joaquin River.

g Release site at the southeast corner of Palm Tract.

This difference in survival between fall-run smolts released in the central Delta versus those released in the 

mainstem Sacramento River has been additionally confirmed by the results of paired CWT groups released 

at Ryde and in Georgiana Slough in 1992 and 1993. In six sets of experiments using fall-run and late fallrun CWT juvenile salmon, survival of smolts released at Ryde averaged 4.7 times greater than for 

corresponding groups of smolts released into Georgiana Slough. The difference ranged between 2.9 times 

and 8.3 times greater for the Ryde groups. Expanded salvage estimates at the CVP and SWP fish facilities 

are usually greater for smolts released at Georgiana Slough than for those released at Ryde (Table 3-Xe-5).
3-Xe-12 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Table 3-Xe-5. Release dates, mean fork length (FL) of release groups, survival index ( ),

survival ratios, and expanded numbers of fish counted at federal (CVP) and state (SWP)

salvage facilities from studies conducted with CWT fall-run (F) and late-fall-run (LF)

chinook salmon smolts, April 6, 1992, through December 2, 1993.

Ryde releases Georgiana Slough releases

Date Race

FL (mm) CVP/SWP FL (mm) CVP/SWP

Ryde/

Georgiana 

survival 

ratio

4/6/92 F 77 1.36 0/34 74 0.41 10/4 3.30

4/14/92 F 82 2.15 0/0 81 0.71 12/8 3.00

4/27/92 F 81 1.67 0/0 83 0.20 1/4 8.30

4/14/93 F 61 0.41 0/0 63 0.13 0/24 3.15

5/10/93 F 75 0.86 0/0 75 0.29 15/36 2.96

12/2/93 LF 129 1.95 0/9 119 0.28 93/149 7.71

Avg. = 4.7

In most years, a very low percentage of the smolts released into the central and south Delta can be 

accounted for by expanded recaptures at Chipps Island and the fish facilities. These data also tend to 

support our conclusion that indirect losses are greater than the direct losses associated with the projects.

The mechanism behind the lower survival observed for smolts released in the central Delta is not well 

understood. Greater spring water temperatures in the central Delta relative to those in the mainstem 

Sacramento River, in combination with increased exposure time to those temperatures, are a problem for 

fall-run smolts diverted into the central Delta. However, the lower survival in the central Delta was also 

observed for late fall-run yearlings released in December, when temperatures were low (51oF) and 

predation would likely be less. Perhaps this indicates that changes in central Delta hydrology (reverse flows, 

net flows to the pumps, etc.) may be the most important contributor to the high central Delta mortality. The 

central and southern Delta also are characterized by a complex of channels exposed to tidal hydrology, 

adding to the diverse flow patterns salmon must face through that part of the Delta, even when flows are not 

reversed because of export pumping.

Although toxics may contribute to increased mortality in the central Delta, it is not thought to be the a major 

limiting factor because the CWT smolts used in our experiments were in the Delta for only a short time 

(average of 2-4 weeks) before recovery. Although reducing toxics via regulation or curtailment of 

agricultural return flows would be beneficial to salmon, it is unclear whether reducing or eliminating toxics 

S S

S
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

E. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xe-13

would substantially contribute toward the doubling goal. Thus, no action item for the reduction of toxics is 

included in our recommended actions.

The longer migration route through the central and southern Delta exposes the smolts to a combination of 

mortality factors (such as predation and/or entrainment) for a longer time. It is likely that this accounts for at 

least part of the increased mortality observed for CWT smolts released into the central Delta. However, the 

route the smolts take once they get into the central Delta may be affected by project exports through 

reverse flows in the central and southern Delta.

Although the exact mechanisms for the high mortality in the central and southern Delta are unclear, it was the 

team's belief that eliminating exports would likely result in major benefits to juvenile salmon in the Delta. 

Reducing exports to 1,200 cfs would result in lesser benefits, which would likely be substantial as well, 

however.

Smolts migrating through the Delta that originate in the San Joaquin Basin are specifically subjected to 

diversion towards the pumping plants via upper Old River. Survival of smolts allowed to stay in the main 

San Joaquin River is about 2 times greater than that of smolts diverted into upper Old River (USFWS 

1993). In high-flow years many of the CWT smolts released into upper Old River are observed in the 

salvage at the fish facilities, but during dry years very few even reach the fish facilities (USFWS 1993). It is 

unclear why this is the case or if it is related to the export pumps. Salvage numbers in the late 1980s and 

early 1990s have been much lower than those in the early 1980s. It is possible that the recent continued 

drought has caused the southern Delta to be more inhospitable to migrating salmon.

It is clear, however, that the export pumps do increase the amount of San Joaquin flow diverted toward the 

pumping plants at the upper Old River junction (DFG, Exhibit 15, July 1987). Presumably more salmon 

smolts are also diverted off the San Joaquin River as well, into an area where survival has been shown to be 

lower.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: The closure of the DCC gates, combined 

with increases in net downstream flow from the San Joaquin River (QWEST), would further improve 

survival. In addition, storing increased amounts of water in upstream reservoirs would likely impede the 

action, while increasing Delta inflow (up to unimpaired levels) would likely augment the action.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USBR and DWR are responsible for reducing 

exports.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Exports from the Delta provide water for agricultural and 

domestic use in the San Joaquin Valley and southern California. There is a reluctance to limit exports to the

extent recommended.
3-Xe-14 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Predicted benefits: Restricting exports to minimal levels (1,200 cfs) between November and June would 

decrease both the direct and indirect losses of juvenile salmon. The benefits are expected to be significant 

and by itself, this action could potentially double Delta survival for juvenile salmonids. Monthly average 

SWP and CVP exports have been as great as 11,000 cfs in some months during the baseline period (1965-

1989). Future exports may likely be greater in some months.

Other items considered but not recommended: The team did not choose to recommend measures to reduce 

the loss of entrained fish at the CVP and SWP export facilities. The team believed that measures to reduce 

entrainment losses would have small population benefits relative to severely reducing exports, closing the 

DCC gates, and increasing San Joaquin and QWEST flows because the greatest losses are indirect and 

occur before the fish actually get to the fish facilities or Clifton Court Forebay (P. Coulston, DFG, pers. 

comm.).

The team also did not choose to identify an isolated Delta facility (DWR 1974) as a potential solution to the 

indirect and direct impacts of SWP and CVP pumping because benefits from its operation could not be 

realized for at least a decade. Additionally, with an estimated 15% loss associated with the facility's 

screens, operation of the facility would not improve Sacramento smolt survival as much as the combination 

of recommended actions.

The isolated Delta facility may have substantial benefits for smolts emigrating through the Delta that originate 

in the San Joaquin Basin. Based on past data on fish released at Mossdale, it is believed that benefits would 

likely depend on the amount of San Joaquin flow entering the Delta at Mossdale and the amount reaching 

the western Delta (Brandes 1994, DWR 1994). Many biologists believe that operation of an isolated Delta 

facility with proper flow criteria and operational conditions is likely to have better potential to increase 

survival of all species in the Delta than the continued present mode and amount of export.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

E. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xe-15

Action 2: Close the DCC gates from November 1 to June 30.

Objective: Increase the survival of smolts migrating down the mainstem Sacramento River by reducing the 

number diverted into the central and southern Delta.

Location: DCC.

Narrative description: As juvenile salmon migrate through the Delta, they encounter several channels such 

as the DCC, Georgiana Slough, and Threemile Slough, that divert water off the mainstem Sacramento 

River. Significant amounts of the downstream flow during dry years is diverted into these channels. For 

example, when flows at Walnut Grove are approximately 10,000 cfs, the DCC and Georgiana Slough 

together divert approximately 70% (USFWS 1987). The DCC and Georgiana Slough are used to convey 

high-quality Sacramento River water to the CVP and SWP pumping plants in the southern Delta. The 

water diverted through these two major diversion channels moves into the central Delta and is then directed 

to the southernmost part of the Delta, where the pumping plants are located. Many juveniles are 

inadvertently diverted with the flow into the central Delta away from their main migration path on the 

Sacramento River. It should be noted, however, that without project pumping, habitat throughout the 

central and southern Delta for both migrating smolts and rearing fry likely would be improved and diversion 

into these areas would be less detrimental (and perhaps even a benefit) to their survival.

Mark-and-recapture studies using fall-run hatchery smolts have found that salmon smolts diverted into the 

central Delta via the DCC and Georgiana Slough have much lower survival than those migrating down the 

mainstem Sacramento River. Trawl recovery at Chipps Island of CWT salmon smolts released between 

1984 and 1989 above and below the open DCC and Georgiana Slough have shown that, on average, smolt 

survival is about 3.3 times greater when smolts are released below both diversion channels. Similar 

experiments with CWT smolts in 1983, 1987, and 1988 revealed that survival of smolts released below the 

closed DCC and Georgiana Slough was about 1.1 to 2.4 times greater (average of 1.5 times greater) than 

survival of fish released above the closed DCC and Georgiana Slough (Table 3-Xe-6). We have 

subsequently found the same trends in survival for fish released above and below the DCC and Georgiana 

Slough with the gates open and closed (difference of 2.2 times and 1.2 times, respectively) using an index of 

survival based on recoveries of these marked fish as adults in the ocean fishery (Table 3-Xe-7).

Table 3-Xe-6. Comparisons of the survival indices (ST) for CWT Chinook

smolts released in the Sacramento River above and below the DCC

and Georgiana Slough diversion channels between 1983 and 1989.

Channel condition Year Abovea Belowb Below/above

Open 1984 0.70 0.73 1.0
3-Xe-16 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Channel condition Year Abovea Belowb Below/above

1985 0.32 0.77 2.4

1986 0.35 0.68 1.9

1987 0.44 0.88 2.0

1988 0.73 1.27 1.7

1988c0.02 0.34 17.0

1989 0.84 1.20 1.4

1989 0.35 0.48 1.4

1989d0.22 0.16 0.7

Avg. = 3.3

1983 1.23 1.39 1.1

1987 0.66 0.80 1.2

1988 0.68 0.92 1.4

1988 0.17 0.40 2.4

Closed

Avg. = 1.5

a Courtland site (3.5 miles above Walnut Grove).

b Ryde site (3.0 miles below Walnut Grove).

c Temperatures at release were 76o

F and 75oF for Courtland and Ryde, respectively.

d The Ryde group survival seemed unusually low compared to Ryde releases in other years.

Table 3-Xe-7. Ocean recovery rates for fall-run CWT chinook salmon smolts

released above and below the DCC and Georgiana Slough from

1983 to 1989 and ratios of survival indices for smolts

released above and below these channels.

Channel condition Year Above Below Below/above

Open 1984 .0058 .0042 .72
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

E. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xe-17

Channel condition Year Above Below Below/above

1985 .0036 .0085 2.36

1986 .0161 .0194 1.20

1987 .0142 .0201 1.42

1988 (May)

(June)

.0091

.0007

.0249

.0053

2.74

7.60

1989 .0049

.0008

.0009

.0082

.0016

.0002

1.67

2.00

.22 

 Avg. = 2.21

1983 .0039 .0038 .97 

1987 .0196 .0312 1.59

1988 (May)

(June)

.0114

.0097

.0202

.0046

1.77

.47

Closed

Avg. = 1.2

The similarity between survival indices of smolts released at Courtland with the DCC gates open and those 

released in the central Delta (Table 3-Xe-6) indicates that significant numbers of salmon smolts are diverted 

into the DCC and Georgiana Slough.

As discussed previously under Action 1, the lower survival rate of smolts diverted into the central Delta is 

evident when survival indices from CWT smolts released in the central Delta are compared with those of 

smolts released at Ryde on the mainstem Sacramento River downstream of the DCC and Georgiana Slough 

(Table 3-Xe-6).

Although we are uncertain of the exact percentage of smolts reaching Walnut Grove that are diverted, it 

appears from all the available data that many smolts are in fact diverted into the central Delta and their 

survival is lower than survival of smolts in the mainstem Sacramento River.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Net western Delta flow (QWEST) cannot 

be reduced (below the flow during the CWT experiments) or the benefit observed from the DCC gate 

closure will be reduced.
3-Xe-18 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USBR is responsible for operation of the DCC 

gates.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The action may cause water quality problems in the central 

Delta for agriculture and resident fish populations.

Other actions considered but not recommended: Another structural solution was evaluated by the team but 

was not recommended because implementation and sequential benefits would be at least a decade away; 

this solution was a new, gated, screened diversion from the Sacramento River to the Mokelumne River with 

adequate downstream flow and provision for upstream migrants with the permanent closure of the DCC and 

Georgiana Slough. This is somewhat similar to the isolated facility concept, but the central Delta would 

continue to be used for water conveyance with its negative impacts on fish present in the central and 

southern Delta.

One of these structural actions may in the future be determined to be the best long-term solution, but the 

team acknowledged that significant improvements for juvenile salmon were needed immediately and 

operational changes could provide immediate benefits. There is also the need to further define these 

structural solutions so that benefits can more accurately be assessed.

The acoustical (or physical) barrier in Georgiana Slough to prevent diversion of smolts into areas of high 

mortality was also not selected as a recommended action because of anticipated negative effects on other 

species and the general experimental nature of this barrier. Benefits resulting from decreases in export and 

the closure of the DCC gates are more certain and are recommended instead for attaining the desired 

increases in survival. If study results warrant the use of an acoustical (or physical) barrier in Georgiana 

Slough and no impacts on other species are expected, then we as a group would support its use, especially 

in combination with the other recommended actions.

Additionally, the sole use of a barrier at the head of upper Old River during spring was not endorsed by the 

team because of its apparent negative effects on other species (Delta smelt and winter-run chinook salmon). 

 However, if significant augmentation of Vernalis flow and meaningful export curtailments are instituted 

simultaneously, likely negative effects on other species would be minimized and salmon smolt survival would 

likely be improved with the barrier. The barrier does not appear to substantially improve survival through 

the Delta, even when exports are low, if flows are not significantly augmented simultaneously (DWR 1994).

Predicted benefits: Closing the DCC gates appears to generally increase survival of smolts arriving at 

Walnut Grove by 36%-200%. The absolute benefits are estimated to be less when temperatures are higher 

and flows are lower (although the percentage increase is higher) and are estimated to be greater when flows 

are high and temperatures are lower.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

E. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xe-19

Action 3: Maintain positive QWEST flows, or an equivalent measure of net seaward flows at Jersey Point, 

of 1,000 cfs in critical and dry years, 2,000 cfs in below- and above-normal years, and 3,000 cfs in wet 

years from October 1 through June 30.

Objective: Increase survival of smolts migrating down the mainstem rivers, decrease the number of smolts 

diverted into the central Delta, increase the survival of smolts diverted into the central Delta, and provide 

attraction flows for San Joaquin Basin adults (October-December). 

Location: Flows are presently calculated for QWEST. Measured flows would be preferable.

Narrative description: Upon reaching the mouth of the Mokelumne River on the lower San Joaquin River, 

juvenile salmon diverted into the central Delta are often exposed to upstream flow (reverse flows) that 

moves the net flow easterly in the San Joaquin River and toward the south via Old and Middle rivers. 

These reversals of flow are exacerbated during periods of high pumping. Susceptibility to diversion into 

Clifton Court Forebay or entrainment at the CVP and SWP pumping plants is also more likely for fish 

migrating through the central and southern Delta than for those migrating down the mainstem Sacramento 

River, presumably because of these reverse flows. Reverse flows also make it less likely that smolts 

originating in the San Joaquin Basin will successfully reach the ocean.

Fall-run CWT fish released in the lower San Joaquin River at Jersey Point between 1989 and 1991 showed 

that after corrections for temperature at release, reverse flows in the San Joaquin River at Jersey Point 

appeared to decrease the survival of smolts migrating through the lower San Joaquin River (r=0.76, 

p<0.10) (USFWS 1992b).

Also, reverse flows in the western San Joaquin River and diversion into the central Delta through Threemile 

Slough may be the reason for survival being less for fall-run CWT fish released at Ryde between 1984 and 

1992, when flow at Jersey Point (QWEST) was negative. The relationship between smolt survival and flow 

at Jersey Point (QWEST) is apparent when QWEST flows are between -3,000 to +2,000 cfs (r = 0.75, 

p<0.01) (P.Brandes, USFWS, pers. comm.).

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Export limits and DCC gate closure would 

result in a survival increase greater than the increase resulting from the improvement of reverse flows alone.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USBR and DWR would be largely responsible 

for a change in QWEST because it is related to exports and Delta inflow. Water users on the San Joaquin 

and Sacramento rivers may also be partially responsible for contributing to Delta inflow.

Potential obstacles to implementation: This action may inhibit exports and may require additional 

flow from the San Joaquin River.
3-Xe-20 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Predicted benefits: Since 1978, only a few CWT smolts released at Ryde have been observed at the CVP 

and SWP salvage facilities, although up to several hundred from central Delta releases have been observed 

(USFWS 1987). This suggests that, even though smolts remaining in the Sacramento River are exposed to 

net reverse flows in the western San Joaquin River through their potential movement through Threemile 

Slough or around the tip of Sherman Island, they appear to be affected to a much lesser degree than are 

those smolts diverted into the central Delta via the DCC and Georgiana Slough.

We believe that increasing QWEST flows up to a minimum of 3,000 cfs in wet years will allow the benefits 

from the other recommended actions to be maximized. All races and stocks of juvenile salmon and 

steelhead using the Delta for rearing and as a migration corridor could benefit from this action.

Action 4: Increase mean monthly flow at Vernalis to 4,500 cfs, 6,000 cfs, 8,000 cfs, 12,000 cfs, and 

21,000 cfs in critical, dry, below-normal, above-normal, and wet year types (60-20-20), respectively, 

during the smolt migration period.

Objective: Increase the survival of smolts migrating through the Delta that originate in the San Joaquin 

Basin.

Location: Vernalis.

Narrative description: Survival of CWT hatchery smolts released at Dos Reis between 1982, 1985-1987, 

and 1988-1991 has shown a strong relationship to flows at Vernalis (r = 0.89, p< 0.01 with data in 1985 

excluded) (USFWS 1992a). Additionally, indices of adult production show a strong relationship to 

Vernalis flows and exports between 1967 and 1984 (r =89, p < 0.01, with data from 1979 not included) 

(USFWS 1992a). The fact that two independent models essentially respond in the same way lends 

credibility to our conclusions.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Export limits and a barrier at the head of 

upper Old River would increase survival over that resulting from increasing flows at Vernalis alone.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Various water right holders and USBR.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Water originating in the San Joaquin Basin is in high demand 

for agricultural and municipal use. Water users are unlikely to contribute water without considerable 

political necessity.

Predicted benefits: Smolt survival is projected to double over that observed during the baseline period as 

indexed by the San Joaquin smolt survival model (Brandes 1994), if these Vernalis flows are adopted and 

total exports are limited to 1,200 cfs, for the entire period of San Joaquin smolt migration through the Delta.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

E. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xe-21

Action 5: Install the head of Old River barrier in September-December.

Objective: Increase dissolved oxygen at Stockton to ensure San Joaquin adult salmon passage through the 

Delta.

Location: Upper Old River confluence with the San Joaquin River.

Narrative description: Low dissolved oxygen resulting from the high biological oxygen demand (BOD) and 

high temperatures at Stockton are exacerbated with low flows entering the Delta from the San Joaquin 

River. These environmental conditions have been shown to delay or block migration of San Joaquin River 

fall-run adults (Hallock 1970). Increased flows from the San Joaquin River would also serve to increase the 

oxygen levels at Stockton.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Increased flows from the San Joaquin 

River during September-December would serve to attract adults. Export limits may also augment the 

action.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DWR has been responsible for the construction 

of the barrier in past years.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The barrier placement under high exports may increase 

drafting from central Delta channels and may have an impact on juvenile winter run, spring run, and other 

central Delta fishes.

Other actions considered but not recommended: Reduction of water temperatures was not selected as an 

action item because it is uncertain whether water temperature can be significantly reduced using "controllable 

factors" (SWRCB 1991). However, evaluation of ways to reduce temperature in the Delta should continue 

because temperature reduction has the potential to significantly increase fall-run survival in the Delta.

The team looked at the impact of in-Delta agricultural diversions on juvenile salmon and steelhead 

(estimated to be less than a few hundred thousand for each species) (Hayes pers. comm.). The team 

decided, based on this limited information, that screening appeared to have a relatively small impact on these 

populations in relation to other limiting factors and that restricting these species from the central Delta or 

curtailing agricultural diversions during critical time periods would be more effective in minimizing losses. 

We have chosen to recommend keeping smolts out of the central Delta.

The team also did not recommend any specific action items to deal with "other factors" such as competition, 

poaching, and exotic species. We believed that if populations are kept healthy through implementation of 

the recommended actions, the impact of these factors would decline as well. However, the team believes 

that when positive actions are possible to lessen mortality of fish populations, such actions should be taken.
3-Xe-22 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Additionally, actions were not recommended in Montezuma Slough or in the Bay. Impacts from

Montezuma Slough do occur, but changes in operations at that site would have small population benefits 

toward the doubling goal. This conclusion is based on evidence that only a small fraction of fall-run smolts 

migrating out of the Delta enter Montezuma Slough. Also, the recovery in the ocean fishery of adults that 

had been released at Port Chicago and the Golden Gate in 1984, 1985, and 1986 as paired CWT smolts 

indicated that survival through the Bay was generally high (ranged between 0.78 to 0.85) and did not 

appear to vary much between years measured (Table 3-Xe-8).

Table 3-Xe-8. Survival indices of smolts migrating through the Bay

from Port Chicago to the Golden Gate Bridge.

Year

Port Chicago

recovery rate

Golden Gate

recovery rate Survival index

1986 .0282 .0360 .78

1985 .0096 .0113 .85

1984 .0211 .0272 .78

Note: Survival was estimated by dividing the recovery rate in the ocean fishery of the fish released at Port 

Chicago by the recovery rate of those released at the Golden Gate Bridge (USFWS 1987).

Tables 3-Xe-9 through 3-Xe-13 have been included to show model output for the various races of juvenile 

salmon with the integration of recommended actions and their effects on the doubling goals. The tables are 

provided to show comparisons between survival associated with the recommended actions, baseline 

historical (1965-1989) smolt survival (referred to as DAYFLOW in the tables), and present smolt survival 

(referred to as OP STUDY in the tables). It is important to view the differences in the indices of survival 

between alternatives qualitatively, rather than viewing the differences as absolute.

Table 3-Xe-9. Sacramento River fall run (April-June)

Options

Water-year type Dayflow Op study

A B C D

Doubling goal

W .45 .42 .53 .54 .57 .45 .90

AN .33 .29 .40 .41 .44 .37 .66

BN .25 .23 .37 .38 .41 .32 .50

D .19 .17 .29 .31 .32 .27 .38
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

E. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xe-23

C .24 .22 .34 .36 .38 .30 .48

Average for years 

from 1965-1989 .34 .31 .43 .44 .47 .37 .68

Option A: DCC closed (April-June), 1,200-cfs exports (April-June)

Option B: DCC closed (April-June), 0 exports (April-June).

Option C: DCC closed (April-June) Georgiana Slough closed (April-June).

Option D: Isolated Delta facility with 15% loss at screens.

Model Assumptions:

1. Migrational distributions = 17% April, 65% May, 18% June.

2. Temperatures based on mean monthly temperatures at Freeport from USGS.

3. Sacramento River fall-run smolt model used to estimate survival.

Table 3-Xe-10. Sacramento River late fall-run and spring-run yearlings 

(November-January).

Options

Water-year type Dayflow Op study A B C D

Doubling

goal

.82 .71 .89 .91 .98 .83 W

AN .73 .60 .89 .91 .98 .83 1.00

BN .76 .58 .89 .91 .98 .83 1.00

D .62 .55 .88 .90 .98 .83 1.00

C .64 .53 .88 .90 .98 .83 1.00

Average for years 

from 1965-1989

.75 .63 .88 .90 .98 .83 1.00
3-Xe-24 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Option A: Cross Channel gates closed (Nov-Jan), 1200 exports (Nov-Jan).

Option B: Cross channel gates closed (Nov-Jan), 0 exports (Nov-Jan).

Option C: Cross-channel closed (Nov-Jan), Georgiana Slough closed (Nov-Jan).

Option D: Isolated Delta facility with 15% loss at screens.

Model Assumptions:

1. Temperatures = 53oF November, 47 F December and January.

2. Migrational Distribution = 25% November, 50% December, 25% January.

3. Sacramento Smolt model modified to reflect greater 25 mortality due to exports in reach 2 (coefficient 

changed from 0.0000434 to 0.000054, based on December 1993 late fall mark/recovery data).

Table 3-Xe-11. Sacramento winter-run salmon (February-April)

Options

Water-year type Dayflow Op study A B C D

Doubling 

goal

W .73 .69 .79 .81 .87 .74 1.00

AN .72 .67 .78 .80 .85 .72 1.00

BN .64 .61 .76 .78 .84 .71 1.00

D .51 .48 .71 .72 .78 .66 1.00

C .42 .42 .72 .74 .81 .68 0.84

Average for years 

from 1965-1989

.64 .61 .76 .78 .84 .71 1.00

Option A: Cross channel closed (Feb-April), 1200 exports (Feb-April)

Option B: Cross channel closed (Feb-April), 0 exports (Feb-April).

Option C: Cross channel closed (Feb-April), Georgiana Slough closed (Feb-April).

o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

E. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xe-25

Option D: Isolated Delta facility with 15% loss at screens.

Model Assumptions:

1. Temperatures: February = 50oF, March = 55oF, April temperatures (X) monthly from USGS.

2. Migrational distributions: Feb = 13%, March = 57% and April = 30%, based on 1993 recoveries 

at Sacramento.

3. Sacramento fall fun smolt model modified to reflect greater mortality due to exports in reach 2 

(coefficient changed from 0.0000434 to 0.000054, based on December 1993 late fall

mark/recovery data).

Table 3-Xe-12. San Joaquin fall-run salmon (April-May)

Options

Water-year type Dayflow Op study A B C D

Doubling 

goal

W .34 .22 .68 .50 .57 .80 .68 

AN .08 .06 .16 .30 .46 .65 .16

BN .04 .05 .08 .20 .35 .50 .08

D .04 .04 .08 .16 .24 .36 .08

C .04 .03 .08 .14 .15 .24 .08

Average for years 

from 1965-1989

.16 .12 .32 .32 .40 .57 .32

Option A: No **UOR barrier, 1200 exports (April-May), increased flows (4/1 - 5/31) to (W) 

29000, (AN) 5500, (BN) 2000, (D) 2000, (C) 2000.

Option B: No UOR barrier, 1200 exports (April-May), (4/1 - 5/31) flows increased to (W) 21000, 

(AN) 12000, (BN) 8000, (D) 6000, (C) 4500.

Option C: No UOR barrier, 0 exports (April-May), 2000-10,000 cfs at Stockton (April-May) (may 

be similar to isolated Delta facility if similar flows were provided).
3-Xe-26 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Option D: UOR barrier (April-May), 0 exports (April-May) 2000-10,000 cfs at Stockton (AprilMay).

Model Assumptions:

1. Migrational Distribution 45% April, 55% May.

2. Temperature at Jersey point estimated from Neomysis studies.

3. San Joaquin smolt model used to estimate survival.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

E. CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 3-Xe-27

Table 3-Xe-13. Mokelumne River fall-run salmon (April-June)

Options

Water-year type Dayflow Op study A B

Doubling 

goal

W .29 .22 .42 .49 .58

AN .23 .19 .37 .44 .46

BN .20 .18 .36 .43 .40

D .14 .15 .33 .39 .28

C .22 .23 .35 .42 .44

Average for years 

from 1965-1989

.24 .20 .38 .45 .48

Option A: Reduce exports 1200 (4/1 - 6/30).

Option B: No exports (A-J), or isolated Delta facility.

Model Assumptions:

1. Temperatures are mean monthly from USGS. The same as those used in Sacramento fall run 

simulations.

2. Migrational distributions: Apr = 17%, May = 65% and Jun = 18%, same as those used in 

Sacramento fall run simulations.

3. Only reach two from the Sacramento fall fun smolt model was used to estimate survival.

The doubling goal for winter-run and fall-run for all water-year types was truncated at 1.0. This assumes 

that these indices of survival reflect actual survival and that increases to values of over 1.0 are biologically 

impossible. Because we could not double the survival index or reach a survival index of 1.0, determining 

the exact doubling goal for these two races was immaterial.

Although our recommended suite of actions does double average survival of smolts migrating through the 

Delta that originate in the San Joaquin Basin, it did not match specific water-year-type goals. We believed 
3-Xe-28 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

it was necessary to increase survival to more than doubling in the dry years and decrease it to less than 

doubling in the wet years. The great discrepancies in survival between wet and all other water-year types 

made it unlikely that matching such goals would double San Joaquin Basin adult production in the long term.
APPENDIX A

Estimation of Natural Production of Chinook Salmon

This appendix contains output from a three-dimensional spreadsheet used to estimate production of all 

races of chinook salmon in each of the streams for which escapement data were available. Sources of 

data considered and specific assumptions made for each stream are noted on the bottom of each 

worksheet.



































APPENDIX B

Estimation of Natural Production of Steelhead Upstream of RBDD

To estimate the restoration goal for steelhead spawning in the Sacramento River upstream of RBDD 

during the baseline period, it was assumed that no naturally produced fish spawned in the hatchery and 

that the proportion of hatchery-produced fish that spawned naturally was 0.29% of the total of inland 

harvest and natural escapement (Table B-1).

Table B-1. Inland harvest, escapement, and natural production for steelhead

during the baseline period in the mainstem Sacramento River

upstream of RBDD (Mills and Fisher 1994).

Year Inland harvest Natural escapement Natural production

1967 5,819 15,312 15,003

1968 7,454 19,615 19,219

1969 5,784 15,222 14,915

1970 5,031 13,240 12,973

1971 4,517 1,187 11,647

1972 2,296 6,041 5,919

1973 3,390 8,921 8,714

1974 2,717 7,150 7,006

1975 2,120 5,579 5,466

1976 3,383 8,902 8,722

1977 2,318 6,099 5,976

1978 960 2,527 2,476

1979 1,330 3,499 3,428

1980 4,517 11,887 11,647

1981 1,278 3,363 3,295

1982 1,048 2,757 2,701

1983 1,325 3,486 3,416

1984 774 2,036 1,995

1985 1,706 4,489 4,398
Year Inland harvest Natural escapement Natural production

1986 1,432 3,769 3,693

1987 863 2,272 2,226

1988 179 1,872 1,834

1989 711 470 461

1990 863 2,272 2,226

1991 377 991 971

Mean 2,488 6,546 6,414

SD 1,946 5,120 5,017

Goal >=12,828
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

F. STRIPED BASS 3-Xf-1

F. STRIPED BASS

Baseline Natural Production and Goals

Baseline period abundance of adult striped bass (fish 15 inches FL before 1982 and fish 16.5 inches FL 

since 1982) was estimated from mark-recapture studies conducted since 1969. A modified Petersen 

estimator was used:

N = M(C+1)/(R+1)

Where N = bass abundance

M = number of tagged fish released

C = number of fish subsequently examined for tags

R = number of tagged fish in the recapture sample

Gill nets and fyke traps are used to capture bass during their spring spawning migration to the Delta and 

Sacramento River. The fish are tagged with individually numbered disc-dangler tags and released. The 

population is sampled during a census of angler catches that is conducted during subsequent spring tagging.

From 3,100 to 18,400 tags have been applied annually. Creel census clerks, sampling at four to six fishing 

ports from Wednesday to Sunday each week, have observed from 1,500 to 38,700 bass and from 16 to 

891 tags annually. Since 1969, the tagged:untagged ratio has varied from 1:37 (1973) to 1:108 (1985). 

The abundance estimation procedures are complicated by sex- and age-sampling biases; therefore, all 

tagging and recapture samples are stratified by sex and age. 

Table 3-Xf-1. Estimated abundance of adult striped bass 

in the Central Valley, 1967-1991.

Year

Adult striped bass 

abundance Year

Adult striped bass 

abundance

1967 1,948,000 1980 1,115,999

1968 1,944,000 1981 911,300

1969 1,646,026 1982 825,126

1970 1,727,394 1983 1,009,748

1971 1,599,715 1984 1,042,668

1972 1,882,907 1985 1,024,188
3-Xf-2 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Year

Adult striped bass 

abundance Year

Adult striped bass 

abundance

1973 1,637,159 1986 1,037,127

1974 1,477,213 1987 998,349

1975 1,849,770 1988 892,413

1976 1,581,076 1989 724,580

1977 924,301 1990 574,364

1978 1,151,642 1991 625,702

1979 1,155,701 Mean 1,252,259

Goals - Production goals are double the estimated abundance shown in Table 3-Xf-1, about 2.5 million 

adult striped bass.

Outflow, export, and stocking considerations- The model developed for the technical team by Dr. Loo 

Botsford of the University of California, Davis, (Botsford and Brittnacher 1994) related abundance of adult 

striped bass to Delta outflow, total exports, and stocking of yearling striped bass. Exports include water 

pumped at the State Water Project (SWP), Central Valley Project (CVP), Contra Costa Canal (CCC), 

and North Bay Aqueduct from August through March and at all of these and Delta agricultural diversions 

from April through July. Because most of the spawning and rearing habitat for striped bass is located in the 

delta and the lower reaches of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, the team has not included 

recommendations for the specific contributions of individual tributaries to total outflow. If the

recommendations were implemented, flow should be allocated between the Sacramento and San Joaquin 

rivers, and between individual tributaries, to reflect requirements of the other anadromous fish species.

The Striped Bass Technical Team has noted that because the export and outflow levels required to double 

the striped bass population will be viewed as unreasonable by water user groups, they are unlikely to be 

implemented. In addition, the standards established by the December 15, 1994 Delta Accord are viewed 

by many parties as a constraint on further adjustments to outflow and exports for a period of at least 3 

years. With this in mind, the team evaluated projected outflow and exports levels with the model developed 

by Botsford and Brittnacher.

Delta Accord based outflow and exports, as predicted by DWRSIM (Tables 3-Xf-2 and 3-Xf-3), appear 

to be inadequate to restore the striped bass population. The Botsford-Brittnacher model predicts that 

conditions resulting from the Delta Accord would maintain 697,000 adult striped bass systemwide; the 

California Department of Fish and Game=s model predicts 425,000 adults. If the actual number falls 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

F. STRIPED BASS 3-Xf-3

between these predicted values, the resulting adult population would be similar to the current low level of 

550,000.

Table 3-Xf-2. Monthly Average Delta Outflow (cfs) required to meet

15 December 1994 Delta Accord X2 salinity standards as projected by DWRSIM.

Month Wet

Above

normal

Below

normal Dry Critical

October 11,344 6,315 7,443 6,071 4,507

November 18,766 13,931 8,260 8,323 5,196

December 50,715 16,631 13,446 8,124 6,002

January 78,116 42,363 19,623 9,778 7,383

February 94,325 61,425 35,884 18,015 11,207

March 75,981 59,919 22,220 17,847 10,415

April 53,118 27,423 15,493 11,829 8,667

May 34,189 18,048 12,799 8,785 5,645

June 19,357 10,281 8,640 6,936 6,120

July 9,528 8,985 7,532 6,995 4,979

August 5,933 6,176 5,622 5,256 3,418

September 8,021 4,239 3,838 3,711 3,008

Total 27,675 16,599 9,672 6,733 4,616

Note: Data are preliminary and subject to change.

Table 3-Xf-3. Combined CVP/SWP exports (cfs) under the 15 December 1995

Delta Accord X2 as projected by DWRSIM.

Month Wet

Above

normal

Below

normal Dry Critical

October 10,472 9,648 8,981 7,871 5,487

November 9,819 10,292 9,286 7,618 5,105
3-Xf-4 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

December 8,962 10,484 10,783 9,322 8,632

January 9,964 11,434 10,184 9,583 9,62

February 9,263 9,582 8,576 9,031 6,993

March 7,802 8,286 8,573 7,740 5,433

April 7,591 6,913 6,002 4,464 3,269

May 7,080 6,795 5,641 4,064 2,978

June 8,734 7,030 6,678 5,583 4,947

July 8,001 8,553 10,638 10,640 5,869

August 6,160 7,521 8,413 8,443 2,836

September 9,546 7,216 6,767 6,254 3,684

Total (taf) 6,295 6,279 6,090 5,488 3,926

Note: Data are preliminary and subject to change.

Based on these projections, several SBTT members feel that reestablishing a stocking program is essential 

to the restoration of the striped bass population and the recreational fishery that it supports. The team 

previously considered the potential of stocking as an initial measure to increase spawning stock and enable 

the population to sustain itself at a higher level. The Botsford-Brittnacher model suggests that, in absence of 

any meaningful changes in outflow and exports, the concept of stocking as an initial, temporary measure is 

not valid; after stocking is terminated, the population will return to levels dictated by outflow and exports. 

Stocking would increase the total number of adult striped bass over the period for which it is maintained. 

For example, based on the Botsford-Brittnacher model, stocking 3,000,000 yearling striped bass annually 

would increase adult numbers to about 900,000. While this would benefit the fishery, it would not 

contribute to achieving AFRP goals, which, based on Section 3403(h) of Title 34, must be measured as the 

number of Afish produced to adulthood without direct human intervention in the spawning, rearing or 

migration processes@.

The technical team notes that in the absence of a substantial improvement in the standards established by the 

Delta Accord, and/or a renewed stocking program, the striped bass fishery is likely to remain in its current, 

poor condition, or to decline further. Because the focus of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program is 

limited to Anatural production@ it is inappropriate for the SBTT to recommend stocking as a restoration 

measure; however, the team does recommend that stocking and other measures to restore the striped bass 

fishery be considered under Section 3406(b)(18), which requires the federal government to Aif requested by 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

F. STRIPED BASS 3-Xf-5

the State of California, assist in developing and implementing management measures to restore the striped 

bass fishery of the Bay-Delta estuary@.

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta -

Table 3-Xf-4. Limiting factors and potential solutions for striped bass.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Reduced Delta outflow 1. Increase Delta outflow requirements

2. Reduce export/diversion levels

2. Egg, larvae, and juvenile 

entrainment and losses at 

the SWP and CVP Delta 

pumping plants

1. Reduce export/diversion levels when eggs and larvae 

and/or juvenile bass appear in great abundance

2. Improve SWP and CVP salvage and transport 

effectiveness

3. Close the DCC and Georgiana Slough while bass eggs 

and larvae are passing down the Sacramento River

4. Provide Delta the outflow necessary to move eggs and 

larvae toward the western Delta and Suisun Bay

5. Install fish screens to prevent entrainment of predator 

fish into Clifton Court Forebay (CCF)

6. Remove and transplant predators from CCF in winter 

and early spring

3. Egg, larvae, and juvenile 

loss and entrainment at the 

Contra Costa Canal 

(CCC) diversion

1. Reduce export/diversion levels when eggs and larvae 

and/or juvenile bass appear in great abundance

2. Develop and implement a salvage- transport program

4. Egg, larvae, and juvenile 

mortality and entrainment 

at the PG&E power 

generating plants

1. Reduce pumping levels when bass egg and/or larvae 

abundance is high at the intakes

2. If feasible, place a barrier outside of the intakes to 

keep fish from entering

5. Egg, larvae, and juvenile 1. Consolidate and/or relocate diversions to areas with 
3-Xf-6 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factors Potential solutions

mortality and entrainment 

at Sherman and Twitchell 

Island diversions

low bass egg/larvae concentrations

2. Convert islands to a wildlife management area and 

modify or eliminate diversions

6. Egg, larvae, and juvenile 

loss and entrainment at 

private agricultural 

diversions

1. Consolidate and/or relocate diversions to areas with 

low bass egg/larvae concentrations

2. Screen all larger diversions on a priority basis to keep 

out bass longer than 1.5 inches

3. Improve water distribution and use schemes throughout 

the Delta to minimize bass losses while meeting water 

demands

7. San Joaquin River water 

quality barrier to migration 

of adult striped bass

1. Increase Delta inflow, especially in the San Joaquin 

River at Vernalis

2. Implement more stringent salinity standards for the 

lower San Joaquin River

3. Improve the quality of agricultural return water

8. High toxic chemical and 

trace metal concentrations 

in Delta water

1. Regulate agricultural pesticides in Delta return drains to 

ensure proper fishery safeguards

2. Support SWRCB and RWQCB programs to control 

point and nonpoint sources of water pollution

3. Continue aggressive program to detect violations of 

water pollution laws, improve pollution investigations, 

and improve incident response capabilities

9. High toxic chemical and 

trace metal concentrations 

in dredge spoils, and spoil 

disposal turbidity

1. Discontinue current in-bay dredge and spoil disposal 

practices, and dispose of spoils in a deep ocean site 

instead

2. Deny approval of on-land disposal sites where there is 

potential for adverse impacts on wetlands or other fish 

or wildlife habitats
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

F. STRIPED BASS 3-Xf-7

Limiting factors Potential solutions

3. Allow only spoils free of toxicity and/or contaminants 

to be discharged to estuary or ocean waters

10. Reduction of habitat, 

especially for juveniles, 

resulting from the filling of 

Bay and Delta tidelands

1. Identify fill projects that should be opposed because of 

impacts on striped bass and their habitat

2. Prohibit all but public water- dependent fill projects

3. Require from the projects that are approved mitigation 

in the form of wetlands and/or tidal waters to 

compensate for unavoidably filled habitat

11. Illegal take and poaching 1. Encourage public and angler use of the Cal-Tip 

program

2. Increase law enforcement efforts

3. Inform the involved courts and judges of concerns 

about the striped bass resource so that maximum 

penalties are imposed on violators

12. Competition of introduced 

exotic species with bass 

and/or their food supplies

1. Develop federal legislation controlling ballast water 

management within the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Estuary

2. Support the Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task 

Force

Restoration Actions

Action 1: Implement a recommended Delta outflow schedule.

Objective: Provide conditions necessary to sustain a population of 2 million adult striped bass.

Location: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
3-Xf-8 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Narrative Description: The striped bass population of the Delta and its major tributaries has declined from a 

historical level of 3.0 million adults during the late 1950s and early 1960s to approximately 0.6 million adults 

today. Delta and upstream diversions and storage by irrigation districts, water agencies, the SWP, and the 

CVP have collectively resulted in a reduction in Delta outflows. Reduced Delta outflow has resulted in 

lower San Joaquin River salinity increasing above levels desirable for bass spawning during dry years.

Flows recommended by the Striped Bass Technical Team are based on a model developed by Loo 

Botsford of the University of California, Davis (Botsford and Brittnacher 1994). The Botsford/Brittnacher 

model builds on an earlier DFG model, with modifications to provide a better mechanistic representation for 

the purpose of increasing confidence for projections outside the range of conditions that were extant when 

the data were collected (Botsford and Brittnacher 1994). Model output consisted of average outflows and 

exports for April-July and August-March required to sustain a specified number of adult striped bass.

The model results indicate that flows required to double the baseline-period population of adult striped bass 

exceeded mean unimpaired runoff over the period of record (1922-1990). To limit recommendations to the 

range of conditions that are likely to occur in the future, flows were reduced to reflect mean unimpaired 

runoff. The Botsford-Brittnacher model predicts that these flows, in conjunction with a year-round export 

ceiling of 1,200 cfs, would sustain an adult striped bass population of 2.0 million. Average flows for the two 

periods were allocated to reflect the month-to-month pattern exhibited by the unimpaired hydrograph 

(Table 3-Xf-3).

Table 3-Xf-5. Required Delta outflow (cfs) at Chipps Island to sustain

a 2.0 million population of striped bass.

Year type

Month Wet

Above

normal

Below

normal Dry Critical

October 11,500 7,500 6,500 7,500 7,000

November 29,500 24,000 13,000 13,500 8,000

December 80,500 36,000 24,500 19,500 12,500

January 100,500 85,500 36,500 20,000 18,000

February 103,000 85,500 57,500 40,000 18,000

March 101,000 89,500 51,000 50,500 24,500

April 96,500 73,000 68,000 49,500 25,500

May 99,500 77,500 65,500 46,500 27,000

June 67,500 44,500 36,000 24,000 16,500

July 27,000 16,000 12,000 8,500 6,000

August 11,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 3,500
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

F. STRIPED BASS 3-Xf-9

Year type

Month Wet

Above

normal

Below

normal Dry Critical

September 8,000 6,500 5,500 4,500 3,500

Total (taf) 43,940 32,952 22,690 17,162 10,067

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: AFRP and other upstream flow 

recommendations could either limit or be limited by outflow recommendations for striped bass.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If this measure is implemented, CVP, SWP, and 

other reservoir managers upstream of the Delta would be responsible for providing releases needed to meet 

the recommended flow schedule. DWR and USGS would need to provide information from their gaging 

stations so that flow levels can be evaluated and adjusted.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Flow recommendations are likely to be considered 

unreasonable by water users. Operations of many of the Central Valley reservoirs that do not fall under the 

jurisdiction of the CVP would have to be modified to meet the proposed flow schedule. Cooperation from 

the entities that operate these impoundments would be needed to meet instream flow goals. Flow simulation 

modeling for the CVPIA PEIS indicates that in some years striped bass flow recommendations may exceed 

unimpaired runoff. Management of water to meet striped bass restoration goals would probably limit 

availability for other anadromous fish species and other water users.

Projected benefits: Increased outflow will benefit striped bass by facilitating downstream dispersal of 

juveniles into the western estuary, especially Suisun Bay and San Pablo Bay. Reduced salinity and 

increased export of nutrients from upstream reaches would be expected to increase food production and 

habitat quality for juvenile striped bass. Implementation of the recommended flow schedule, in concert with 

export restrictions, will reduce losses resulting from direct and indirect effects of entrainment and result in 

doubling of the adult striped bass population.

Action 2: Reduce exports at the SWP and CVP pumping plants; establish a moratorium on net increases in 

Delta diversions and withdrawals at the CCC.

Objective: Reduce direct and indirect losses of striped bass resulting from the operation of the pumps and 

diversions.

Location: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
3-Xf-10 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Narrative description: Exporting water at the SWP and CVP pumping facilities often results in reverse 

flows in the San Joaquin River east of Antioch, entraining striped bass eggs and juveniles and disrupting the 

migrations of young and adult bass throughout the Delta. The CCC diversion contributes to reverse flows 

as well. A percentage of the bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles that drift and migrate down the Sacramento 

River are diverted into the DCC at Locke and are carried 30 miles through the central Delta to the CVP 

and SWP pumping plants. Bass eggs, larvae, and fry are lost through fish screens into the California 

Aqueduct and Delta-Mendota Canal. Plankton, an important source of food for juvenile bass in the 

western Delta and Suisun Bay, have been depleted by entrainment into Delta diversions and by rapid water 

transport through most major Delta channels.

The DCC and Georgiana Slough should be closed when eggs and larvae are passing down the Sacramento 

River, to reduce numbers of striped bass entrained by the pumps. In addition to following Delta outflow 

recommendations, the following export schedule should be implemented to attain/maintain a naturally 

reproducing population of 2 million adult striped bass.

The Striped Bass Technical Team recommends establishing a ceiling of 1,200 cfs for combined CVP/SWP 

exports throughout the year and in all water-year types. Although the available data suggest that eliminating 

exports completely would result in optimum conditions for successful striped bass reproduction and 

recruitment, the technical team has modified its recommendations based on the understanding that exports of 

1,200 cfs are required to meet public health and safety standards. In addition to the prescribed reductions 

in CVP/SWP exports, the team recommends that Delta agricultural diversions and CCC withdrawals not 

exceed the current maximum rates of 3,100 cfs and 300 cfs, respectively.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Flow recommendations for rivers upstream 

of the Delta could either increase or reduce the vulnerability of striped bass to the south Delta pumping 

operations.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: If this measure were implemented, CVP and 

SWP managers would be responsible for operating within the provided guidelines.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Establishing a 1,200-cfs export ceiling would severely affect 

water users south of the Delta.

Projected benefits: This action will increase recruitment by reducing direct impacts of Delta exports and 

diversions. The Striped Bass Technical Team believes that implementation of these export restrictions, in 

concert with the recommended flow schedule, will result in increasing the adult striped bass population to 2 

million fish.

Action 3: Reduce predation at and near the SWP and CVP fish salvage facilities.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

F. STRIPED BASS 3-Xf-11

Objective: Improve survival of striped bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles entrained by the SWP and CVP 

pumps.

Location: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, CVP pumping plant, and especially CCF at SWP pumping 

plant.

Narrative description: Predation on juvenile striped bass by larger bass and other predators occurs in CCF 

and near the CVP intake.

Entrances to CCF should be screened to prevent larger bass and other predatory fish from being entrained. 

 If this proves infeasible, predators should be removed and transplanted during winter and early spring. 

Covering the "secondary fish screen" at the Skinner (SWP) fish screen facility, thereby darkening it, may 

also help reduce predation losses.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Implementation of outflow and export 

standards would reduce the number of fish exposed to predation at and near the fish salvage facilities. 

Predation is only one factor contributing to losses of entrained eggs and fish; the value of reducing predation 

depends on relative effects of losses in Delta channels and during salvage.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Measures to reduce predation losses would be 

implemented by DFG in cooperation with DWR and USBR.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Effectively screening CCF in a manner that would permit 

continued exports may be infeasible or prohibitively expensive. Removal of predators from CCF may not 

be feasible.

Projected benefits: Losses of striped bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles to predation in CCF may be greatly 

reduced.

Action 4: Improve CVP and SWP salvage operations.

Objective: Improve survival of the bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles collected at CVP and SWP fish salvage 

facilities.

Location: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Skinner and Banks pumping plants.

Narrative description: Striped bass salvaged at both SWP and CVP facilities are subject to high mortality 

during collection, handling, and trucking to Delta release sites. Further, fish that have been salvaged and 
3-Xf-12 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

trucked are generally stressed, disoriented, and vulnerable to predation by larger striped bass and other fish 

that congregate at the release sites.

Suggested methods for improving the salvage and transport are: 1) reducing the number of fish held in "fish 

collection buckets", 2) limiting holding time to 5 minutes, 3) adding salt (0.4% NaCl concentration) to the 

fish truck water when directed to do so by DFG biologists, 4) using compressed oxygen (4 psi) to maintain 

proper DOC in the fish truck, and 5) not using water venturi aerators in the fish truck tanks. Salvaged fish 

could be reared in pens to increase survival. Varying the sites and/or times of release may reduce the 

predation occurring when salvaged bass are put back into the Delta.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Delta outflow recommendations and export 

restrictions may or may not reduce striped bass vulnerability to the pumps, depending on the magnitude of 

the outflow, thus reducing the need to improve salvage operations. Section 3406(b)(4) develops and 

implements a program to mitigate fishery impacts associated with operations of the Tracy pumping plant.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Salvage and transport operations are conducted 

by DFG.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Costs of making modifications that will result in significant 

increases in survival of salvaged fish are probably high. Because salvaged fish represent a small percentage 

of total losses to entrainment, potential benefits may not be sufficient to justify this action.

Projected benefits: Survival of bass subjected to the salvage/transport process may increase.

Action 5: Minimize loss and/or entrainment of bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles at the CCC diversion.

Objective: Improve survival of bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles as they move into historical nursery areas.

Location: CCC diversion, south Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Narrative description: Bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles are entrained by the unscreened CCC diversion. 

This diversion, which has a capacity of 350 cfs, also contributes to reverse flows in the Delta east of 

Antioch, increasing the number of bass eggs and young entrained at the south Delta pumps and disrupting 

the migrations of young and adult bass throughout the Delta.

DFG and Contra Costa County Water Agency (CCCWA) should enter into an agreement similar to the 

one between DWR and DFG for direct and indirect fish losses at the Banks pumping plant. Alternatives for 

reducing bass losses at the CCC are: 1) installing a fish screen at the intake, 2) relocating the intake to an 

offstream storage reservoir, and 3) relocating the intake to CCF. Diversion rate should be reduced when 
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

F. STRIPED BASS 3-Xf-13

bass eggs and/or larvae appear in great abundance at the CCC intake. A salvage and transport program 

could be developed and implemented.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Delta outflow and export

recommendations, as well as DCC and Georgiana Slough closures, to a large degree determine the numbers 

of striped bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles at risk of entrainment at the CCC. Reducing exports at SWP and 

CVP facilities would substantially reduce the number of juveniles and eggs that are vulnerable to entrainment 

at the CCC. Section 3406(b)(5), develop and implement a program to mitigate fishery impacts resulting 

from operations of CCC Pumping Plant Number 1.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: CCCWA manages the CCC diversion. 

CCCWA, DWR, and DFG would cooperatively investigate and implement the salvage/transport project 

and look at alternatives to improve survival. 

Potential obstacles to implementation: Relocating the CCC intake would take years to implement 

and would be costly. Screening would present some major technical difficulties. CCCWA will likely resist 

any major changes in its water delivery practices and costs involved in starting a salvage/transport program.

Projected benefits: Reduced losses of bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles into the CCC should result in 

increased overall bass survival and recruitment.

Action 6: Minimize loss and/or entrainment of bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles at the PG&E power 

generating plants.

Objective: Improve survival of striped bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles as they move into historical nursery 

areas.

Location: PG&E power generating plants at Antioch and Pittsburg.

Narrative description: The Antioch and Pittsburg power plants draw water for cooling purposes, then 

return it to the estuary. Their combined capacity is roughly 3,100 cfs. Problems for striped bass include 

entrainment and mortality resulting from factors ranging from abrasion and thermal shock for juveniles and 

eggs to impingement on the screens for adults. The power plant also entrains plankton that would otherwise 

have been available as food for juvenile striped bass.

PG&E should continue to reduce pumping rates when bass egg and larvae abundance is high at the intakes, 

and the situation should be monitored for potential feasible improvements. The possibility of placing a 

barrier outside the intakes to further reduce entrainment should be evaluated and implemented if feasible.
3-Xf-14 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Increased outflow would probably reduce 

vulnerability of striped bass eggs and juveniles to entrainment and reduce the need to modify plant 

operations.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: PG&E should continue to monitor bass 

abundance at the power plant intakes and manage pumping levels accordingly. DFG may help in providing 

methods to determine the timing and levels of bass abundance near the intakes.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The detection of bass eggs and larvae may present 

difficulties. Feasibility of constructing and installing an effective barrier has not been evaluated.

Projected benefits: Bass mortality associated with the PG&E power plants would be reduced, and bass 

food supplies (plankton) may increase.

Action 7: Eliminate, relocate, or reduce Sherman and Twitchell Island diversions.

Objective: Improve survival of bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles as they move into historical nursery areas.

Location: Sherman and Twitchell Islands, west Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Narrative description: Bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles in transit down the lower Sacramento River pass in 

close proximity to Sherman and Twitchell Islands, where agricultural diversions are located. The impacts of 

these diversions on striped bass are unknown but are potentially significant.

Sherman and/or Twitchell Island could be converted to wildlife management areas. Should these islands 

continue as agricultural producers, some diversions could be consolidated and/or relocated to areas with 

low bass egg and larval concentrations.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Export levels at the south Delta pumping 

plants, as well as DCC and Georgiana Slough closures, may determine the abundance of bass vulnerable to 

the island diversions.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and/or USFWS would be involved in the 

purchase of land to develop a wildlife management area. Private land owner cooperation would be 

necessary for land purchase or modification or relocation of agricultural diversions.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Private land owners would likely resist any elimination of the 

islands as agricultural producers and any major changes in their water use practices. Funds to purchase 

land and establish the wildlife management area(s) may not be available.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

F. STRIPED BASS 3-Xf-15

Projected benefits: Striped bass egg, larvae, and juvenile losses resulting from entrainment at Sherman and 

Twitchell Island diversions would be reduced or eliminated.

Action 8: Minimize loss and/or entrainment of bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles at private agricultural 

diversions.

Objective: Improve survival of bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles as they move into historical nursery areas.

Location: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Narrative description: Up to 1,800 private unscreened agricultural diversions have operated in the Delta for 

decades. Approximately 2,500-4,800 cfs are diverted from May through August, with lesser amounts 

diverted during other times of the year. Striped bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles are entrained and killed in 

unscreened pumps and siphons. Abundance of plankton, which are a component of the diet of young bass 

in the western Delta and Suisun Bay, has also been reduced by entrainment in Delta agricultural diversions.

Whenever feasible, agricultural diversions should be consolidated and relocated to areas with low bass egg 

and larval concentrations. All the larger existing agricultural water diversions should be screened on a 

priority basis to exclude bass longer than 1.5 inches, and existing screened diversions should be examined 

for identification of desirable improvements. The "area-wide" rescheduling of water diversions should be 

considered by all parties in select locations when bass eggs and larvae are at peak abundance during spring 

and early summer. DFG, Delta agriculture interests, and other appropriate agencies should cooperatively 

establish and negotiate future screening needs and irrigation schemes to protect young bass.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Delta outflow and export levels, as well as 

DCC and Georgiana Slough closures, may determine the numbers of bass vulnerable to the various private 

diversions.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG and USFWS would need to cooperate 

with private land owners to implement any of the above actions. DFG would play a major role in 

determining screening needs and overseeing screen monitoring and installations. Funding should be available 

under Section 3406(b)(21) of Title 34. Area water interests and public agencies would need to work 

together to implement any plans of action.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Agricultural diverters might resist major changes in their 

water use operations and the costs associated with screening. Screens may reduce efficiency of diversions 

and increase the need for maintenance. Available funds may be insufficient to adequately do the job.
3-Xf-16 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Projected benefits: Striped bass egg, larvae, and juvenile mortality associated with private agricultural 

diversions would be reduced. Reduced or relocated diversions could result in an increase of bass food 

supplies.

Action 9: Support measures to prevent the development of a water quality barrier to adult striped bass 

migration in the San Joaquin River near Stockton.

Objective: Ensure access to spawning areas in the San Joaquin River upstream of Stockton. 

Location: San Joaquin River near Stockton.

Narrative description: Low flows in the San Joaquin River near Stockton often combine with agricultural 

drain water to create an effective dissolved solids (and dissolved oxygen) barrier to upstream migration and 

spawning by striped bass. This problem is caused by upstream water diversions and agricultural

wastewater high in total dissolved solids (TDS).

Salinity standards, particularly in the lower San Joaquin River downstream of Stockton, should be upgraded 

to levels at which striped bass can use the river upstream of the Delta for spawning. This problem would be 

solved with implementation of AFRP flow recommendations for San Joaquin River chinook salmon and 

flow and export restrictions recommended in Actions 1 and 2. DFG and collective San Joaquin Valley and 

south Delta agricultural interests should develop ways to provide better water quality in agricultural drain 

discharges into the San Joaquin River.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Water quality would be substantially 

improved with implementation of Striped Bass Technical Team flow and export recommendations and San 

Joaquin Basin Technical Team flow and export recommendations.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: EPA, DFG, and local authorities would set and 

enforce water quality standards necessary to eliminate the barrier to spawners. DWR, USBR, and the 

South Delta Water Agency need to continue to work together to improve and maintain water levels, 

circulation patterns, and quality in the south Delta through the South Delta Agreement.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Private land owners may resist changes necessary to 

improve the quality of agricultural drain discharges. Non-CVP water agencies may not provide flows 

needed to meet water quality objectives.

Projected benefits: Spawning habitat available to striped bass spawners in the lower San Joaquin River 

would increase.

Action 10: Reduce toxic chemical and trace-metal pollution.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

F. STRIPED BASS 3-Xf-17

Objective: Provide better water quality for all life stages of striped bass.

Location: Throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Narrative description: Water pollutants, including toxic chemicals (petrochemicals, chlorinated

hydrocarbons, pesticides, etc.) and trace metals (mercury, selenium, copper, cadmium, and zinc) are 

harmful in many ways to all striped bass life stages. Toxic chemicals and trace metals potentially stress, 

debilitate, or kill bass eggs, larvae, young, and adults and their food (and possibly affect primary 

productivity) throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Studies on Atlantic Coast stocks of striped 

bass show that the combination of toxic chemicals and trace metals found in those waters significantly 

decreased survival of young bass. Chronic exposure to toxic chemicals appears universal, and continues 

today, in Bay-Delta bass. For example, 67% of 46 adult bass examined in 1987 contained unmetabolized 

DDT in the liver. State water quality control agencies project increases in the volume and complexity of 

municipal, industrial, and agricultural waste discharges into the Bay-Delta system. Each year billions of 

gallons of storm water runoff wash into the estuary, carrying toxic and other waste materials from streets, 

parking lots, and other areas that are often incidental dumping grounds for all kinds of urban waste, trash, 

and garbage. It is common for municipal operations to have upsets in their treatment systems, with the result 

that large amounts of highly toxic chlorine and other materials are discharged directly to the receiving waters. 

 The incidence and severity of fish diseases and parasites are influenced by water quality.

SWRCB's routine field checking program for regulated waste discharges should be strengthened. Agricultural pesticides in Delta return drains should be regulated and monitored by appropriate agencies to 

ensure proper fishery safeguards. DFG should continue to support SWRCB and RWQCB programs to 

control point and nonpoint sources of water pollution. Efforts to detect violations of water pollution laws 

and improve pollution investigations and incident response capabilities should be maintained by appropriate 

agencies.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Flow into and out of the Delta may affect 

the concentrations of various pollutants and exposure time for fish. Actions restricting dredge and fill 

activities may reduce the suspension of toxic chemicals.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG, EPA, SWRCB, RWQCB, and other 

water agencies should all be involved in Delta water quality issues. Private land owner cooperation will also 

be required.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Funding for studies related to water quality, a strengthened 

field checking program, and increased levels of enforcement activity may be limited or unavailable. 

Agricultural, municipal, and industrial interests will likely resist any actions to improve water quality if their 

operations are significantly affected.
3-Xf-18 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Projected benefits: The overall health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary will likely be improved. 

Potential benefits for striped bass are not known.

Action 11: Eliminate or reduce dredging and dredge spoil contributions to water pollution.

Objective: Provide better water quality for all life stages of striped bass.

Location: Throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Narrative description: Dredging and in-bay spoil disposal recirculate toxic chemicals and trace metals 

deposited previously in bottom muds, whereby they then become concentrated in striped bass, partly via the 

food web. In addition, concurrent turbidity abrades fish gills, reduces phytoplankton, and smothers bottom 

organisms. The practice of slurrying spoils before disposal instead of disposing of the more solidified 

material from clamshell dredging appears to have exacerbated problems by causing excessive turbidities and 

enhanced release of toxic materials to the water column.

A deep ocean spoil disposal site should be used in place of current in-bay dredge and spoil disposal 

practices. Disposal at on-land sites, where there is potential for adverse impacts on wetlands or other fish 

or wildlife habitats, should be prohibited. Only spoils free of toxicity and/or contaminants should be allowed 

to be discharged to estuary or ocean waters. Dredge spoils should not be slurried before release. A survey 

of bottom muds of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary should be conducted to identify areas with high 

concentrations of toxic chemicals.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Dredging activities necessary to keep 

shipping channels operational may diminish the effectiveness of recommended actions.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The Corps would be responsible for carrying 

out its dredging operations in a manner not detrimental to biological resources. EPA, as well as state and 

local authorities, would assist in assessing levels of contamination in dredge spoils and bottom muds to be 

dredged.

Potential obstacles to implementation: The Corps and other groups responsible for dredging 

channels may resist changes in their operations. The development and use of an ocean disposal site would 

be highly controversial. A bottom mud survey would be costly and may be beyond present Corps 

capabilities.

Projected benefits: The overall health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary will likely be improved. 

Potential benefits for striped bass are not known but may be substantial.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

F. STRIPED BASS 3-Xf-19

Action 12: Eliminate or reduce unnecessary landfill projects.

Objective: Reduce or eliminate habitat loss resulting from the filling of Bay and Delta tidelands.

Location: Throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.

Narrative description: The loss of open water areas by filling of Bay and Delta tidelands has reduced bass 

and bass-food habitats. Research reports by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development 

Commission (BCDC) reveal that such filling also reduces the estuary's total water volume and its ability to 

assimilate certain pollutants. State reports document that between 1860 and 1959, almost 50% of the 

potentially fillable marshlands and tidelands were filled or diked off. An example is the Mare Island Training 

Wall (Dike 12), a landfill project completed in 1908, which probably eliminated at least 10 square miles of 

open water habitat in San Pablo Bay.

Fill projects that DFG should oppose because they are overly detrimental to bass and their habitat should 

be identified. All but public water-dependent fill projects (i.e., port development) should be prohibited 

unless there is reason to believe that fish and wildlife would benefit. Projects involving landfills should be 

required to provide mitigation in the form of wetlands and/or tidal waters to compensate for unavoidably 

filled habitat. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None identified.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Permitting agencies will need to adopt the 

recommended actions as policy or regulations. DFG and USFWS will need to oppose any landfill projects 

detrimental to striped bass. Cooperation between numerous agencies and organizations will be needed 

because most fill activities take place on private land adjacent to Delta and Bay waters.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Developers will certainly resist any regulation or policy 

changes concerning landfills that would affect them. 

Projected benefits: Habitat loss resulting from landfill projects in the Bay-Delta will be eliminated. Habitat 

lost as a result of past landfill projects may be mitigated.

Action 13: Eliminate or reduce illegal take and poaching.

Objective: Reduced impacts of illegal fishing on striped bass populations.

Location: Throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.
3-Xf-20 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Narrative description: Illegal take and poaching are frequent problems in Bay-Delta waters. DFG wardens 

have cited anglers for bass overlimits and undersized fish, and have arrested people using illegal nets and set 

lines for striped bass. "Stings" have uncovered marketing of illegally caught bass in the Bay-Delta area. 

Available levels of enforcement effort are insufficient to prevent all of the poaching.

The general public and anglers should be encouraged to routinely use the Cal-Tip program to advise DFG 

of poachers, illegal selling of striped bass, and violations of angling regulations. DFG should continue to 

augment night and overtime patrols and purchase special equipment to aid striped bass enforcement, such as 

night-vision scopes and specialized boats. Courts and prosecutors that judge violations of striped bass laws 

should be fully informed of the grave plight of the bass resource so that maximum legal penalties will be 

imposed to deter future violations.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: None identified.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG enforcement personnel will carry out most 

of the actions necessary to reduce illegal take and poaching. Environmental and angling groups will need to 

share responsibility for making people aware of the problem and what they can do about it.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Limited availability of funding may greatly hinder DFG's 

ability to increase enforcement presence and effectiveness.

Projected benefits: Striped bass mortality associated with illegal take and poaching will likely decrease. 

Overall benefits in terms of increases in the striped bass population are unknown.

Action 14: Eliminate or reduce the introduction of exotic aquatic organisms.

Objective: Reduce impacts of exotic species on striped bass and their food supplies.

Location: Throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.

Narrative description: For decades there have been continual, unauthorized introductions of worldwide 

exotic aquatic plants and animals into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary through the discharge of ballast 

water from ships entering San Francisco Bay from foreign ports. Some introductions may have resulted in 

major detrimental impacts on populations of existing aquatic organisms, including striped bass and their food 

supplies. Several species of exotic aquatic organisms originally from China and Japan have become 

extremely abundant. These include the yellowfin goby (Acanthogobius flavimanus), and zooplankton 

Sinocalanun doerii, Pseudodiaptomus marinus, and P. forbesi.
SECTION X. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

F. STRIPED BASS 3-Xf-21

Discharges of ship ballast water within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary should be restricted through 

federal legislation and regulations. DFG should participate on the Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task 

Force. Methods of eliminating or reducing populations of exotic organisms already established in the 

estuary should be investigated.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Largely undocumented impacts of exotic 

species may limit effectiveness of all other restorations actions.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DFG would carry out any studies involving the 

detection and elimination of undesirable exotic aquatic species. Legislative bodies would need to take 

action to change present laws. The U.S. Coast Guard and other regulatory agencies would be needed to 

carry out enforcement and monitoring activities.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Shipping companies and vessel operators will likely resist any 

changes in their operational procedures. Exotic species already present in the Bay-Delta may be impossible 

to control or eliminate.

Projected benefits: The natural integrity of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary ecosystem will not be 

further degraded and may even be improved.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

G. AMERICAN SHAD 3-Xg-1

G. AMERICAN SHAD

Baseline Period Production and Production Goals

Because there are no data to estimate the adult component of the American shad population for any years 

except 1976 and 1977, juvenile abundance in the California Department of Fish and Game fall midwater 

trawl (MWT) was used as an index of production. The MWT survey is conducted at about 90 sampling 

sites from the Delta downstream through San Pablo Bay from September to December. To reflect the fact 

that the juvenile index is related to abundance of spawning adults 3-5 years later, it would have been ideal to 

consider the index for 1962-1988. However, because the MWT survey was not begun until 1967, it was 

necessary to estimate the baseline period average and to establish the restoration goal on the basis of data 

collected from 1967 through 1988.

Additional deficiencies in MWT data occur because sampling does not include the entire period that juvenile 

shad are present in the system and because a portion of the system that is known to be utilized by juvenile 

shad is not sampled at all. Sampling does occur during October and November when the greatest numbers 

of juvenile shad are migrating to the ocean and, consequently, abundance of juveniles in the Delta is highest.

Table 3-Xg-1. Young-of-the year and adult American shad abundance estimates 

in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system.

Year Young-of-the-year MWT index Adults abundancea

1964 1,531

1965 4,064

1966 1,991

1967 3,501

1968 773

1969 4,055

1970 871

1971 1,543

1972 335

1973 1,084
3-Xg-2 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Year Young-of-the-year MWT index Adults abundancea

1974 5,275

1975 2,486

1976 354 3,040,000

1977 646 2,790,000

1978 2,461

1979 1,953

1980 3,903

1981 1,434

1982 5,386

1983 2,928

1984 846

1985 1,596

1986 1,860

1987 899

1988 1,459

Mean 2,129 291,500

a

 Abundance derived from mark-recapture population estimates.

Goal - Based on mean juvenile shad abundance from 1967 through 1988, the AFRP goal for MWT index 

is 4,258.

Basis for flow recommendations - Because of the limited quantity of adult shad data, the degree of 

uncertainty associated with predicting population response to flow is probably greater for American shad 

than for other species. A regression relationship between Delta inflow and juvenile shad abundance in the 

MWT has been recognized for several years (Painter et al. 1979, Stevens and Miller 1983, Stevens et al. 

1987). In general, the years with the highest Delta inflow have been the years when the abundance of 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

G. AMERICAN SHAD 3-Xg-3

juvenile shad was highest. More recently, this relationship deteriorated, reflecting several years (1990, 

1991, 1992) when juvenile abundance was high despite relatively low inflow.

April through June is the most important period for providing flow for the purpose of increasing production 

of shad (Painter et al. 1979). The regression equation incorporating all the available data indicates that 

April-June Delta inflow would have to exceed unimpaired levels to meet the restoration goal established for 

the MWT index. To avoid this problem, flows needed for doubling were estimated by averaging the flows 

that occurred during years that the MWT index actually equaled or exceeded the established restoration 

goal of 4,258 (1974 and 1982). The flow generated by this method was in the range of mean unimpaired 

flow and was considered to be the average required across all year types.

Recommendations for individual year types were generated by identifying the proportion of total unimpaired 

inflow that would have occurred, on average, during each year type for the period of record (1922-1990). 

Within year types, flows were allocated to individual rivers known to be important for shad spawning to 

reflect historical (1922-1990) percent contribution to unimpaired runoff.

Sacramento River Basin - Upper Mainstem Sacramento River

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Table 3-Xg-2. Limiting factors and potential solutions for American shad 

in the upper Sacramento River (Colusa to Red Bluff).

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Inadequate flows for spawning, 

incubation, and rearing

Increase Sacramento River and tributary flows to 

levels specified in the proposed restoration program

2. Water temperatures higher than 

optimum range during May and June 

(temperatures exceed 68 F)

1. Manage Sacramento River and tributary flows to 

levels specified in the proposed restoration 

program

2. Manage Shasta Dam releases to maintain water 

temperatures between 61 F and 65 F in the 

Sacramento River

3. Entrainment of juveniles at diversions 

from Colusa to Red Bluff on the 

Sacramento River

1. Increase Sacramento River and tributary flows 

to levels specified in the proposed restoration 

program

o

o o
3-Xg-4 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factors Potential solutions

2. Provide proper spawning temperatures ( 61 F) 

beginning May 1 to stimulate spawning so eggs 

and larvae can be transported past GCID and 

other diversions prior to peak irrigation season

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Provide adequate flows for shad spawning and survival of eggs and larvae as presented in the 

following table.

Table 3-Xg-3. Instream flow regime believed necessary to double natural 

production of American shad in the Sacramento River for five water year types. 

Month Wet

Above 

normal

Below 

normal Dry Critical

April 25,800 19,100 16,600 11,900 7,400

May 16,500 12,200 10,700 8,500 7,100

June 10,300 7,200 7,000 6,200 5,600

Objective: Improve shad spawning success, and increase survival of eggs and larvae.

Location: Sacramento River at Grimes (RM 125).

Narrative description: Delta inflow was assumed to be an index of flow needs in tributaries known to 

support spawning runs of American shad. Flow for each tributary was generated by multiplying the percent 

contribution of that tributary to total unimpaired runoff (1922-1992) by Delta inflow needed to achieve the 

restoration goal for the MWT index. Separate flow recommendations were generated for each of the five 

Sacramento or San Joaquin water year types. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Temperature standards for American Shad. 

 Flow and temperature recommendations for other anadromous fish species.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Meeting flow standard would be the 

responsibility of USBR. Monitoring success and making recommendations to improve conditions would be 

the responsibility of USFWS and/or DFG.

o >

 

_
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

G. AMERICAN SHAD 3-Xg-5

Potential obstacles to implementation: Flows are generally higher than those recommended for 

other species of anadromous fish. In many years, use of water to meet American shad needs would reduce 

availability for other species and for waters users.

Projected benefits: Providing the recommended flows would result in improved conditions for spawning 

and increased survival of eggs and larvae in the upper mainstem Sacramento River.

Action 2: Maintain mean daily water temperatures between 61 F and 65 F for 1 month between April 1 

and June 30.

Objective: Improve shad spawning success, egg survival, and larvae survival of shad in the upper 

Sacramento River.

Location: Upper Sacramento River.

Narrative description: Maintaining mean daily water temperatures between 61 F and 65 F for 1 month 

between April 1 and June 30 will provide conditions needed for successful spawning and incubation. No 

additional water beyond that defined above for instream requirements needs to be released to meet these 

temperature recommendations, but management of the Shasta Reservoir temperature curtain should be 

used. A secondary goal is to provide appropriate spawning temperatures as early in spring as possible to 

minimize overlap between spawning and the peak of the irrigation season. It is anticipated that early 

spawning would result in transport of eggs and larvae past GCID and other diversions before the peak 

irrigation season.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Flow and temperature requirements are 

also recommended by the upper Sacramento River chinook salmon and sturgeon technical teams.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USBR would be responsible for implementation, 

but USFWS and/or DFG would be responsible for monitoring success and making recommendations to 

modify the action.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Increased Shasta Dam releases are likely to decrease power 

generation prior to completion of the temperature control structure.

Projected benefits: Maintaining water temperatures within the specified range should increase survival of 

American shad eggs and larvae in the upper Sacramento River.

o o

o o
3-Xg-6 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Lower Sacramento River and Delta Tributaries

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Table 3-Xg-4. Limiting factors and potential solutions for American shad 

in the lower Sacramento River (Hood to Colusa).

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Inadequate Sacramento River 

flows for spawning, incubation, 

and early life stage rearing

Increase Sacramento River and tributary flows to 

levels specified in the proposed restoration program

2. Temperatures outside the optimum 

range during May and June 

(temperatures exceed 68 F)

1. Increase Sacramento River and tributary flows to 

levels specified in the proposed restoration 

program

2. Maintain water temperatures between 65 F and 

68 F by releasing water from lower outlets of 

upstream reservoirs with temperature control 

facilities

3. Water quality in the lower 

Sacramento River

Increase Sacramento River and tributary flows to 

levels specified in the proposed restoration program

4. Fish entrained at diversions located 

between Hood and Colusa on the 

Sacramento River

Increase Sacramento River and tributary flows to 

levels specified in the proposed restoration program

5. Reduced quality and quantity of 

suitable rearing habitat in the lower 

Sacramento River

Increase Sacramento River and tributary flows to 

levels specified in the proposed restoration program

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Maintain mean daily water temperatures between 65 F and 68 F for 1 month between April 1 

and June 30 by managing releases from dams with water temperature control facilities.

Objective: Improve spawning success and survival of eggs and larvae in the lower Sacramento River.

Location: Sacramento River from Hood to Colusa.

o

o

o

o o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

G. AMERICAN SHAD 3-Xg-7

Narrative description: Maintaining mean daily water temperatures between 61 F and 65 F for 1 month 

between April 1 and June 30 will provide conditions needed for successful spawning and incubation. No 

additional water beyond that defined above for instream requirements needs to be released to meet these 

temperature recommendations, but management of multilevel outlet structures should be used if available.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Flow and temperature requirements are 

also recommended by the upper Sacramento River and sturgeon technical teams.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USBR would be responsible for implementing 

this action in association with other dam operators with the ability to control water temperatures with 

releases. USFWS and/or DFG will be responsible for monitoring success and making recommendations to 

provide optimum benefits.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Increased Shasta Dam releases are likely to decrease power 

generation.

Projected benefits: Maintaining temperatures within the specified range should increase survival of eggs and 

larvae in the lower Sacramento River.

Feather River

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Table 3-Xg-5. Limiting factors and potential solutions for

American shad in the Feather River.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Flows are frequently inadequate for 

attraction, spawning, incubation, 

and rearing

Increase Feather and Yuba River flows to levels 

specified in the proposed restoration program

2. Water temperatures outside the 

optimum range for spawning, 

incubation, and early rearing

1. If higher than optimum mean daily water 

temperatures, increase flows to levels specified in 

the proposed restoration program

2. Manage pumpback operations at Thermalito 

Reservoir to keep mean daily temperatures at 

Nicolaus between 61 F and 68 F

o o

o o
3-Xg-8 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factors Potential solutions

3. Fish entrainment at diversions in the 

Feather River below the Yuba 

River confluence

Increase Feather and Yuba River flows to levels 

specified in the proposed restoration program

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Provide adequate flows as presented in the following table.

Table 3-Xg-6. Instream flow regime believed necessary to double natural 

production of American shad in the Feather River for five water year types. 

Month Wet

Above 

normal

Below 

normal Dry Critical

April 17,500 13,400 12,600 9,000 4,200

May 17,100 12,100 10,100 6,600 3,600

June 9,800 5,700 4,900 3,300 2,500

Objective: Improve conditions for spawning, and increase survival of eggs and larvae.

Location: Feather River at Nicolaus.

Narrative description: Delta inflow was assumed to be an index of flow needs in tributaries known to 

support spawning runs of American shad. Flow for each tributary was generated by multiplying the percent 

contribution of that tributary to total unimpaired runoff (1922-1992) by Delta inflow needed to achieve the 

restoration goal for the MWT index. Separate flow recommendations were generated for each of the five 

Sacramento or San Joaquin water year types.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Temperature recommendations for 

American shad; flow and temperature recommendations for other anadromous fish species..

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DWR would be responsible for meeting the 

recommended flow schedule. DWR, with possible assistance from DFG and/or USFWS would be 

responsible for monitoring results and adjusting flows to provide optimum benefits.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

G. AMERICAN SHAD 3-Xg-9

Potential obstacles to implementation: Flows recommended for American shad are generally higher 

than those recommended for other species. Reservoir storage may be insufficient to supply recommended 

flows in many years. Use of water to meet flow needs for shad would reduce ability to meet requirements 

for other species and limit availability to water users.

Projected benefits: It is anticipated that providing the recommended flows, in concert with other actions 

recommended by the technical team, have the potential to at least double production of American shad.

Action 2: Maintain mean daily water temperatures between 61 F and 65 F for at least 1 month between 

April 1 and June 30 by managing pumpback operations at Thermalito Reservoir.

Objective: Improve spawning success and egg survival in the Feather River.

Location: Feather River.

Narrative description: Maintaining mean daily water temperatures between 61 F and 65 F for 1 month 

between April 1 and June 30 will provide conditions needed for successful spawning and incubation. No 

additional water beyond that defined above for instream requirements needs to be released to meet these 

temperature recommendations, but management of multilevel outlet structures should be used if available.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Meeting flow standards specified under 

Action 1 will contribute to temperature reductions, depending on the source of water for these flows.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: All public and private entities with control over 

sources and quantities of water flowing into the Feather River share responsibility for meeting temperature 

criteria.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Implementation will require identification of flows necessary 

to meet temperature criteria (work currently conducted by University of California, Davis researchers). 

Implementation will likely require Oroville Dam releases to meet temperature standards downstream. 

Increased Oroville Dam releases are likely to decrease power generation.

Projected benefits: Maintaining temperatures within the specified range should increase survival of eggs and 

larvae in the lower Sacramento River. Insufficient data are available to determine the specific increase in 

survival.

Yuba River

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

o o

o o
3-Xg-10 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Table 3-Xg-7. Limiting factors and potential solutions for American shad

in the Yuba River.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Flows are frequently inadequate for 

attraction, spawning, incubation, and 

rearing 

Increase Yuba and Feather River flows to levels 

specified in the proposed restoration program

2. Water temperatures outside the 

optimum range during May and June 

(temperatures below 61 F or above 

68 F)

1. If higher than optimum mean daily water 

temperatures, increase flows to levels specified 

in the proposed restoration program

2. Maintain mean daily water temperatures 

between 61 F and 65 F at Marysville by

using multilevel outlet at New Bullards Bar 

Reservoir

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Provide adequate flows as presented in the following table.

Table 3-Xg-8. Instream flow regime believed necessary to double natural 

production of American shad in the Yuba River for five water year types. 

Month Wet

Above 

normal

Below 

normal Dry Critical

April 8,200 7,100 7,200 5,500 2,800

May 9,900 8,100 7,100 4,900 2,600

June 6,400 3,900 3,200 2,000 1,400

Objective: Improve shad attraction and spawning and survival of eggs and larvae.

Location: Yuba River at Marysville.

Narrative description: Delta inflow was assumed to be an index of flow needs in tributaries known to 

support spawning runs of American shad. Flow for each tributary was generated by multiplying the percent 

contribution of that tributary to total unimpaired runoff (1922-1992) by Delta inflow needed to achieve the 

o

o

o o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

G. AMERICAN SHAD 3-Xg-11

restoration goal for the MWT index. Separate flow recommendations were generated for each of the five 

Sacramento or San Joaquin water year types.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Temperature recommendations for 

American shad; flow and temperature recommendations for other anadromous fish species.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Yuba County Water Agency would be 

responsible for implementation. DFG and/or USFWS would be responsible for monitoring and making 

recommendations to improve conditions for American shad.

Potential obstacles to implementation: April-June flows recommended for American shad are higher 

than those proposed for chinook salmon or steelhead. Flows may exceed reservoir unimpaired flow in 

some years. Meeting these flow requirements would probably reduce the quantity of water available to 

meet needs of other species or various water users.

Projected benefits: It is anticipated that providing the recommended flows, in concert with other actions 

recommended by the technical team, has the potential to at least double production of American shad.

Action 2: Maintain mean daily water temperatures between 61 F and 65 F for at least 1 month between 

April 1 and June 30 using multilevel outlets.

Objective: Improve shad spawning success and egg survival in Yuba River.

Location: Yuba River.

Narrative description: To the extent possible, mean daily water temperatures during May and June should 

be kept between 61 F and 65 F for optimum spawning and egg incubation in the Yuba River. No 

additional water beyond that defined above for instream requirements needs to be released to meet these 

temperature recommendations, but management of the New Bullards Bar Dam multilevel outlets should be 

used. USBR would need to enter into an agreement with Yuba County Water Agency, the dam operator, 

to implement this action.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Flows recommended for American shad 

and other species.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Yuba County Water Agency would be 

responsible for managing water temperatures.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Competing water uses.

o o

o o
3-Xg-12 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Projected benefits: Increased survival of eggs and larvae is expected in the Yuba River. Insufficient data 

are available to determine the specific increase in survival expected.

American River

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Table 3-Xg-9. Limiting factors and potential solutions for American shad

in the American River.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Flows are frequently inadequate for 

attraction, spawning, incubation, 

and rearing

Increase American River flows to levels specified in 

the proposed restoration program

2. Higher than optimum water 

temperatures during May and June 

(temperatures below 61 F or 

above 68 F)

If higher than optimum mean daily water 

temperatures, increase flows to levels specified in the 

proposed restoration program

Note: Without multilevel outlets at Folsom Dam, 

water temperatures cannot be controlled in the 

American river, except by flows

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Provide adequate flows as presented in the following table.

Table 3-Xg-10. Instream flow regime believed necessary to double natural 

production of American shad in the American River for five water year types. 

Month Wet Above normal

Below 

normal Dry Critical

April 10,200 8,400 8,600 6,500 3,100

May 12,200 9,600 8,700 6,100 3,100

June 8,100 4,800 4,200 2,700 1,700

Objective: Improve shad spawning success and egg and larvae survival.

o

o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

G. AMERICAN SHAD 3-Xg-13

Location: American River at H Street Bridge.

Narrative description: Delta inflow was assumed to be an index of flow in tributaries known to support 

spawning runs of American shad. Flow for each tributary was generated by multiplying the percent 

contribution of that tributary to total unimpaired runoff (1922-1992) by Delta inflow needed to achieve the 

restoration goal for the MWT index. Separate flow recommendations were generated for each of the five 

Sacramento or San Joaquin water year types.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Temperature recommendations for 

American shad; flow and temperature recommendations for chinook salmon and steelhead.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USBR would be responsible for implementation, 

but USFWS and/or DFG would be responsible for monitoring success and making recommendations to 

modify the action.

Potential obstacles to implementation: April-June flows recommended for American shad are 

generally higher than those proposed for chinook salmon or steelhead. Flows may exceed reservoir 

unimpaired flow in some years. Meeting these flow requirements would probably reduce the quantity of 

water available to meet needs of other species or various water users.

Projected benefits: It is anticipated that providing the recommended flows, in concert with other actions 

recommended by the technical team, has the potential to at least double production of American shad.

Mokelumne River

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Table 3-Xg-11. Limiting factors and potential solutions for 

American shad in the Mokelumne River.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Flows are frequently inadequate for 

attraction, spawning, incubation, and 

rearing

1. Increase Mokelumne River flows to levels 

specified in the proposed restoration program

2. Minimize flow fluctuations resulting from peaking 

power operations at Comanche Dam

2. Higher than optimum water temperatures 

during May and June (temperatures 

Increase Mokelumne River flows to levels specified 

in the proposed restoration program
3-Xg-14 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factors Potential solutions

above 68 F)

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Provide adequate flows as presented in the following table.

Table 3-Xg-12. Instream flow regime believed necessary to double natural 

production of American shad in the Mokelumne River for five water year types. 

Month Wet

Above 

normal

Below 

normal Dry Critical

April 2,600 2,300 2,400 2,000 1,100

May 4,500 3,800 3,400 2,500 1,300

June 3,500 2,200 1,900 1,100 700

Objective: Improve shad spawning success and egg and larvae survival.

Location: Mokelumne River downstream of Woodbridge Dam.

Narrative description: Delta inflow was assumed to be an index of flow in tributaries known to support 

spawning runs of American shad. Flow for each tributary was generated by multiplying the percent 

contribution of that tributary to total unimpaired runoff (1922-1992) by Delta inflow needed to achieve the 

restoration goal for the MWT index. Separate flow recommendations were generated for each of the five 

Sacramento or San Joaquin water year types.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Temperature recommendation for American 

shad; flow and temperature recommendations for chinook salmon.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: EBMUD and FERC would implement 

recommended flows and USFWS and/or DFG would monitor populations.

Potential obstacles to implementation: April-June flows recommended for American shad are higher 

than those proposed for chinook salmon or steelhead. Flows may exceed reservoir unimpaired flow in 

some years. Meeting these flow requirements would probably reduce the quantity of water available to 

meet needs of other species or various water users.

o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

G. AMERICAN SHAD 3-Xg-15

Projected benefits: Providing the recommended flows, in concert with other actions recommended by the 

technical team, has the potential to at least double production of American shad.

Action 2: Minimize flow fluctuations resulting from peaking power operations at Camanche Dam.

Objective: Improve survival of eggs, larvae, and juvenile shad in the Mokelumne River.

Location: Mokelumne River.

Narrative description: Flow fluctuations resulting from peaking power operations at Camanche Dam affect 

fisheries resources downstream. These operations would likely adversely affect shad production in the 

Mokelumne River.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Flows specified for other species.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: EBMUD and FERC would implement 

recommended flows and USFWS and/or DFG would monitor populations.

Potential obstacles to implementation: April-June flows recommended for American shad are 

generally higher than those proposed for chinook salmon or steelhead. Flows may exceed reservoir 

unimpaired flow in some years. Meeting these flow requirements would probably reduce the quantity of 

water available to meet the needs of other water users.

Projected benefits: Reduced flow fluctuations would benefit shad production by increasing survival of eggs, 

larvae, and juveniles.

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Table 3-Xg-13. Limiting factors and potential solutions for American shad

in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Delta inflow and outflow are frequently 

inadequate for dispersing juvenile shad 

downstream and to provide optimum 

rearing conditions within the Delta

Establish Delta inflow to levels specified in the 

proposed restoration program
3-Xg-16 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Limiting factors Potential solutions

2. Poor Delta water quality Dilute toxic compounds by increasing Delta inflow 

to levels specified in the proposed restoration 

program

3. Fish entrainment at Delta diversions 1. Increase Delta inflow to levels specified in the 

proposed restoration program

2. Close the DCC during the peak fall migration 

period (October-December)

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Provide systemwide flows needed for successful American shad spawning, incubation, and early 

downstream migration.

Table 3-Xg-14. Delta inflow required to double natural 

production of American shad in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers. 

Month Wet

Above 

normal

Below 

normal Dry Critical

April 104,800 79,500 74,500 54,400 28,900

May 104,500 82,000 69,700 49,800 29,800

June 74,100 49,800 40,4000 27,800 19,700

Objective: Improve shad spawning and egg and larvae survival.

Location: Delta inflow is a calculated quantity.

Narrative description: These required minimum flows, in association with higher flows that would occur 

during high natural runoff conditions and during reservoir releases to meet other beneficial uses over and 

above shad needs, would provide the most substantial element in the restoration program for American 

shad.

The sources of water are not currently available to the federal government in all the river basins, and 

additional water will need to be purchased or exchanged to meet the needs. A number of water-sharing 

formulas could also be implemented on a statewide basis to meet the recommended requirements.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

G. AMERICAN SHAD 3-Xg-17

Comprehensive systemwide flow increases in April-June are needed to ensure doubling of shad populations. 

 The flow increases for the various tributaries with shad spawning and rearing need to be maintained 

downstream as Delta inflow so that the systemwide benefits are realized. Only in this manner can shad be 

distributed throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system and double their populations within each 

general spawning location.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Flow recommendations for all rivers and 

species.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Meeting the recommended Delta inflow 

standards would depend on releases from upstream impoundments and would require cooperation and 

coordination between a number of agencies and organizations. USBR would be responsible for meeting 

instream flow requirements on rivers with USBR storage and/or diversion facilities. Monitoring would be 

coordinated with the Interagency Ecological Program and the ongoing efforts to monitor effects of the 

provisions of the recent Delta Water Quality Standards Decision.

Potential obstacles to implementation: April-June flows recommended for American shad are 

generally higher than those proposed for chinook salmon or steelhead. Flows may exceed reservoir 

unimpaired flow in some years. Meeting these flow requirements would probably reduce the quantity of 

water available to meet needs of other species or various water users.

Projected benefits: Providing the recommended flows, in concert with other actions recommended by the 

technical team, has the potential to at least double production of American shad. It is estimated that 

increasing minimum instream flow requirements will increase production by approximately 60%-80%. 

Unfortunately, no data or models are available to verify this estimate, which is based on professional 

experience and judgment and on review of the best available information. Instream flow requirements are 

the most important management tool for doubling American shad production, and there is firm agreement 

among members of the American Shad Technical Work Group on this point. The specific mechanisms are 

not documented but are thought to be increased attraction into desirable spawning locations, increased egglarval survival, and increased survival during early juvenile rearing and outmigration.

Action 2: Close the DCC during the peak fall migration period in October-December.

Objective: Improve survival of juvenile shad migrating downstream in fall.

Location: Delta Cross Channel at Walnut Grove.

Narrative description: The DCC has been effectively operated to increase chinook salmon outmigrant 

survival. Similar methods should be used to improve survival of American shad by keeping emigrating shad 
3-Xg-18 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

away from the CVP and SWP pumping facilities. The DCC should be closed during the peak fall 

outmigration period during October-December. USBR would be responsible for implementing this action.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Flow and export recommendations for all 

species. DCC recommendation for chinook salmon.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USBR would be responsible for operating the 

Delta Cross Channel in a manner that would prevent entrainment of juvenile American shad. Insufficient 

data are available to determine the specific increase in survival that could be expected, but it is anticipated 

that the increase would be significant.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Measures to protect outmigrating salmon restricted on Delta 

Cross Channel use at other times of the year. This action would increase the period of time during which 

cross channel use and export capabilities would be affected.

Projected benefits: This action would result in increased survival of downstream-migrating American 

shad from the Sacramento River system. Insufficient data are available to determine the specific increase in 

survival that could be expected, but it is anticipated that the increase would be significant.

San Joaquin River

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Table 3-Xg-15. Limiting factors and potential solutions for

American shad in the San Joaquin River.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Inadequate San Joaquin River flows 

during key life history activities 

(April-June)

Increase San Joaquin River flows to levels specified in 

the proposed restoration program

2. Water temperatures outside the 

optimum range during May and June 

(temperatures below 61 F or above 

68 F)

1. If higher than optimum mean daily water 

temperatures, increase flows to levels specified in the 

proposed restoration program

2. Maintain mean daily water temperatures between 

65 F and 68 F at Vernalis by using multilevel 

outlets of upstream reservoirs

3. Poor San Joaquin River water quality 1. Increase San Joaquin River flows to levels specified 

in the proposed restoration program

o

o

o o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

G. AMERICAN SHAD 3-Xg-19

Limiting factors Potential solutions

2. Corrective actions implemented for striped bass will 

benefit American shad

4. Fish entrainment at diversions located 

below the Stanislaus River

Increase San Joaquin River flows to levels specified in 

the proposed restoration program

5. Reduced quality of lower San Joaquin 

River rearing habitat

1. Increase San Joaquin River flows to levels specified 

in the proposed restoration program

2. Implement an overall lower San Joaquin River 

aquatic habitat improvement program between the 

Stanislaus River confluence and Vernalis

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Provide adequate flows as presented in the following table.

Table 3-Xg-16. Instream flow regime believed necessary to double natural 

production of American shad in the San Joaquin River for five water year types. 

Month Wet Above normal Below normal Dry Critical

April 5,200 4,400 4,600 3,500 2,200

May 10,200 8,900 7,400 5,400 3,100

June 10,300 8,200 5,700 3,900 2,400

Objective: Improve shad spawning and egg survival and larvae survival.

Location: San Joaquin River at Vernalis.

Narrative description: Delta inflow was assumed to be an index of flow needs in tributaries known to 

support spawning runs of American shad. Flow for each tributary was generated by multiplying the percent 

contribution of that tributary to total unimpaired runoff (1922-1992) by Delta inflow needed to achieve the 

restoration goal for the MWT index. Separate flow recommendations were generated for each of the five 

Sacramento or San Joaquin water year types. 
3-Xg-20 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Temperature recommendations for 

American shad. Chinook salmon flow and temperature recommendations for San Joaquin River tributaries.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Providing the recommended flows for the San 

Joaquin River would require cooperation between multiple agencies and organizations.

Potential obstacles to implementation: April-June flows recommended for American shad are higher 

than those proposed for chinook salmon or steelhead. Flows may exceed reservoir unimpaired flow in 

some years. Meeting these flow requirements would probably reduce the quantity of water available to 

meet needs of other species or various water users.

Projected benefits: Providing the recommended flows, in concert with other actions recommended by the 

technical team, has the potential to at least double production of American shad.

Action 2: Maintain mean daily water temperatures between 61 F and 65 F for 1 month between April 1 

and June 30 below dams with temperature control facilities.

Objective: Improve shad spawning success, egg survival, and larvae survival of shad in the lower San 

Joaquin River.

Location: Lower San Joaquin River.

Narrative description: To the extent possible, mean daily water temperatures during a 1-month period from 

April through June should be between 65 F and 68 F for optimum spawning and egg incubation in the 

lower San Joaquin River. No additional water beyond that defined above for instream requirements needs 

to be released to meet these temperature recommendations, but management of multilevel outlet structures 

should be used if available. USBR would be responsible for implementing this action, in association with 

other dam operators with the ability to control temperatures of water releases.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Flow recommendations for American shad. 

 Flow and temperature recommendations for chinook salmon in San Joaquin River tributaries.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Meeting recommended temperature criteria for 

the San Joaquin River would require cooperation between multiple agencies and organizations.

Potential obstacles to implementation: April-June flows recommended for American shad are 

generally higher than those proposed for chinook salmon or steelhead. Flows may exceed reservoir 

unimpaired flow in some years. Meeting these flow requirements would probably reduce the quantity of 

water available to meet needs of other species or various water users.

o o

o o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

G. AMERICAN SHAD 3-Xg-21

Projected benefits: Increased survival of eggs and larvae is expected in the lower San Joaquin River. 

Insufficient data are available to determine the specific increase in survival expected. Meeting the 

recommended temperature criteria, in concert with other actions recommended by the technical team, has 

the potential to at least double production of American shad.

Lower San Joaquin River Tributaries - Stanislaus River 

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Table 3-Xg-17. Limiting factors and potential solutions for American shad

in the Stanislaus River.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Inadequate Stanislaus River 

flows during key life history 

activities (April-June)

Increase Sacramento River and tributary flows to levels 

specified in proposed restoration program

2. Higher than optimum water 

temperatures during May and 

June (temperatures below 61 F 

or above 68 F)

1. Manage Sacramento River and tributary flows 

to levels specified in proposed restoration 

program.

2. Manage Shasta Dam releases to maintain water 

temperatures between 61 F and 65 F in the 

Sacramento River

Action 1: Provide adequate flows as presented in the following table.

Objective: Improve shad spawning and egg and larval survival.

Location: Stanislaus River at Goodwin Dam.

Table 3-Xg-18. Instream flow regime believed necessary to double natural production

of American shad in the Stanislaus River for five water years types.

Month Wet

Above 

normal Below normal Dry Critical

April 4,200 3,700 3,800 3,000 1,600

May 6,800 5,700 5,000 3,400 1,800

June 5,100 3,400 2,800 1,800 1,000

o

o

o o
3-Xg-22 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Narrative description: Delta inflow was assumed to be an index of flow needs in tributaries known to 

support spawning runs of American shad. Flow for each tributary was generated by multiplying the percent 

contribution of that tributary to total unimpaired runoff (1922-1992) by Delta inflow needed to achieve the 

restoration goal for the MWT index. Separate flow recommendations were generated for each of the five 

Sacramento or San Joaquin water year types.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Existing flow agreement between USBR 

and DFG. Vernalis flow recommendations. Section 3406(b)(2), dedication of 800,000 af of water 

annually for fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration. Section 3408(b) purchase of land and water from willing 

sellers.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Implementation of flows will require cooperation 

and coordination between USFWS, DFG, USBR, and numerous water user groups and irrigation districts.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Neither the existing USBR/DFG agreement nor the 800,000 

af of water dedicated to fish and wildlife purposes by 3406(b)(2) of Title 34 are sufficient to meet flow 

needs identified by the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. Implementing the AFRP flow schedule 

would reduce water availability to meet needs of other user groups and would thus require purchase of 

additional water.

Projected benefits: Providing the recommended flows in concert with other recommended actions has the 

potential to at least double production of American shad.

Action 2: Maintain mean daily water temperatures between 61 F and 65 F for 1 month between April 1 

and June 30 below dams with temperature control structures.

Objective: Improve shad spawning success, egg survival, and larvae survival of shad in the Stanislaus River.

Location: Stanislaus River

Narrative description:

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Flows specified under Action 1 may help 

meet temperature requirements.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USBR is responsible for New Melones Dam 

releases that may be necessary for temperature control. 

Potential obstacles to implementation: Competing water uses.

o o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

G. AMERICAN SHAD 3-Xg-23

Projected benefits: Maintaining temperatures within specified range should increase survival of egg and 

larvae in the Stanislaus River.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-1

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON

Baseline Natural Production and Goals

White sturgeon tagging and data analysis - Tagging studies were carried out by DFG to obtain markrecapture population estimates of white sturgeon greater than or equal to 40 inches total length (TL) (the 

minimum legal size until 1990). Sturgeon were captured using trammel nets during fall in San Pablo and 

Suisun bays. Captured fish were measured for total length, tagged with disc-dangler reward tags attached 

below the anterior edge of the dorsal fin, and released near the site of capture. Tag recaptures during 

tagging were used to estimate abundance using the mark-recapture methods of Petersen and SchumacherEschmeyer.

Some assumptions inherent in mark-recapture techniques are likely to be violated. These are:

1) Assumptions of random distribution of tagged fish in the untagged population and equal 

vulnerability of tagged and untagged fish to the fishing gear are likely violated by the multiple 

census technique of Schumacher-Eschmeyer.

2) Both methods deal with a population that is probably not closed and the proportion of the 

entire population represented by the estimate is unknown and may vary between estimates.

Annual harvest rates, mortality rates, and migration patterns were estimated from reward tags returned by 

anglers. Harvest and natural production estimates for the baseline period were available for only 8 years. 

For the other years, no sampling took place. Catch was estimated by multiplying the population estimate by 

harvest rate. Production was estimated by multiplying the population estimate by an estimated age fraction 

determined through length-age analysis. Age 15 is approximately the mean age of recruitment of females to 

the spawning population.

Escapement is not addressed because of the multi-age spawning population structure of sturgeons. 

Spawning periodicity reported by several investigators is quite varied. Welch and Beamsederfer (1993) 

suggest that spawning occurs every 2 to 4 years in Columbia River white sturgeon, while Roussow (1957) 

reports spawning intervals between 4 years and 7 years in lake sturgeon. Kohlhorst (pers. comm.) found 

evidence of white sturgeon spawning every 4 years in females and every 2 years in males in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. As a result of this variable spawning periodicity, there also can be 

variability in strength of year classes returning to spawn as a result of annual environmental influence.
3-Xh-2 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Table 3-Xh-1. Catch and natural production (abundance at age 15) for white

sturgeon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary

during the baseline period.

Year Population estimate Catch Natural production

1967 114,700 8,373 11,470

1968 40,000 2,600 3,200

1974 20,700 1,159 1,449

1979 74,500 6,183 3,725

1984 119,800 10,466 7,188

1985 107,700 12,385 7,539

1987 106,100 7,482 7,427

1990 36,700 858 2,569

Mean 5,571

Goal - Based on mark-recapture and length-age data, the mean annual production for white 

sturgeon during the baseline period is estimated to be 5,571. The goal of the CVPIA is to at least reach a 

population level of twice that amount, or 11,142.

Green sturgeon tagging and data analysis- During the baseline period, 143 green sturgeon were tagged. 

 An additional 26 were tagged between 1954 and 1965. None have been recaptured during subsequent 

sampling, so no independent estimate of abundance was possible. As an alternative, green sturgeon 

abundance in the estuary in fall was estimated by dividing white sturgeon abundance estimates by the ratio of 

white sturgeon to green sturgeon observed during tagging (Table 3-Xh-2). Additionally, since the number 

of green sturgeon captured each year was so low, no length-age analysis was available to provide 

information regarding production. Assumptions in the calculation of green sturgeon abundance are: 1) green 

and white sturgeon are equally vulnerable to trammel nets, 2) green and white sturgeon are randomly 

dispersed, and 3) equal numbers of green and white sturgeon reside within the sampling area. Green 

sturgeon abundance estimates are probably low because fewer green sturgeon are believed to reside yearround in San Pablo and San Francisco bays compared to white sturgeon.

Goal - Based on the ratio of white to green sturgeon observed during tagging, the estimate of green 

sturgeon abundance during the baseline period is 983. The goal under the CVPIA is to reach a population 

level of twice the amount, or 1,966.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-3

Table 3-Xh-2. Green sturgeon abundance estimates in the SacramentoSan Joaquin Estuary during the baseline period.

Year

White sturgeon 

abundance

Ratio of white to 

green sturgeon

Green sturgeon 

abundance

1967 11,4700 62:1 1,850

1968 40,000 38.6:1 1,036

1974 20,700 101.9:1 203

1979 74,500 52.6:1 1,416

1984 119,800 106.3:1 1,127

1985 107,700 127.3:1 846

1987 106,100 163.7:1 648

1990 36,700 49.6:1 738

Mean 77,525 983

Approach

The Sturgeon Technical Team's approach to developing recommendations for the AFRP was to assign 

drainages to individual team members (Table 3-Xh-3). Each team member was responsible for taking the 

lead role in developing recommendations for that assigned drainage. Individual team members enlisted the 

help of additional authors to help write sections, or additional authors were enlisted by the team leader.

Table 3-Xh-3. List of team members and additional authors assigned to writing

sections for each of the listed drainages.

Drainagea Assigned member Additional authorsb

Sacramento Kurt Brown, USFWS Jim De Staso, USFWS

Feather Patrick Foley, UCD Jim De Staso, USFWS

Bear Jim De Staso, USFWS

San Joaquin Dan Castleberry, USFWS

Delta Dave Kohlhorst, DFG Jim De Staso, USFWS

a The list of drainages includes rivers for which the team could find evidence of sturgeon spawning during 

the baseline period.
3-Xh-4 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

b

In addition to the listed authors, formatting and editorial changes were made by USFWS, primarily at 

the request of the Core Group.

To develop this report, the team first developed a list of potential limiting factors. This list is not included in 

the report. Each team member then selected those factors that were potentially limiting in the drainage and 

included those factors under the header "Limiting factors and potential solutions". Team members then 

selected a subset of those factors that they considered to be of primary importance and described 

restoration actions for these factors under the header "Restoration actions".

The task for the team was complicated by the fact that little is known about white sturgeon and less is 

known about green sturgeon in the Central Valley. Investigations have not been conducted to determine 

where and when sturgeon spawn, except for white sturgeon on the mainstem Sacramento River. The team 

often depended on information from anglers and DFG wardens and on entrainment data to help determine 

where and when sturgeon spawned. Also, except for Delta outflow, no information was available on flows 

needed for successful spawning and recruitment of sturgeon in the Central Valley. Because data collected 

for sturgeon in other drainages showed a direct relationship between high spring flows and recruitment, and 

because data for white sturgeon in the Delta showed the same relationship, the team developed a method 

for estimating flows necessary for successful reproduction of sturgeon.

Methods used to develop flow recommendations and predict benefits- Year-class indices (YCIs) and 

data on sturgeon salvage at the SWP, contained in WRINT-DFG-Exhibit 28, were used to identify years 

with good recruitment of white sturgeon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin river system. Of the years for 

which YCIs were presented in Figures 3 and 4 of Exhibit 28 (1968-1990), those with YCIs of at least 

twice the other YCIs were classified as good recruitment years. These years were 1969, 1975, 1978, 

1980, 1982, and 1983. All remaining years were classified as poor recruitment years. 

Flow recommendations were developed for gauging stations on the Sacramento, Feather, Bear, and San 

Joaquin rivers and in the Delta. For each year between 1968 and 1990, the mean monthly February-May 

flows were ranked from highest to lowest discharge. All good recruitment years occurred in either wet or 

above-normal years and their flows ranked at or near the top. Generally, the good recruitment year with the 

lowest mean monthly February-May flow was adopted as the flow standard. However, for some stations 

the good recruitment year with the second lowest mean February-May flow was selected as the flow 

standard because adoption of the lowest year's flow did not appreciably increase baseline production. 

Newly derived flow standards were set only for wet and above-normal water years. 

Predicted benefits from implementation of flow recommendations were also calculated for each river. A 

mean YCI was calculated for years between 1968 and 1990. A mean YCI was also calculated for years 

having flows equal to or greater than that recommended. The mean YCI from years with flows equal to or 

greater than the recommendation were substituted for YCIs in wet and above-normal years with flows less 

than the recommendation. After these substitutions, a new mean YCI was calculated for the period 

between 1968 and 1990. The new YCI for the years 1968 through 1990 represents increased sturgeon 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-5

production after implementation of flow standards. Percent increase in mean YCIs before and after flow 

implementation was calculated and assumed to represent increases in sturgeon production after increasing 

flows.

Research Needs

1. Continue tagging adult sturgeon to estimate abundance, distribution, mortality rates, and movement 

patterns. These activities will be necessary to determine the success of restoration actions.

2. Map and survey available broodstocks and spawning grounds, including their physical and chemical 

parameters, number of brood fish, Aspawnability@, and embryo survival.

3. Estimate juvenile sturgeon abundance and year-class strength. Monitor environmental parameters 

to relate year-class strengths to environmental conditions.

4. Evaluate effects of trace elements and organic contaminants on adult health, gamete viability, and 

early life stages. Address sources of contamination if adult health, viability of gametes, or early lifestage development is found to limit production. In particular, examine effects of selenium and 

PCBs.

5. Determine diets of larval and juvenile sturgeon. No studies on wild larval sturgeon diets have been 

conducted (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1992). White sturgeon larval diet 

probably consists of zooplankton while YOY white sturgeon, less than 51 inches, eat small 

crustaceans and aquatic insect larvae (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1992). If prey 

items are limiting, efforts to increase their abundance may increase larval survival.

6. Determine effects of predation on sturgeon eggs and early life stages. Currently, information on 

sturgeon egg and larva predation is limited. In the Columbia River, bottom feeders such as prickly 

sculpin, largescale sucker, common carp, and northern squawfish prey on white sturgeon eggs 

(Miller and Beckman 1993). In the Central Valley, carp (Anonymous 1940) and white catfish 

(Turner 1966) ingest sturgeon eggs, and striped bass may prey on early life stages (Anonymous 

1940). Steelhead, squawfish, and various centrarchids that prey on juvenile salmon may also prey 

on early life stages of sturgeon. Predation rates may also increase near structures creating water 

turbulence and casting shadows on the water surface and boundary edges (Cooper and Crowder 

1979). 

7. Develop a green sturgeon culture program. A culture program would be beneficial in determining 

food preferences, physical and chemical habitat requirements and tolerances, early life stage 

development, and effects of toxins. 
3-Xh-6 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Sacramento River

Limiting factors and potential solutions - Information is currently being gathered on poaching, harvest 

regulations, predation, and habitat suitability. Actions for these limiting factors may be added to future 

drafts.

Table 3-Xh-4. Limiting factors and potential solutions for

white and green sturgeon in the Sacramento River.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Inadequate flows for attraction, 

migration, and spawning of 

adults and transport and rearing 

of larvae and juveniles

1. Provide minimum or greater flows to ensure suitable 

conditions for sturgeon to migrate and spawn and 

their progeny to survive

2. Reduce or eliminate drastic changes in flow during 

critical periods (i.e., maintain constant flows).

2. Inadequate temperatures for 

initiation of spawning and final 

maturation of adults and survival 

of larvae and juveniles

1. Provide water at temperatures suitable for sturgeon 

to migrate, undergo the final stages of sexual 

maturation, and spawn and for their progeny to 

survive

2. Reduce or eliminate drastic temperature fluctuations 

during critical periods (e.g., large releases of cold 

water from reservoirs)

3. Loss of larval and juvenile 

sturgeon at water diversions

1. Identify extent of the problem

2. Reduce or eliminate entrainment of sturgeon larvae 

and juveniles

4. Passage past RBDD Raise RBDD gates from mid-September through June

5. Poor water quality 1. Increase flow of high-quality water

2. Prevent Iron Mountain Mine waste release into the 

Sacramento River

3. Decrease contamination of the river by agricultural 

chemicals and drainwater

4. Decrease exposure to excessive levels of trace 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-7

elements or other contaminants to acceptable levels

6. Possible construction of the 

GRF at the GCID diversion

Find alternative means of increasing head differential at 

GCID

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Provide mean monthly flows of at least 17,700 cfs at Grimes (RM 125) and at least 31,100 cfs 

at Verona (RM 80) between February and May for wet and above-normal water years.

Objective: Provide flows to allow adult migration from the estuary or ocean to spawning grounds, 

spawning, and downstream larval transport.

Location: Sacramento River at Grimes and Verona.

Narrative description: Flows for successful sturgeon reproduction in the Sacramento River have not been 

identified. In good recruitment years, mean monthly February-May flows ranged from 13,836 cfs to 

25,763 cfs at Grimes and 31,050 cfs to 60,202 cfs at Verona (Table 3-Xh-5).

Table 3-Xh-5. Mean monthly February-May discharge (cfs) at Grimes

(USGS station 11390500) and Verona (USGS station 11425500) 

on the Sacramento River.

Year

Mean February-May 

discharge at Grimes Year

Mean February-May 

discharge at Verona

1983 25,763 1983 60,202

1982 20,928 1982 49,176

1974 20,676 1974 44,873

1975 19,161 1969 42,080

1969 18,712 1986 37,741

1978 17,710 1975 34,276

1973 16,686 1978 33,874

1986 16,599 1973 33,168

1971 15,677 1980 31,050

1970 14,368 1970 29,977

1980 13,836 1971 28,644
3-Xh-8 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Year

Mean February-May 

discharge at Grimes Year

Mean February-May 

discharge at Verona

1968 13,456 1968 22,816

1981 11,500 1984 20,548

1972 11,098 1989 20,079

1979 10,632 1979 19,052

1984 10,579 1981 18,000

1989 10,307 1972 16,087

1987 9,770 1987 14,378

1976 8,372 1985 12,581

1988 7,858 1990 12,221

1985 7,202 1988 11,633

1990 6,411 1976 11,392

1977 5,259 1977 7,028

Note: Years are ranked from highest to lowest discharge with years with good white sturgeon recruitment 

in bold print.

In addition to empirical relationships of flow with reproduction, other information (e.g., water depth 

necessary for successful passage, discharge necessary to cue spawning, preferred water depths and 

velocities for spawning, and discharge necessary for larval transport and rearing) should be considered 

before final flow recommendations are adopted. Until these data are available interim flow standards should 

be as follows: for above-normal and wet years, mean monthly February-May flows of at least 17,700 cfs 

at Grimes (flows needed for spawning) and at least 31,100 cfs at Verona (flows needed for attraction).

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Sacramento River flows must be 

accompanied by other habitat restoration measures in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and in San 

Francisco and San Pablo bays. Because larvae and YOY fish have been found in the Delta and Suisun 

Bay, Sacramento River production could be reduced by mortality in these other areas.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities. The Sacramento River is a CVP stream with 

flow controlled by USBR.

Potential obstacles to implementation. Competing water uses and lack of technical information on 

sturgeon ecology.

Predicted benefits: Between 1968 and 1990, wet and above-normal water years occurred 12 times. 

During those 12 years, flows of at least 17,700 cfs occurred six times at Grimes, and flows of at least 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-9

31,100 cfs occurred nine times at Verona. Increasing flows in the remaining 6 above-normal and wet years 

to at least 17,700 cfs at Grimes will increase sturgeon production by 40%; increasing flows in the remaining 

3 above-normal and wet years to at least 31,100 cfs at Verona will increase production by 20%.

Action 2: Maintain water temperatures below 17 C (63 F) in sturgeon spawning areas from February to 

June in wet and above-normal water years.

Objective: Ensure that in-river temperatures are maintained at levels that optimize spawning, incubation, and 

survival of sturgeon early life stages.

Location: Sacramento River from ACID's irrigation dam (RM 299) to Verona.

Narrative description: Water temperatures greater than 17 C (63 F) can increase sturgeon egg and larval 

mortality (PSMFC 1992). Water temperatures near RBDD historically occur within optimum ranges for 

sturgeon reproduction. However, temperatures downstream of RBDD, especially later in the spawning 

season, are frequently above 17 C.

Observations from DFG and USFWS biologists indicate that sturgeon spawning has taken place near 

RBDD, and that temperatures during these times ranged from 10oC to 17 C (50-63 F). Water 

temperatures between Keswick Dam (RM 302) and RBDD historically have been suitable for spawning 

and early life-stage development. In 1973, 93% of spawning occurred in March and April at water 

temperatures between 46 and 64 F and eggs hatched at water temperatures up to 72 F.

Water temperatures downstream of RBDD are not always suitable for sturgeon reproduction. Daily 

minimum water temperatures were examined for the Sacramento River at Grimes for above-normal and wet 

years between February and June 1968-1994. Minimum temperatures were greater than or equal to 17 C 

(63 F) in 5 of 12 years in May, and 9 of 11 years in June. High water temperatures may deleteriously 

effect egg and larval survival, especially for late-spawning fish in drier water years. Minimum/maximum 

water temperatures at Verona were unavailable, but temperatures are assumed to increase downstream of 

Grimes to Verona further affecting early life-stage survival. Water temperatures should be maintained below 

17 C (63 F) in sturgeon spawning areas from February through May during above-normal and wet years.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Meeting flow standards specified under 

Action 1 may contribute to temperature reductions that would depend on the source of water for these 

flows. Use of the USBR temperature control model and other model development will help evaluate the 

potential for maintaining optimum sturgeon temperatures.

o

o o

o

o

o o

o o

o

o

o o

o
3-Xh-10 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USBR controls releases from Shasta and 

Keswick dams. Releases from these dams would be necessary for temperature control in the Sacramento 

River.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Implementation will require identification of flows necessary 

to meet temperature criteria. Maintaining temperature standards late in the season may be difficult. Small 

tributary streams, with water temperatures that cannot be controlled, may affect Sacramento River

temperatures downstream of RBDD.

Predicted benefits: Temperatures in the Sacramento River appear high enough in some years to reduce egg 

and larval survival. Temperature reductions below 17 C in May and June have the potential to restore 

spawning habitat and increase survival of early life stages of sturgeon. The contribution toward restoration 

goals cannot be quantified.

Action 3: Reduce sturgeon entrainment at both screened and unscreened diversions.

Objective: Increase sturgeon production by reducing entrainment losses.

Location: Sacramento River from Keswick Dam to Verona. Sites of specific concern are the Bonnyview 

pumping plant (RM 292), RBDD, GCID (RM 206), and the ACID diversion (RM 298.5).

Narrative description: More than 300 unscreened diversions exist on the Sacramento River from Keswick 

to Verona. The majority of diversions operate from April through October, which could result in larval and 

juvenile sturgeon entrainment. Specific studies on sturgeon entrainment in the Sacramento River do not 

exist, but limited data show that entrainment occurs at RBDD and GCID.

At RBDD, salmonid entrainment has nearly been eliminated with the installation of a new drum screen 

facility in 1991. However, eight larval sturgeon were captured in the TCC fyke nets between 1987 and 

1991, even though screens meet NMFS criteria to protect salmon fry. Because sturgeon larvae are 

considerably smaller than salmonid fry of the same age, current mesh criteria may not prevent entrainment. 

To determine if larval sturgeon entrainment is significant, monitoring in the TCC and the Corning Canals 

should continue. Juvenile sturgeon entrainment also occurs at RBDD. Several juvenile green sturgeon were 

impinged on a diffuser grate, apparently unable to escape water velocities entering a diffuser bay. 

Inadequate diffuser bay design and approach velocities may result in juvenile impingement.

Estimates of sturgeon entrainment at GCID are unknown, but it is likely that 1,162 sturgeon were captured 

at or near GCID between 1986 and 1993. Of the limited number of larvae and juveniles identified, all were 

green sturgeon. To minimize entrainment, fish screens were installed at GCID in 1972, but since then screen 

effectiveness has been reduced by substantial changes in water depth and velocity at the diversion entrance. 

 DFG has identified increased approach velocities and predation as main causes of juvenile fish mortality. 

o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-11

Legislation passed in 1992 authorized 75% federal funding for new screens (Waterline 1993). Until the 

design is agreed on and the EIR reviewed, GCID will rely on interim modifications to alleviate the problem. 

The diversion should continue to be monitored to assess impacts on larval and juvenile sturgeon.

To reduce losses at unscreened diversions, USBR conducted screening workshops for Sacramento River 

diverters in 1993. Attendees included diverters, screen designers, fabricators, and vendors. Another action 

initiated under CVPIA Section 3406(b)(21) is the unscreened diversions program. USFWS developed an 

accelerated effort to allow the screening of some diversions in fiscal year 1994. Roughly 23 proposed 

projects have been selected and will be evaluated for effectiveness.

For entrainment to be reduced at screened and unscreened diversions, information should be gathered on 

the following: 1) numbers, types, and sizes of unscreened and screened diversions on the Sacramento 

River; 2) fish losses caused by diversions; 3) feasibility of installing positive barrier screens to reduce losses; 

4) estimated costs of screen design, installation, maintenance, and evaluation; 5) availability of funding; 6) 

feasibility of seasonal management options (e.g., pumping restrictions, monitoring requirements, or 

alternative water supplies) that would reduce losses; and 7) swimming capabilities of various sturgeon life 

stages.

Sturgeon entrainment at both screened and unscreened diversions should be reduced through employment 

of state-of-the-art screening technology and evaluation of management options. Also, design of diffuser 

gates and bays at RBDD should be examined.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Work on the Research Pumping Plant may 

produce alternative methods for diverting water while minimizing entrainment at RBDD.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Federal and state agencies, as well as irrigation 

districts and local diverters.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Costs associated with redesigning screens to prevent 

entrainment.

Predicted benefits: Because no numeric estimates of sturgeon entrainment are available at GCID, RBDD, 

or other diversions, benefits cannot be quantified. If sturgeon entrainment is reduced or eliminated, 

production would increase.

Action 4: Raise RBDD gates from mid-September through June.

Objective: Provide unimpeded adult sturgeon migration to spawning habitat above RBDD.
3-Xh-12 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Location: RBDD.

Narrative description: Major physical barriers to adult sturgeon migration on the mainstem Sacramento 

River are RBDD and ACID's diversion dam. Unimpeded migration past RBDD occurs when gates are 

raised roughly between mid-September through early May as mandated by NMFS. Passage past the 

ACID diversion dam occurs from November through March when flashboards are removed. Both RBDD 

and the ACID diversion dam have fish ladders primarily designed to facilitate salmonid passage.

With RBDD gates and ACID open, Keswick Dam (RM 302) is theoretically the upstream migration 

barrier. Current upstream migration limits are unknown, but when sturgeon are provided with the 

opportunity to migrate to Keswick Dam, migration appears to end between Ball's Ferry and Jelly's Ferry

bridges (Wigham pers. comm.). No adult sturgeon have been observed above or below the ACID 

diversion dam in recent memory (Preston pers. comm.).

Current operations closing RBDD gates in mid-May pose three problems for sturgeon. First, some 

sturgeon may be prevented from spawning. Evidence suggests that females prevented from reaching 

preferred spawning grounds reabsorb eggs and forgo spawning (Barannikova 1968). Second, potential 

spawning habitat is blocked. Keeping gates open through June will provide 25 additional miles of spawning 

habitat for an additional 45 days. Habitat between RBDD and Jelly's Ferry Bridge (RM 267) contains swift 

current and pools over 20 feet deep preferred by spawning sturgeon. Third, adult and larvae are prevented 

from migrating downstream after spawning. Larvae trapped behind RBDD gates may experience mortality 

as a result of entrainment and from high shear forces as larvae pass under the gates. Mortality of juvenile 

salmon passing under RBDD gates is high as a result of shear forces, and similar effects are likely for larval 

sturgeon (Williams pers. comm.). Effects on adult sturgeon attempting downstream migration with gates 

lowered are unknown. Measures to provide unimpeded passage past RBDD are likely to benefit mostly 

green sturgeon because most appear to spawn further upstream than white sturgeon.

To facilitate passage of adult and juvenile sturgeon, RBDD gates should be raised from mid-September 

through June.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Actions for other anadromous fish may 

recommend keeping gates open longer. Completion and testing of the Research Pumping Plant may permit 

water diversion without RBDD gates being closed. At present, the Research Pumping Plant may not be 

able to provide enough water for demands through June.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USBR has control over RBDD operations. 

Also, the Tehama-Colusa Irrigation District and other water users may play a role in operations.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Tehama-Colusa Irrigation District, USBR, and recreational 

users may resist implementation.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-13

Predicted benefits: Keeping gates open through June will provide increased spawning habitat and allow 

unimpeded downstream migration of larvae and adults. Benefits cannot be quantified.

Action 5: Improve water quality.

Objective: Improve sturgeon production by providing water quality essential to adult and early life-stage 

survival.

Location: Sacramento River from Keswick Dam to Verona.

Narrative description: Organic contaminants from agricultural drainwater, urban and agricultural runoff from 

storm events, and high trace element concentrations may deleteriously affect early life-stage survival of fish in 

the Sacramento River. Principal sources of organic contamination in the Sacramento River are rice field 

discharges from Butte Slough, USBR District 108, Colusa Basin Drain, Sacramento Slough, and Jack 

Slough, and the principal source of heavy metal pollution is Iron Mountain Mine discharges.

Discharge of rice irrigation water and its collection at the edge of the zone of initial dilution has caused 

mortality to both Ceriodaphnia and fathead minnows in the Sacramento River. Mortality was attributed to 

various organic compounds contained in rice field discharges. Also, DFG found correlations between larval 

striped bass abundance in the Delta and pounds of methyl parathion applied to rice fields (CVRWQCB 

1991). Based on available data, it is believed that rice field discharges in May and June could effect 

sturgeon larvae survival. Also, recent studies in the Sacramento-San Joaquin basin indicate that application 

of the dormant spray pesticide dianzinon during January can lead to pulses in the Sacramento and San 

Joaquin rivers following rain. Pulses in both rivers were found to be acutely toxic to aquatic invertebrates. 

Effects on sturgeon through direct or indirect exposure are unknown (Foe 1995).

Trace elements can also decrease sturgeon early life-stage survival. Trace elements can cause abnormal 

development and high mortality in yolk-sac fry sturgeon at concentrations at the level of parts per billion 

(Dettlaff et al. 1981). Water discharges from Iron Mountain Mine, contaminated with heavy metals, have 

affected survival of fish downstream of Keswick Dam. Trace element concentrations were reduced in 1963 

with construction of Spring Creek Debris Dam. Iron Mountain Mine drainage is partially controlled by 

water being stored and discharged with available dilution flows from Shasta Dam and Spring Creek Debris 

Dam. But storage limitations in Spring Creek Reservoir and limited availability of dilution flows cause 

downstream copper and zinc levels to exceed salmonid tolerances. Five fish kills have occurred 

downstream of Keswick Dam since 1963. Also, rainbow trout livers sampled between 1981 and 1987 

contained high levels of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc. Although the 

impact of trace elements (specifically from Iron Mountain Mine) on sturgeon production is not completely 

understood, negative impacts are suspected. It is also not known how far downstream impacts occur and 

under what conditions trace elements are mobilized.
3-Xh-14 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

To reduce impacts of heavy metal contamination, implementation of the EPA Superfund Program, which 

would eventually eliminate Iron Mountain Mine dilution flow releases, should continue.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Increased flows of uncontaminated water 

may help dilute contaminant concentrations in the water.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: USBR, EPA, RWQCB, and other agencies 

involved with setting water quality standards.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Entities accustomed to using chemicals and discharging 

contaminated water into the Sacramento River are likely to resist implementation of the action. Cost 

associated with treatment of runoff, if necessary, may cause resistance to implementation.

Predicted benefits: Reduced contaminant levels would improve habitat for all aquatic organisms. Sturgeon 

egg and larval survival would increase, but benefits cannot be quantified.

Action 6: Devise alternative methods other than the GRF to increase head differential for the GCID bypass 

system.

Objective: Facilitate unimpeded passage past GCID.

Location: GCID diversion.

Narrative description: GCID diverts water from the Sacramento River at RM 206. A plan exists for screen 

modifications and possible construction of a GRF. The GRF consists of an instream structure designed to 

raise upstream river levels, allowing more flow directed toward the screening facility and pumping plant.

A draft EIR/EIS (Resource Consultants and Engineers 1994) reports that the GRF may impede upstreammigrating adult sturgeon and downstream transport of larvae. Current information on sturgeon swimming 

speeds is not sufficient for evaluation of potential passage problems imposed by the GRF. Swimming 

speeds vary for each sturgeon life stage and the GRF configuration may not suit all stages (HDR Engineering 

1994). The draft EIR/EIS does not include a GRF as a preferred alternative, but recommends 

consideration of other methods, such as a screw pump system.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Work on the Research Pumping Plant at 

Red Bluff may negate the need for a GRF.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: NMFS, USFWS, DFG, and GCID.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-15

Potential obstacles to implementation: Cost associated with developing alternatives to the GRF.

Predicted benefits: Alternative methods for increasing head differential that would lessen impacts on adult 

and larval sturgeon passage will decrease losses of larval and juvenile sturgeon at GCID. Benefits cannot 

be quantified.

Feather River

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Table 3-Xh-6. Limiting factors and potential solutions for white and

green sturgeon in the Feather River.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Inadequate flows for 

attraction, migration, and 

spawning of adults and 

transport and rearing of larvae 

and juveniles

1. Provide mean monthly February-May flows of at 

least 7,000 cfs at Gridley and at least 11,500 cfs at 

Nicolaus during above-normal and wet water years

2. Reduce or eliminate drastic changes in flow during 

critical periods

2. Inadequate temperatures for 

initiation of spawning and final 

maturation of adults and survival 

of larvae and juveniles

1. Maintain water temperatures below 17 C (63 F) in 

sturgeon spawning areas and below 20 C (68 F) 

throughout the Feather River during February-May 

during wet and normal years

2. Reduce or eliminate drastic temperature fluctuations 

during critical periods

3. Barriers that prevent or slow the 

migration of sturgeon to 

spawning habitat

1. Identify potential barriers (physical as well as water 

quality barriers)

2. Evaluate the extent of the problem

3. Remove barriers or facilitate passage around 

barriers

4. Loss of sturgeon larvae and 

juveniles resulting from 

entrainment

1. Identify the extent of the problem

2. Reduce or eliminate entrainment of sturgeon larvae 

o o

o o
3-Xh-16 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

5. Size of spawning stock 1. Improve conditions for production of sturgeon

2. Reduce mortality of early life stages

3. Reduce mortality of adults (identify extent of fishing 

mortality and poaching)

6. Poor water quality 1. Increase flows of high-quality water

2. Decrease contamination of the river by agricultural 

chemicals and drain water

3. Decrease exposure to excessive levels of trace 

elements or other contaminants to acceptable levels

7. Availability of suitable spawning 

habitat

1. Identify spawning sites

2. Evaluate availability of suitable spawning substrates

3. If substrates limit success of sturgeon spawning, take 

appropriate corrective action

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Provide mean monthly February-May flows of at least 7,000 cfs at Gridley and at least 11,500 

cfs at Nicolaus during wet and above-normal water years.

Objective: Provide minimum or greater flows to ensure suitable conditions for adult sturgeon to migrate 

upstream and spawn and for their progeny to survive. Reduce or eliminate drastic flow changes during 

critical reproductive periods.

Location: Feather River from Thermalito Afterbay outlet to the confluence with the Sacramento River.

Narrative description: Little information exists on green or white sturgeon in the Feather River. Although 

sturgeon are known to migrate into the Feather River, little effort has been made to document reproduction. 

 Despite the lack of technical information, enough evidence exists in the form of observations by biologists, 

anglers, fishing guides, and tackle shop employees to provide a basis for making recommendations needed 

to increase sturgeon production in the Feather River.

Adult sturgeon migrated into the Feather River historically and in more recent times. Several articles recount 

large sturgeon having been caught in the Feather River in the early 1900s (Talbitzer 1959, Anonymous 
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-17

1918). More recent observations include the recovery of one tagged adult sturgeon in April 1968 (Miller 

1972a). Green sturgeon were caught every year during the mid-1970s to early 1980s (anonymous fishing 

guide). The majority of catches occurred between March and May with occasional catches in July and 

August. Although adult sturgeon were present in the Feather River in the 1970s, efforts to sample larval 

sturgeon at the mouth of the Feather River in 1973 were unsuccessful. During spring 1991, two radiotagged adult white sturgeon were tracked 2.5 miles up the Feather River. Subsequent efforts to relocate 

these fish were unsuccessful (Schaffter 1991). Finally, during spring 1993, several adult green sturgeon 

(lengths of 60-72 inches) were caught at Thermalito Afterbay outlet (Foley pers. comm.).

White sturgeon in the Sacramento River start migrating in October and spawning in February (Schaffter 

pers. comm.). Most white sturgeon in the Central Valley spawn in March and April, and approximately 

20%-30% spawn in February and June (Doroshov pers. comm.). Adult green and white sturgeon catches 

in the Feather River indicate that most spawning occurs between March and May. Exact spawning 

locations are unknown, but based on angler catches, likely spawning locations are considered to be 

downstream of Thermalito Afterbay outlet and Cox's Spillway, just downstream of Gridley Bridge. The 

upstream migration barrier is likely a steep riffle 1mile upstream of the Afterbay outlet. This riffle is 

approximately 394 feet long with average water depth of 6 inches.

In good sturgeon recruitment years, mean monthly February-May flows ranged from 3,488 cfs to 20,505 

cfs at Gridley and 7,028 cfs to 35,234 cfs at Nicolaus (Table 3-Xh-7).

Table 3-Xh-7. Mean monthly February-May discharge (cfs) at Gridley

(USGS station 11407150) and Nicolaus (USGS station 11425000)

on the Feather River.

Gridley Nicolaus

Year Discharge Year Discharge

1983 20,505 1983 35,234

1986 15,370 1982 29,513

1982 14,797 1970 26,511

1974 12,611 1974 22,489

1969 10,911 1969 21,028

1971 7,427 1973 11,582

1980 6,956 1978 11,453

1970 6,067 1971 11,113

1973 5,914 1975 8,272

1978 5,090 1980 7,028
3-Xh-18 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Gridley Nicolaus

1984 4,409 1979 6,627

1975 3,488 1981 4,336

1979 3,186 1972 4,070

1990 3,171 1976 2,582

1985 2,818 1977 1,458

1981 2,780

1972 2,552

1988 2,261

1976 2,001

1989 1,928

1987 1,846

1968 1,354

1977 1,275

Note: Years ranked from highest to lowest discharge, with years with good white sturgeon recruitment in 

bold print. Only years for which discharge data were available for each site are listed. Data for the 

Nicolaus station were recorded only between 1969 and 1983.

In addition to empirical relationships of flow with reproduction, other information (e.g., water depth 

necessary for successful passage, discharge necessary to cue spawning, preferred water depths and 

velocities for spawning, and discharge necessary for larval transport and rearing) should be considered 

before final flow recommendations are set. Until these data are available, interim flow standards should be 

as follows: above-normal and wet water-year mean February-March flows of at least 7,000 cfs at Gridley 

and at least 11,500 cfs at Nicolaus.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Feather River flows must be accompanied 

by other habitat restoration measures in the Sacramento River, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and San 

Francisco and San Pablo bays. Because larvae and YOY fish have been found in the Delta and Suisun 

Bay, Feather River production could be reduced by mortality in these other areas.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: All public and private entities responsible for 

setting and meeting flow standards on the Feather River.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Competing water uses and lack of technical information on 

sturgeon ecology.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-19

Predicted benefits: Twelve above-normal and wet water years occurred between 1968 and 1990. Flows 

exceeded 7,000 cfs at Gridley in 7 of 12 years. Increasing flows to at least 7,000 cfs at Gridley in the 

remaining 5 years will increase production by 20%.

Action 2: Maintain water temperatures below 17 C (63 F) in sturgeon spawning areas and below 20 C 

(68 F) throughout the Feather River during February-May during above-normal and wet water years.

Objectives: Provide water temperatures required for initiation of spawning, final sexual maturation of adults, 

and survival of eggs and larvae. Reduce or eliminate drastic temperature fluctuations during critical periods 

(e.g., large releases of cold water from Oroville Dam).

Location: Feather River from Thermalito Afterbay outlet to the confluence with the Sacramento River.

Narrative description: Daily minimum and maximum water temperatures were examined in the Feather 

River just downstream of Thermalito Afterbay outlet for March-June 1991-1994. Minimum daily 

temperatures exceeded 17 C in April in 1 year and exceeded 17 C in June in all 4 years. High water 

temperatures are in part caused by water releases from Thermalito Afterbay. Releases can raise water 

temperatures in approximately 14 miles of river (from the Afterbay outlet to the mouth of Honcut Creek) 

compared to water in the low-flow channel. Effects of Thermalito Afterbay releases can vary with ambient 

air temperature, release rates, residence time, and flow contribution from the low-flow channel. Based on 

these data, it is likely that high water temperatures may deleteriously affect sturgeon egg and larval 

development, especially for late-spawning fish in drier water years.

Water temperatures should be maintained below 17 C (63 F) in sturgeon spawning areas, and below 

20 C (68 F) throughout the Feather River during February-May of above-normal and wet years.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Meeting flow standards specified under 

Action 1 will contribute to temperature reductions that would depend on the source of water for these 

flows. DWR has contracted with the University of California, Davis, to develop a water temperature model 

for the Feather River. This model could be used to help manage water temperatures for successful sturgeon 

spawning. Completion of the temperature model should improve ability of managers to meet temperature 

criteria. Control of water temperatures may be complicated by Thermalito Afterbay releases, agricultural 

returns, and warmer ambient air temperatures as spring progresses.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DWR, local municipalities, and private irrigation 

districts control the quantity of water flowing into the Feather River share responsibility in meeting 

temperature criteria.

o o

o o

o o

o o o

o
3-Xh-20 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Potential obstacles to implementation: Implementation will require identification of flows necessary 

to meet temperature criteria. Increased Oroville Dam releases may be required to meet temperature 

standards downstream. Increased Oroville Dam releases are likely to decrease power generation.

Predicted benefits: Temperatures in the Feather River appear high enough in some years to reduce egg and 

larval survival. Temperature reductions below 17 C in May and June have the potential to restore 

spawning habitat and increase survival of early life-stages of sturgeon. The contribution toward restoration 

goals cannot be quantified.

Action 3: Remove physical and water quality barriers that impede access to spawning habitat.

Objective: Identify potential physical and water quality barriers and determine the extent of the problem. 

Once barriers identified, remove or facilitate passage around these barriers.

Location: Feather River from Thermalito Afterbay outlet to the confluence with the Sacramento River.

Narrative description: Although not well documented, low flows and physical obstructions can impede 

sturgeon migration. For example, blasting was required to remove an in-river obstacle on the Klamath 

River that was determined to impede sturgeon migration (USFWS 1982). If delays at barriers cause later 

spawning, then removal should result in earlier spawning. Earlier spawning sturgeon are less likely to be 

exposed to high temperatures and poor water quality commonly occurring in April and May. Delayed 

upstream migration at barriers also has the potential to increase the vulnerability of migrating sturgeon to 

fishing and poaching. Potential physical barriers to upstream migration in the Feather River are a rock dam 

at Sutter Extension Water District's sunrise pumps, shallow water at Shanghai Bend, and several shallow 

riffles between the confluence of Honcut Creek upstream to Thermalito Afterbay outlet. Ted Sommer 

(pers. comm.) thought each of the above listed physical barriers could impede adult upstream migration 

during low flows.

Potential water quality barriers on the Feather River have not been identified. However, discharge from the 

Gridley Waste Water Treatment Plant and agriculture drainwater, particularly from Jack Slough, may 

produce low dissolved oxygen levels and contain organic contaminants creating water quality problems 

impeding migration.

Sturgeon migration barriers should be identified and action taken to eliminate or reduce impacts.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Flows specified under Action 1 should help 

reduce passage problems associated with low flows.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: All public and private entities with control over 

placement and removal of barriers and setting Feather River flow standards. Also, all entities responsible 

for waste or drainwater discharge into the Feather River.

o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-21

Potential obstacles to implementation: To the extent that flows may be needed to address passage 

problems, availability of water to provide flows may be an obstacle to implementation. Dischargers are 

likely to resist implementation.

Predicted benefits: If barriers exist, then their removal will allow sturgeon access to new spawning habitat, 

allow access to spawning habitat earlier in the spawning season, require less energy for sturgeon to reach 

spawning habitat, and decrease the vulnerability of sturgeon to capture during migration. If barriers exist 

and are removed or modified, sturgeon production may increase, but such increase cannot be quantified.

Action 4: Reduce sturgeon entrainment.

Objective: Identify the extent of sturgeon entrainment. Increase survival of sturgeon larvae and juveniles by 

reducing or eliminating entrainment.

Location: The Feather River from Thermalito Afterbay outlet to the confluence with the Sacramento River.

Narrative description: Eight large diversions (greater than 10 cfs) are located on the Feather River between 

the confluence with the Sacramento River and Thermalito Afterbay outlet: Hamatani Brothers (RM 9.75), 

Garden Highway Mutual Water Company (RM 13.1), Feather Water District (RM 15.2), Plumas Mutual 

Water Company (RM 17.5), Tudor Mutual Water Company (RM 18.4), Feather Water District (RM 

20.4), City of Yuba City (RM 29.6), and Sutter Extension Water District's sunrise pumps (RM 38.1). 

Additionally, approximately 60 small, unscreened diversions exist along the Feather River, each with 

pumping rates of approximately 1-10 cfs (Libby pers. comm.).

No studies have specifically examined sturgeon entrainment on the Feather River. However, Menchen 

(1980) showed that diverters could entrain significant numbers of chinook salmon. In 1977-1978, DFG 

studied juvenile salmon entrainment at the Sutter Extension Water District's sunrise pumps. In 1977, 

23,461 af of water was diverted, resulting in an estimated loss of 30,413 salmon. In 1978, 6,877 af of 

water was diverted, resulting in salmon losses estimated at 3,887 (Menchen 1980). Although Menchen 

(pers. comm.) recalls no larval or juvenile sturgeon being captured, the use of 3-inch mesh at the cod end 

likely allowed larval sturgeon to pass through.

Sturgeon are vulnerable to entrainment elsewhere in the Central Valley. Sturgeon have been collected at 

RBDD and the GCID diversion dam on the Sacramento River and at the CVP and SWP pumps in the 

Delta.

The extent of the problem on the Feather River should be investigated. If a problem is found to exist, these 

diversions should be screened with state-of-the-art fish screening technology. Entrainment can also be 

reduced by limitations being placed on diversions.
3-Xh-22 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Flows described in Action 1 may decrease 

residence time of larval sturgeon, thereby reducing time they are susceptible to entrainment.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Federal and state agencies, as well as irrigation 

districts and other diverters.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Lack of information on extent of sturgeon entrainment on the 

Feather River. Also, the cost of installing and maintaining screens may be an obstacle.

Predicted benefits: Entrainment of sturgeon, if a problem, should be eliminated. The level of contribution 

toward the restoration goal remains unknown, but benefits would include decreased early life-stage 

mortality.

Action 5: Determine effects of poaching and fishing on spawning stock size.

Objective: Increase the size of the spawning stock if it is significantly reduced by poaching or fishing.

Location: The Feather River from Thermalito Afterbay outlet to the confluence with the Sacramento River.

Narrative description: A sturgeon fishery exists on the Feather River with catches occurring every year, 

especially during wet years. However, lack of catch, effort, and stock size data precludes exploitation 

estimates. Estimates on the above parameters would allow managers to regulate the fishery to optimize 

production. Areas just downstream of Thermalito Afterbay outlet and Cox's Spillway, and several barriers 

impeding migration may be areas of high adult mortality from increased fishing effort and poaching.

Poaching appears rare on the Feather River and therefore probably has a minimal impact on adult mortality 

(Hodges pers. comm.). Although poaching does not appear to be a significant problem, poaching on the 

Bear River (see "Bear River" subsection, below) raises concern over similar activities on the Feather River.

Because so little is known about how stock size, exploitation rates, and poaching affect production, the 

Feather River sturgeon fishery should be closely monitored by biologists and game wardens. If production 

is significantly reduced by fishing or poaching, corrective efforts should be initiated.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Increased flows and removal or 

modification of barriers would make sturgeon less vulnerable to angling and poaching.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Population monitoring can be conducted by 

federal, state, and private consulting firms. The California Fish and Game Commission and DFG are 

responsible for fishing regulations and law enforcement activities.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-23

Potential obstacles to implementation: None identified.

Predicted benefits: Because so little is known about how stock size, exploitation rates, and poaching affect 

production, monitoring and surveillance of the fishery will provide data necessary to regulate production.

Action 6: Improve water quality.

Objective: Improve the survival and condition of sturgeon.

Location: Feather River from Thermalito Afterbay outlet to the confluence with the Sacramento River.

Narrative description: Organic contaminants from agricultural returns, urban and agricultural runoff from 

storm events, and high trace-element concentrations may affect early life stages of fish in the Feather River 

(Foe pers. comm.; Schnagl pers. comm.).

Feather River water collected at Verona on May 27 and June 5, 1987, resulted in a 50% and 60% 

mortality in Ceriodaphnia and fathead minnow bioassays, respectively. Similar effects of Feather River 

water were seen in 1988 and 1989 (RWQCB 1991). Toxic effects were attributed to organic 

contaminants in rice irrigation water released into Jack Slough and into Honcut Creek and Bear River to a 

lesser degree (Foe pers. comm.). Based on these data, it is reasonable to suspect negative impacts on 

sturgeon eggs and larvae in the Feather River in May and June.

Trace elements can also negatively affect embryos and prelarval sturgeon survival, with concentrations as 

low as a few micrograms per liter being toxic to fish (Dettlaff 1993). From 1978 to 1987, various fish 

species in the Feather River had levels of arsenic, chromium, copper, and mercury exceeding median 

international standards. Presence of these trace elements may negatively affect sturgeon early life-stage 

development.

Contaminant levels in the Feather River should be reduced through enforcement of existing regulations or by 

creation and enforcement of new regulations. Monitoring should be increased especially at known 

discharge points.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Increased flows of uncontaminated water 

would help dilute contaminant concentrations in the water.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Water dischargers and chemical users in the 

Feather River drainage. Federal, state, and local agencies involved with enforcement and creation of water 

quality standards.
3-Xh-24 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Potential obstacles to implementation: Dischargers are likely to resist implementation of the action. 

Cost associated with treatment of runoff, if necessary, may cause resistance to implementation.

Predicted benefits: Reduced contaminant levels would improve habitat for all aquatic organisms. Increased 

egg and larval survival would increase production. Benefits cannot be quantified.

Action 7: Identify availability of suitable spawning habitat.

Objective: Identify potential sturgeon spawning sites and evaluate availability of such sites to adults. Take 

corrective actions if suitable spawning habitat is limiting.

Location: The Feather River from Thermalito Afterbay outlet to the confluence with the Sacramento River.

Narrative description: Sturgeon spawning habitat can vary greatly by species, geographic location, and 

habitat availability. Sturgeon outside the Central Valley commonly spawn over large gravel, rocks, or 

compact clay substrates with depths greater than 32.8 feet and velocities of 4.9-9.8 fps (Doroshov pers. 

comm.). Schaffter (1990) found evidence of Sacramento River sturgeon spawning over gravel and rubble 

bottoms, and sturgeon spawning in the San Joaquin River were observed using shallow, soft-bottom stream 

reaches (Rutherford pers. comm.).

Spawning habitat/substrate of sturgeon in the Feather River is unknown. Spawning may be limited to areas 

directly below Thermalito Afterbay outlet and Cox's Spillway. Substrate in the Feather River closely 

resembles that of the upper Sacramento River (above Hamilton City). Nearly exclusive collection of young 

green sturgeon near GCID and the apparent high ratio of green to white sturgeon on the Feather River may 

indicate different spawning habitat preferences for white and green sturgeon. Sturgeon spawning habitat and 

its accessibility should be determined.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Increased flow and removal or modification 

of barriers could increase available spawning sites.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Those entities responsible for flows, channel 

morphology and restoration, and removal or modification of barriers.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Information on sturgeon spawning needs is fragmentary. 

Because of depths and velocities of suspected spawning habitat, information is difficult to obtain.

Predicted benefits: If lack of spawning habitat and/or access to spawning habitat is limiting, corrective 

measures could increase reproduction. Benefits cannot be quantified.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-25

Bear River

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Table 3-Xh-8. Limiting factors and potential solutions for white

and green sturgeon in the Bear River.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Insufficient flows for attraction, 

upstream migration, spawning, 

rearing and downstream 

larvae transport

Provide mean monthly flows of at least 900 cfs at 

Wheatland from February to May for wet and abovenormal water years

2. Inadequate water 

temperatures for initiation of 

spawning, final maturation of 

adults, and survival of eggs 

and larvae

Maintain water temperatures below 17 C (63 F) 

throughout the Bear River from February to May for wet 

and above-normal water years

3. Decreased production from 

poaching and early life-stage 

mortality

1. Improve conditions for the production of sturgeon

2. Reduce mortality of adults (poaching and potentially 

fishing)

3. Reduce mortality of early life stages (see 

entrainment, water quality, water temperature, etc.)

4. Barriers that prevent or slow 

sturgeon migration to spawning 

habitat

1. Identify potential barriers to upstream sturgeon 

migration (physical and/or water quality barriers)

2. Evaluate extent of the problem

3. Remove barriers or facilitate passage around

5. Loss of sturgeon larvae resulting 

from entrainment

1. Identify possible entrainment sites

2. Reduce or eliminate entrainment of sturgeon larvae

6. Poor habitat quality resulting 

from organic compound and 

1. Identify potential sites of poor water quality

o o
3-Xh-26 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

heavy metal contamination 2. Increase flow of uncontaminated water

3. Decrease contamination by agricultural return flows 

and heavy metals

4. Decrease exposure to contaminants to acceptable 

levels

7. Lack of suitable spawning habitat 1. Identify spawning sites

2. Evaluate availability of suitable spawning substrates

3. If spawning habitat is limited, take appropriate 

corrective measures

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Provide mean monthly February-May flows of at least 900 cfs at Wheatland for above-normal 

and wet water years.

Objective: Provide minimum or greater flows to ensure suitable conditions for adult sturgeon to migrate 

upstream and spawn and for their progeny to survive. Reduce or eliminate drastic flow changes during 

critical reproductive periods.

Location: Bear River from SSWD's diversion dam to the confluence with the Feather River.

Narrative description: Little information exists for green or white sturgeon in the Bear River. Although 

sturgeon are known to migrate into the Bear River, no effort has been made to document reproduction. 

Despite the lack of technical information, enough evidence exists in the form of observations by biologists, 

anglers, fishing guides, and tackle shop employees to provide a basis for making recommendations needed 

to increase sturgeon production in the Bear River.

Both green and white sturgeon are known to enter the Bear River typically during spring of most wet and 

some normal water years (Lenihan, Meyer, and Turner pers. comms.). Adult sturgeon were observed in 

shallow pools between the Highway 70 and Highway 65 bridges during spring of 1989, 1990, and 1992 

(Lenihan pers. comm.).

During July 1989, approximately 100 sturgeon were trapped in pools between the Highway 70 and 

Highway 65 bridges as a result of reduced flows (Meyer pers. comm.). At least 30-40 sturgeon (ranging 

from 60 pounds and 100 pounds and at least 5 feet long) were poached from this area during a 2-week 

period in July. Of seven sturgeon confiscated by DFG Game Wardens, all were white sturgeon.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-27

Direct evidence of sturgeon reproduction does not exist, but observations of adults between Highway 70 

and Highway 65 bridges indicates that spawning is likely in this area. The presence of preferred spawning 

habitat of pools 20-30 feet deep and firm substrate also support the conclusion that spawning in this area is 

likely. Although no adult sturgeon have been observed above the Highway 65 Bridge, anecdotal accounts 

of large fish being hooked below the SSWD irrigation dam may indicate that sturgeon migrate to this point 

(Milton pers. comm.).

Flows for successful sturgeon reproduction in the Bear River have not been identified. During good 

production years, mean monthly February-May flow was at least 900 cfs at Wheatland. Until data are 

available to establish final flow standards, interim flow standards should be as follows: for above-normal 

and wet water years, mean monthly February-May flows of at least 900 cfs at Wheatland.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Bear River flows must be accompanied by 

other habitat restoration measures in the Feather and Sacramento rivers, the Delta, and San Pablo and San 

Francisco bays. Because larvae and YOY fish have been found in the Delta and Suisun Bay, Bear River 

production could be decreased by mortality in these downstream areas.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: All public and private entities responsible for 

setting and meeting flow standards on the Bear River.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Competing water uses and lack of technical information on 

sturgeon ecology.

Predicted benefits: Twelve above-normal and wet water years occurred between 1969 and 1987. Nine of 

the 12 years had flows above 900 cfs. Increasing flows in the remaining 3 years to at least 900 cfs would 

increase sturgeon production in the Bear River by 20%.

Action 2: Maintain water temperatures below 17 C (63 F) throughout the Bear River from February 

through May during above-normal and wet water years.

Objective: Improve cues for sturgeon migration and final sexual maturation and improve spawning success 

and larval survival.

Location: Bear River from SSWD's diversion dam to the confluence with the Feather River.

Narrative description: Data on daily minimum and maximum temperatures for the Bear River are 

unavailable. However, limited water temperature data presented in the incomplete Lower Bear River 

o o
3-Xh-28 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Fishery Management Plan indicate that temperatures have been consistently above 75 F at Wheatland in 

July and August since 1963. 

Temperatures should be maintained below 17 C (63 F) throughout the Bear River from February through 

May during above-normal to wet water years. Development of a temperature model dictating operations of 

Camp Far West Reservoir, other upstream reservoirs, and diversions downstream of Camp Far West 

Reservoir may be required for managers to meet criteria. Because data are lacking, installation of 

thermographs should occur during sturgeon spawning months to determine if water temperatures limit 

production.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Meeting flow standards specified under 

Action 1 will contribute to temperature reductions.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: All public and private entities with control over 

sources and quantities of water flowing into the Bear River share responsibility for meeting temperature 

criteria.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Implementation will require identification of flows necessary 

to meet temperature criteria. If additional flow is required to meet temperature criteria, water users may 

oppose this action.

Predicted benefits: Temperatures in the Bear River appear high enough in some months and years to reduce 

egg and larval survival. Reducing temperatures to below 17 C during February-May has the potential to 

improve sturgeon production in the Bear River. Benefits cannot be quantified.

Action 3: Reduce mortality of spawners.

Objective: Increase the size of the spawning stock.

Location: The Bear River from SSWD's diversion dam to the confluence with the Feather River. 

Narrative description: Both legal harvest and poaching have the potential to decrease sturgeon spawning 

populations on the Bear River. However, only poaching is known to have recently decreased sturgeon 

stock size.

During years when sturgeon enter the Bear River, poaching may substantially reduce the number of 

spawners. For example, during July 1989, approximately 30-40 adult sturgeon in the lower Bear River 

were illegally harvested during a 2-week period (see Action 1). Despite the large numbers of poachers, 

DFG Game Wardens were able to quickly stop all poaching activities once they became aware of the 

problem. Although poaching has only been documented in 1989, it is likely that it has occurred in other 

years (Lenihan pers. comm.).

o

o o

o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-29

Legal harvest of sturgeon on the Bear River is almost nonexistent for the following reasons (Lenihan pers. 

comm.): 1) large numbers of sturgeon are only intermittently present, 2) most anglers are unaware that 

sturgeon enter the Bear River, and 3) privately owned land limits river access.

Because so little is known about stock size, exploitation rates, and poaching activities on the Bear River, the 

sturgeon fishery should be closely monitored by biologists and game wardens. Law enforcement patrols 

should be increased during years in which sturgeon are expected to enter the Bear River.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Increased flow and removal/modification of 

barriers would make sturgeon less vulnerable to angling and poaching.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Stock monitoring can be conducted by federal 

and state agencies and private consulting firms. The California Fish and Game Commission and DFG are 

responsible for fishing regulations and law enforcement activities.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Increased cost and lack of personnel may prevent increased 

law enforcement.

Predicted benefits: Enforcement may increase the number of sturgeon spawning in the Bear River, which 

will increase the production of larvae and juveniles in the river.

Action 4: Remove or facilitate passage around migration barriers.

Objective: Identify potential physical and water quality barriers to upstream sturgeon migration and 

determine the extent to which migration is impeded. Once barriers are identified, facilitate rapid migration of 

sturgeon around these barriers.

Location: Bear River from SSWD's diversion dam to the confluence with the Feather River.

Narrative description: Barriers can delay upstream migration. If delays at barriers cause later spawning, 

then removal should result in earlier spawning. Earlier spawning sturgeon are less likely to be exposed to 

high temperatures and poor water quality commonly occurring in April and May. Delayed upstream 

migration at barriers also has the potential to increase the vulnerability of migrating sturgeon to fishing and 

poaching. The upstream limit to sturgeon migration is the SSWD diversion dam. Several miles downstream 

of the diversion dam is a culvert crossing at Patterson Sand and Gravel. The Patterson Sand and Gravel 

culvert could impede sturgeon migration in low-flow years (Meyer pers. comm.). When flows are reduced, 

adult sturgeon outmigration is further impeded by shallow riffle areas downstream of the Highway 65 bridge. 

 Flows should be kept high enough to allow adult outmigration after spawning.
3-Xh-30 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Potential water quality barriers impeding adult migration are currently unknown, but it is believed that 

organic contaminants from agriculture runoff may affect migration.

Barriers to sturgeon passage and actions necessary to eliminate or reduce impacts should be determined. 

Flows should remain high enough to permit adult outmigration, especially for late-spawning fish.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Flows specified under Action 1 should help 

reduce passage problems associated with low flows.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: All public and private entities with control over 

placement and removal of barriers and establishment of Bear River flow standards, and all entities 

responsible for waste or drainwater discharge into the Bear River.

Potential obstacles to implementation: To the extent that flows may be needed to address passage 

problems, availability of water to provide flows may be an obstacle to implementation.

Predicted benefits: If barriers exist, their removal will likely result in increased sturgeon production because 

access will be provided to new spawning habitat and to spawning areas earlier in the spawning season, 

sturgeon will require less energy to reach spawning areas, and the vulnerability of sturgeon to capture during 

migration will be decreased. Sturgeon production may increase, but such an increase cannot be quantified.

Action 5: Reduce or prevent entrainment of sturgeon larvae.

Objective: Identify possible sources of entrainment, and if sources are identified, reduce or eliminate 

entrainment.

Location: From SSWD's diversion dam to the confluence with the Feather River.

Narrative description: Despite the presence of water diversions on the Bear River, no entrainment studies 

have been conducted to determine impacts on sturgeon. The most recent enumeration of Bear River water 

diversions (1959) shows four small diversion (siphons 5-10 inches in diameter) between RM 7 and RM 11. 

 Although the number of lower Bear River diversions appear small and entrainment is therefore probably 

minimal, an updated census on diversions and level of entrainment should be conducted.

The extent of entrainment on the Bear River should be investigated. If a problem is found to exist, these 

diversions should be screened with state-of-the-art fish screening technology. Also, entrainment can be 

reduced through limitations being placed on diversions.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-31

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Flows described in Action 1 may decrease 

residence time of larval sturgeon, thereby reducing the time they are susceptible to entrainment.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Federal and state agencies, as well as irrigation 

districts and other diverters.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Lack of information on the extent to which sturgeon are 

entrained on the Bear River. Cost of installing and maintaining screens.

Predicted benefits: Entrainment of sturgeon, if entrainment is found to be a problem, should be eliminated. 

Benefits include decreased early life-stage mortality. Sturgeon production may increase, but such an 

increase cannot be quantified.

Action 6: Monitor water quality, especially at sites of known wastewater discharge. 

Objective: Maintain adequate water quality needed for upstream migration, spawning, and early life-stage 

survival.

Location: Bear River from SSWD's diversion dam to the confluence with the Feather River.

Narrative description: Specific studies examining water quality problems on the Bear River do not exist. 

However, Feather River water sampled between 1987 and 1989 was acutely toxic to invertebrates 

(CVRWQCB 1991). Toxicity was in part attributed to agriculture return flows entering the Feather River 

via the Bear River (Foe pers. comm.). The level of Bear River contribution to poor Feather River water 

quality and the number of contaminant discharge sites are unknown.

Heavy metals can deleteriously affect embryos and pre-larval sturgeon, with concentrations as low as a few 

micrograms per liter toxic to fish (Dettlaff 1993). Negative impacts on sturgeon from heavy metals in the 

Bear River are unknown. However, green sunfish liver tissue have shown high levels of nickel and 

cadmium. Potential for negative impacts of heavy metals on adult and early life-stages exist and should be 

evaluated.

Sites of agriculture return flows and heavy metal contamination should be located and monitored for 

impacts. Contaminant levels in the Bear River may be reduced through enforcement of existing regulations 

or by creation and enforcement of new regulations.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Increased flows of uncontaminated water 

may help dilute contaminant concentrations in the water. 
3-Xh-32 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Water dischargers and chemical users within the 

Bear River drainage. Federal, state, and local agencies involved with enforcing and creation of water quality 

standards.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Dischargers are likely to resist implementation of the action.

Predicted benefits: Reduced contaminant levels would improve habitat for all aquatic organisms. Increased 

egg and larvae survival would increase production. Benefits cannot be quantified.

San Joaquin River

Limiting factors and potential solutions -

Table 3-Xh-9. Limiting factors and potential solutions for white and

green sturgeon in the mainstem San Joaquin River.

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Inadequate flows for attraction, 

migration, and spawning of 

adults and for transport and 

rearing of larvae and juveniles

Provide mean monthly flows of at least 7,000 cfs at 

Newman and 14,000 cfs at Vernalis from February to 

May during wet and above-normal water years

2. Inadequate temperatures for 

initiation of spawning and final 

maturation of adults and survival 

of larvae and juveniles

Maintain water temperatures below 17oC (63oF) in 

sturgeon spawning areas and below 20oC (68oF) 

throughout the San Joaquin River during February-May 

during wet and above-normal water years

3. Barriers that prevent or slow the 

migration of sturgeon to 

spawning habitat

1. Identify potential barriers (physical as well as water 

quality barriers)

2. Evaluate the extent of the problem

3. Remove barriers or facilitate passage around barriers

4. Loss of sturgeon larvae and 

juveniles at major and minor 

diversions on the San Joaquin 

River resulting from entrainment

1. Identify the extent of the problem

2. Reduce or eliminate entrainment of sturgeon larvae 

and juveniles

5. Size of spawning stock 1. Improve conditions for production of sturgeon

2. Reduce mortality of early life stages (see entrainment, 

water quality, etc.)
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-33

Limiting factors Potential solutions

3. Reduce mortality of adults (fishing mortality, 

especially poaching [including possible contribution of 

increased flows to reduction in accessibility of 

migrating and spawning adults to poachers])

6. Poor water quality 1. Increase flows of high quality water

2. Decrease contamination of river by agricultural 

chemicals and drain water

3. Decrease exposure to excessive levels of trace 

elements (e.g., selenium) or other contaminants to 

acceptable levels

7. Availability of suitable spawning 

habitat

1. Identify spawning sites

2. Evaluate availability of suitable spawning habitat

3. If habitat limits success of sturgeon spawning, take 

appropriate corrective action

8. Viability of gametes/health of 

spawners

1. Evaluate viability of gametes, especially trace-element 

(e.g., selenium from refineries) and contaminant 

burdens

2. Evaluate health of spawners

3. If viability of gametes or health of spawners limit 

sturgeon production, take appropriate corrective 

action (address sources of contamination or poor 

health)

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Provide mean monthly flows of at least 7,000 cfs at Newman and 14,000 cfs at Vernalis from 

February to May during above-normal and wet water years.
3-Xh-34 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Objective: Provide minimum or greater flows to ensure suitable conditions for sturgeon to migrate and 

spawn and for their progeny to survive.

Location: San Joaquin River upstream of sturgeon spawning areas to the confluence with the Delta 

downstream.

Narrative description: There exists very little information on white or green sturgeon in the San Joaquin 

River or its tributaries. Although sturgeon are known to migrate into the San Joaquin River (Fry 1973, 

Kohlhorst et al. 1991), no efforts have been made to document sturgeon reproduction in the San Joaquin 

River system. In addition, entrainment data are not regularly collected at diversions in the San Joaquin River 

and those data that do exist either do not identify sturgeon (i.e., sturgeon were lumped in with other species 

[Rose pers. comm.]) or are for studies that were of short duration and did not capture sturgeon (Hallock 

and Van Woert 1959). Despite the lack of technical information specific to sturgeon in the San Joaquin 

River, enough evidence exists in the form of casual observations by biologists, wardens, and anglers to 

provide a basis for making recommendations to improve conditions for sturgeon production in the river.

Based on the ratio of tagged sturgeon recovered in the San Joaquin River to tagged sturgeon recovered in 

the Sacramento River, Kohlhorst et al. (1991) estimated that approximately 10% of the white sturgeon in 

the Sacramento-San Joaquin river system migrate up the San Joaquin River. A small fishery exists for 

sturgeon (species unknown, but suspected to consist of both white and green sturgeon) on the San Joaquin 

River upstream of its confluence with the Tuolumne River. Sturgeon are captured from as far south on the 

San Joaquin River as the mouth of the Merced River. DFG Warden Hugh Rutherford (pers. comm.) has 

observed anglers in the vicinity of Laird Park and Dos Rios Road (RM 90) taking female and male sturgeon 

(identified as white sturgeon) in advanced stages of sexual maturation. Warden Rutherford's observations 

suggest that sturgeon captured there are spawning close to the capture site. Based on these observations, it 

is likely that sturgeon spawn in the San Joaquin River, at least upstream of the Tuolumne River and 

downstream of the Merced River. No sampling has been done to confirm the presence of eggs, larvae, or 

juveniles in the San Joaquin River. It is also possible that sturgeon spawn in the major tributaries to the 

river.

Data from the Sacramento River indicate that white sturgeon start migrating into the river in October and 

spawn as early as February (Schaffter pers. comm.). Observations on gonadal development and hatchery 

spawning of wild-caught and captive white sturgeon suggest that the majority of the Central Valley stocks 

spawn during March-May, and approximately 20%-30% spawn in February and June (Doroshov pers. 

comm.). Anglers in the San Joaquin River capture sturgeon as early as late December and fishing improves 

from January through February, is generally best in March and April, and falls off rapidly as the weather 

warms, although some stragglers are captured in June (pers. comms. with the following: Red Bartley, 

angler; Gene Thomas, The Old Fishermen Bait and Tackle; and Ron Wilson, Modesto Bee). Therefore, 

flow standards would be effective implemented as early as February and possibly as late as June.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-35

Years with good recruitment of white sturgeon showed higher mean monthly discharge rates in February 

through May than years with poor recruitment (Figure 3-Xh-1). Ranking years by mean monthly outflow in 

February-May shows that 5 of the 6 years with the highest flows were years with good recruitment of white 

sturgeon. February-May mean monthly flows in these years were above 7,000 cfs immediately

downstream of the Merced River (as indicated by discharge at Newman) and 14,000 cfs where the San 

Joaquin River meets the Delta (as indicated by discharge at Vernalis). Only one of the years with good 

recruitment was not in the top six, but it rated ninth at Newman and thirteenth at Vernalis (Table 3-Xh-10). 

None of the years with good recruitment had February-May mean monthly flows below about 1,900 cfs at 

Newman or 5,000 cfs at Vernalis.

Figure 3-Xh-1. Mean monthly discharge at two locations on the San Joaquin River 

for years with good and poor recruitment of sturgeon.
Table 3-Xh-10. Mean monthly discharge (cfs) for February-May at Newman

(USGS Hydrologic Unit 18040002, located 650 feet downstream of the

Merced River) and Vernalis (Unit 18040003, located 2.6 miles

downstream of the Stanislaus River) on the San Joaquin River.

Newman Vernalis

Year Discharge Year Discharge

1983 19,545 1983 34,965 

1969 15,235 1969 27,538 

1978 9,285 1980 16,061 

1986 8,116 1986 15,535 

1982 7,495 1982 14,579 

1980 7,221 1978 14,485 

1973 2,408 1984 6,464 

1979 2,080 1973 5,685 

1975 1,887 1979 5,455 
3-Xh-36 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Newman Vernalis

1970 1,643 1970 5,109

1984 1,463 1974 4,967

1974 1,350 1975 4,957

1981 892 1971 2,694

1985 837 1987 2,649

1987 828 1985 2,644

1988 667 1981 2,625

1971 652 1968 2,009

1989 647 1988 1,889

1968 601 1989 1,780

1990 549 1976 1,543

1972 527 1972 1,466

1976 517 1990 1,428

1977 232 1977 481

Note: Years are ranked from highest to lowest discharge, and years in bold print were classified as years 

with good recruitment of white sturgeon.

Flows necessary for successful reproduction of sturgeon need to be determined. In addition to empirical 

relationships between flow and reproduction, other information (e.g., depth of water necessary for 

successful passage, discharge necessary to cue spawning, preferred water depths and velocities for 

spawning, and discharge necessary for larval transport and rearing) should be considered before final flow 

standards are set. Until these data are available, interim flow standards should be as follows: FebruaryMay mean monthly flows of at least 7,000 cfs immediately downstream of the Merced River as indicated by 

discharge at Newman and at least 14,000 cfs at Vernalis in wet and above-normal years.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Provision of flows in the San Joaquin River 

must be accompanied by other habitat restoration measures in the San Joaquin River, the Delta, and the San 

Francisco Bay system.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The numerous agencies and public and private 

entities responsible for setting flow standards and meeting them on the San Joaquin, Merced, Tuolumne, and 

Stanislaus rivers all share responsibility.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-37

Potential obstacles to implementation: Competing uses of water and lack of substantive data on 

which to base a recommendation.

Predicted benefits: Twelve of the 22 years between 1968 and 1990 (the years for which YCIs are 

available) were wet or above-normal water-year types. Of these 12, only 6 had flows above the 

recommended standard. If the flow standards were met in the remaining 6 wet and above-normal years, the 

average YCI for 1968 through 1990 would increase by 60%. If the same assumptions were only applied to 

wet years, the average YCI would increase by 20%.

Action 2: Maintain water temperatures below 17 C (63 F) in sturgeon spawning areas and below 20 C 

(68 F) throughout the San Joaquin River from February through May during wet and above-normal water 

years.

Objective: Provide water at temperatures suitable for sturgeon to migrate, undergo the final stages of sexual 

maturation, and spawn and for their progeny to survive.

Location: The San Joaquin River upstream of sturgeon spawning areas to the river's confluence with the 

Delta.

Narrative description: Temperatures in the San Joaquin River potentially limit production of sturgeon. DFG 

Exhibit 15 to SWRCB for Phase I of the Bay-Delta hearings indicated that in years when the Vernalis flow 

was 5,000 cfs or less in May, water temperatures were at levels associated with chronic stress in juvenile 

chinook salmon (Reynolds et al. 1993). The optimal temperatures for spawning and egg and larval survival 

of white sturgeon are 10-17oC (50-63oF) (PSMFC?? 1992). Survival of early developmental stages is 

greatly reduced at temperatures above 20oC (68oF) (Doroshov pers. comm.). Maximum temperatures 

recorded in the San Joaquin River at the USGS gaging station (USGS Hydrologic Unit 18040003) 650 feet 

downstream of the Merced River exceeded 20oC (68oF) as early as late February and as late as early May 

during the 4 years for which data exist (1988, 1989, 1993 and 1994). Clearly, temperatures in sturgeon 

spawning areas often exceed temperatures conducive to successful spawning of sturgeon, suggesting that 

temperatures may limit production of sturgeon. Temperatures downstream of this area in spring are usually 

higher and may also limit production, although temperature tolerance increases with age.

Temperatures should be maintained below 17 C (63oF) in areas in which sturgeon spawn and below 20 C 

(68oF) throughout the San Joaquin River from February through May of wet and normal years.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Meeting flow standards specified under 

Action 1 above will contribute to reductions in temperatures that would depend on the source of water for 

these flows. As spring progresses and air temperatures warm, the relative contribution of agricultural return 

flows will become an important factor determining water temperatures in the river. Actions taken to restore 

o o o

o

o o
3-Xh-38 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

habitat upstream of Mendota Pool or to restore riparian vegetation in the San Joaquin drainage will 

potentially reduce the temperature of the water flowing downstream of the Merced River.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The numerous agencies and public and private 

entities with control over sources and quantities of water flowing into the San Joaquin River share 

responsibility for meeting temperature criteria on the San Joaquin River.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Implementation will require identification of flows necessary 

to meet temperature criteria. Identification of flows may be complicated by the complexity of the 

watershed, especially the contribution of agricultural return flows to overall San Joaquin River flows. Flows 

necessary to maintain temperatures are likely to exceed available water, especially in April and May.

Predicted benefits: Temperatures are high enough in the San Joaquin River to prevent successful

reproduction by sturgeon during all or at least portions of the spawning season. Reducing temperatures 

below 17 C (63oF) has the potential to greatly improve the frequency and success of sturgeon spawning in 

the San Joaquin River.

Action 3: Remove barriers to sturgeon migration.

Objective: Remove barriers that prevent or slow the migration of sturgeon to areas in which sturgeon 

spawn.

Location: The San Joaquin River from upstream of sturgeon spawning areas at the upstream limit to its 

confluence with the Delta on the downstream end.

Narrative description: Although undocumented, low flows may result in passage problems for sturgeon 

through shallow areas. Anglers describe sturgeon migrating through shallow water, and believe that low 

water slows migration. Adult passage studies for chinook salmon in the upper San Joaquin River have been 

conducted (USFWS 1994), but similar studies for sturgeon in the San Joaquin River have not been 

conducted.

Low dissolved oxygen levels commonly occur in the vicinity of Stockton each fall as a result of dredging 

activities in the Stockton Ship Channel and turning basin, flow reversals resulting from high Delta exports, 

and effluent discharge from the Stockton Municipal Sewage Plant and other sources. Low dissolved 

oxygen levels have been shown to inhibit adult salmon migration in the vicinity of Stockton. The quality and 

quantity of agricultural drainwater may also inhibit adult sturgeon migration. Whether low dissolved oxygen 

levels or other water quality conditions inhibit passage of adult sturgeon is unknown and needs to be 

investigated.

Barriers to sturgeon migration should be identified and actions taken to eliminate or reduce impacts.

o
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-39

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Flows specified under Action 1 should 

prevent passage problems associated with low flows or dissolved oxygen levels. Barriers delay upstream 

migration. If delays at barriers cause sturgeon to spawn later in the spawning season, then removal of 

barriers should result in sturgeon spawning earlier. Earlier spawning sturgeon are less likely to be exposed 

to high temperatures that commonly occur in April and May. Delayed upstream migration at barriers also 

has the potential to increase the vulnerability of migrating sturgeon to fishing and poaching.

DWR installs a barrier at the head of Old River during fall when flows are low or critical problems are 

predicted. This barrier is believed to improve dissolved oxygen concentrations. Improved treatment of 

Stockton Municipal Sewage Plant discharge has also helped alleviate the low dissolved oxygen problem. 

DWR staff members have identified dredging in the ship channel as the major factor contributing to a recent 

low dissolved oxygen event.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The numerous agencies and public and private 

entities responsible for setting flow standards and meeting them on the San Joaquin River all share 

responsibility, as will any entities responsible for waste or drainwater discharge, should these factors be 

identified as contributing to barriers to sturgeon migration.

Potential obstacles to implementation: To the extent that flows may be needed to address passage 

problems, availability of water to provide flows may be an obstacle to implementation.

Predicted benefits: If barriers exist, their removal will likely allow sturgeon access to new spawning habitat 

and to spawning areas earlier in the spawning season, requiring sturgeon to expend less energy to reach 

spawning areas, and will likely decrease the vulnerability of sturgeon to capture during migration.

Action 4: Reduce or eliminate entrainment of sturgeon.

Objective: Reduce or eliminate entrainment of sturgeon larvae and juveniles at major and minor diversion 

on the San Joaquin River.

Location: The San Joaquin River from upstream of sturgeon spawning areas at the upstream limit to its 

confluence with the Delta on the downstream end.

Narrative description: Four major diversions are located on the mainstem San Joaquin River in areas 

accessible to sturgeon. These are the Banta-Carbona, El Solyo, West Stanislaus, and Patterson Irrigation 

District diversions. The El Solyo diversion can withdraw up to 80 cfs; the other three diversions each can 

withdraw 249 cfs. These diversions can cumulatively diver most of the river flow, particularly in dry years. 

Numerous small- and medium-sized irrigation diversions also exist on the mainstem San Joaquin River.
3-Xh-40 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

These diversions entrain significant numbers of chinook salmon (Hallock and Van Woert 1959), but the 

effects of these diversions on sturgeon are unknown. Entrainment data are not regularly collected at 

diversions in the San Joaquin River and those data that do exist either do not identify sturgeon (i.e., sturgeon 

were lumped in with other species [Rose pers. comm.]) or studies were of short duration and did not 

capture sturgeon (Hallock and Van Woert 1959). Sturgeon are vulnerable to entrainment elsewhere in the 

Central Valley as evidenced by data collected at the GCID Diversion on the Sacramento River and the 

CVP and SWP pumps in the Delta. The extent of the problem in the San Joaquin River should be 

investigated. Any actions taken to alleviate entrainment of chinook salmon should also consider needs of 

sturgeon.

Several alternatives are being considered to reduce or prevent entrainment of juvenile chinook salmon at 

these sites: rescreening using state-of-the-art fish screening technology, using alternative electronic or sonic 

avoidance technology, or providing the irrigation districts with alternative water supplies from the Central 

Valley Project in lieu of diverting directly from the San Joaquin River. The last alternative is recommended 

here because it will definitely prevent entrainment of sturgeon in the San Joaquin River (although it might 

transfer this problem to the Delta), whereas the other alternatives are less likely to succeed. In addition, 

relocating diversions to the Delta will increase flows throughout the San Joaquin River.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: This action would keep water that would 

otherwise be diverted in the San Joaquin River, at least as far as the Delta.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Responsibility would be shared by the state and 

federal government, especially DWR and USBR, as well as the irrigation districts and other diverters and 

customers of the SWP and CVP.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Developing alternative water supplies for the districts from 

the CVP through the Delta-Mendota Canal has been discussed, but little progress has been made 

(Reynolds et al. 1993). This action would probably require making formal changes in the districts' water 

rights, constructing new diversion facilities, and extending lateral canals.

Predicted benefits: Benefits would be realized in the form of reduced mortality of juvenile sturgeon from 

entrainment and increased production of sturgeon resulting from increased San Joaquin River flows and 

improved riverine habitat.

Action 5: Reduce the mortality of spawners.

Objective: Increase the size of the spawning stock.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-41

Location: San Joaquin River from upstream of sturgeon spawning areas at the upstream limit to its 

confluence with the Delta on the downstream end.

Narrative description: A fishery exists for sturgeon on the San Joaquin River and some portion of the 

population is snagged. Dave Kohlhorst (see III.C.5.) observed during tagging studies that about 10% of the 

tagged white sturgeon were recaptured in the San Joaquin River. Assuming this number to be 

representative of the proportion of the white sturgeon population that spawns in the San Joaquin River, the 

spawning population of white sturgeon in the San Joaquin River can be estimated to have been

approximately 910 fish (690 males and 220 females) in 1990. DFG Warden Hugh Rutherford (pers. 

comm.) estimates that 60-100 sturgeon spawn in the San Joaquin River in the vicinity of Laird Park and the 

end of Dos Rios Road in a single season (estimate is Warden Rutherford's guess based on visual 

observation of sturgeon activity). Both estimates indicate that the population of white sturgeon spawning in 

the San Joaquin River is small. Most observers agree that the number of sturgeon spawning in the San 

Joaquin River has declined during the last 25 years.

The small population experiences heavy fishing pressure on its spawning grounds. Fishing pressure, 

especially that resulting from illegal snagging of fish, may be more than this small population can support. 

Kohlhorst et al. (1991) expressed concern that white sturgeon populations overall were being

overexploited, and angling regulations were drafted in 1990 to reduce harvest. Because white sturgeon in 

the San Joaquin River are a small and probably separate component of the Central Valley white sturgeon 

population, it is likely that exploitation rates acceptable for the population as a whole are unacceptable for 

white sturgeon in the San Joaquin River.

Illegal snagging can be limited through a combination of passage of new laws restricting terminal weight and 

hook placement and size and enforcement of those laws. Gear restrictions are currently being considered 

by the California Fish and Game Commission that would make snagging nearly impossible. If, however, 

gear restrictions are not implemented or are ineffective in reducing snagging, closure of the sturgeon fishery 

should be considered. 

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Increases in flow would help make sturgeon 

less vulnerable to poaching. Possible closure of the sturgeon fishery would be consistent with the closure of 

the chinook salmon fishery currently in effect on the San Joaquin River and its tributaries.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: The California Fish and Game Commission and 

DFG are responsible for fishing regulations.

Potential obstacles to implementation: No potential obstacles to adoption of gear restrictions have 

been identified. If closure of the fishery is deemed necessary, angler groups may resist.
3-Xh-42 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

Predicted benefits: Eliminating or reducing illegal harvest will increase the number of sturgeon spawning in 

the San Joaquin River, which will increase the production of larvae and juveniles in the river. Because the 

number of fish illegally harvested is unknown, benefits cannot be quantified. 

Action 6: Improve water quality.

Objective: Improve survival and condition of sturgeon.

Location: The San Joaquin River from upstream of sturgeon spawning areas on the upstream limit to its 

confluence with the Delta on the downstream end.

Narrative description: Water quality monitoring in the San Joaquin River often shows river water to be toxic 

to a variety of organisms. Toxicity often occurs during the time period when sturgeon are spawning in the 

San Joaquin River. Gamete and larval stages of sturgeon are particularly vulnerable to exposure to 

contaminants. The extent to which contaminants affect sturgeon production in the San Joaquin River is 

unknown, but is potentially a problem. Contaminants can reduce sturgeon production directly by causing 

mortality or decreasing physiological condition, or indirectly by reducing availability of food or vulnerability 

to other direct sources of mortality.

Contaminant levels in the San Joaquin River should be reduced through enforcement of existing regulations 

or by creation and enforcement of new regulations.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Increases in flows of uncontaminated water 

needed to meet other actions will help dilute contaminant concentrations in the river.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Waste dischargers and chemical users in the San

Joaquin River drainage. Federal, state, and local agencies with responsibility for creation and enforcement 

of environmental regulations.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Dischargers are likely to resist implementation of this action.

Predicted benefits: Benefits are expected to be far reaching, improving habitat for all organisms in the San 

Joaquin River.

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Limiting factors and potential solutions - Information is currently being gathered on poaching, harvest 

regulations, and predation. Actions for these limiting factors may be added to future drafts.

Table 3-Xh-11. Limiting factors and potential solutions 

for white and green sturgeon in the Delta.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-43

Limiting factors Potential solutions

1. Inadequate flows for 

adult sturgeon passage 

and juvenile production

Provide mean April-May outflow index at Chipps Island of 

25,000 cfs in wet and above-normal years; minimum daily Delta 

outflow index in April not less than 20,000 cfs, and not less than 

15,000 cfs in May

2. Loss of larval and 

juvenile sturgeon at the 

SWP and CVP

Identify the extent of the problem

2. Reduce or eliminate entrainment

3. Loss of larval and 

juvenile sturgeon at 

unscreened Delta 

Identify the extent of the problem

2. Reduce or eliminate entrainment

4. Poor water quality 1. Increase flows of high quality water

2. Decrease discharge of contaminated water

3. Decrease exposure to excessive levels of trace elements 

(e.g., selenium) and other contaminants to acceptable 

levels

Restoration actions -

Action 1: Provide a mean April-May Delta outflow index of at least 25,000 cfs in above-normal and wet 

year types. The minimum daily Delta outflow index will not be less than 20,000 cfs in April and will not be 

less than 15,000 cfs in May.

Objective: Increase white sturgeon production by providing adequate Delta outflow in above-normal and 

wet year types.

Location: Delta outflow index at Chipps Island.

Narrative description: Between 1969 and 1987, good sturgeon production and high Delta outflow 

occurred in 8 years (1969, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1978, 1980, 1982, and 1983). During these years, mean 

April-May Delta outflow exceeded approximately 25,000 cfs, with minimum daily Delta outflow of at least 

19,712 cfs for April and at least 15,316 cfs for May.

It is not clear whether Delta outflow itself is important in affecting production or whether upstream flows in 

the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries, for which Delta outflow is a surrogate, are the 
3-Xh-44 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

important limiting factors. Irrespective of the mechanism of Delta outflow on sturgeon production, outflow 

requirements should be consistent with upstream flow requirements for sturgeon and other anadromous 

species so they augment one another.

For successful sturgeon reproduction, a mean April-May Delta outflow index of at least 25,000 cfs in 

above-normal and wet year types and a minimum daily Delta outflow index of 20,000 cfs in April and 

15,000 cfs in May should be provided.

 Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Recommended Delta outflows are 

contingent on recommended flows being met on the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and eastside tributary rivers.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Federal, state, and local agencies responsible 

for setting Delta flow standards and meeting them.

Potential obstacle to implementation: Implementation of this action may be affected by the 

availability of water, demands in other months for restoration of other anadromous species, needs of 

upstream water diverters, and levels of diversions and exports in the Delta.

Predicted benefits: Between 1968 and 1987, there were 12 above-normal and wet water years. Mean 

April-May Delta outflow exceeded approximately 25,000 cfs in 9 years. Increasing flows in the remaining 

3 above-normal and wet years to at least 25,000 cfs would increase average white sturgeon production by 

approximately 23%. Similar calculations for green sturgeon were not conducted because few green 

sturgeon were sampled at the facilities and positive identification could not be guaranteed. However, 

increases in April-May Delta outflow are assumed to also benefit green sturgeon.

Action 2: Limit entrainment at the state and federal pumping facilities.

Objective: Increase sturgeon production by decreasing larval and juvenile sturgeon entrainment.

Location: State and federal pumping facilities in the Delta.

Narrative description: Between 1979 and 1994, the state and federal pumping facilities entrained 

approximately 39,443 sturgeon. Of the sturgeon measured, approximately 80% were 0.4-0.16 inches in 

total length. Accurate entrainment estimates of sturgeon less than 2 inches in length are not available 

because larval and postlarval sturgeon are ineffectively screened. Research on sturgeon swimming 

capabilities at all life stages is vital to determining approach and sweeping velocities needed for efficient 

salvage.

Research determining approach and bypass velocities needed to effectively screen larval and juvenile 

sturgeon should be conducted.
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-45

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Export reductions as recommended by 

other technical teams may reduce entrainment.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: DWR and USBR, as well as customers of the 

SWP and CVP.

Potential obstacles to implementation: If limiting entrainment requires reducing exports, competing 

water uses may hinder implementation. Also, funding may limit research needed to determine approach and 

sweeping velocities and possible screen modifications.

Predicted benefits: Benefits would include increased larval and juvenile sturgeon survival in the Delta. 

Benefits cannot be quantified.

Action 3: Screen all unscreened water diversions.

Objective: Increase sturgeon production by decreasing larval and juvenile sturgeon entrainment.

Location: Delta.

Narrative description: The abundance of sturgeon larvae in the Delta is related to Delta inflow. During 

high-flow years sturgeon larvae are transported from upstream spawning areas to the Delta, while during 

low-flow years larvae remain farther upstream. In 1967, Sacramento flows of 49,217 cfs produced high 

larval catches in the Delta. In 1966 and 1968, Sacramento flows were 21,820 cfs and 13,600 cfs, 

respectively. During 1966 few sturgeon larvae were caught in the Delta, and none were caught in 1968.

The level of sturgeon entrainment in Delta agricultural diversions is unknown. A pilot study conducted by 

Spaar (1992) examined entrainment at Delta agricultural diversions from April to October 1992. No 

sturgeon larvae or juveniles were collected during the study, probably because of low Sacramento River 

flow during a critical water year. However, high entrainment of shad, cyprinids, and centrarchid eggs and 

larvae raises concerns over sturgeon vulnerability during years of high flow.

To reduce or eliminate entrainment, additional information should be gathered on the following: 1) numbers, 

types, and sizes of unscreened and screened Delta diversions; 2) magnitude of fish losses caused by 

unscreened diversions; 3) feasibility of installing positive barrier screens to reduce losses; 4) estimated costs 

of screen design, installation, maintenance, and evaluation; 5) availability of funding mechanisms; and 6) 

feasibility of management options that would reduce losses (i.e., seasonal pumping restrictions, monitoring 

requirements, or alternative water supplies). There also is a need for research into the swimming capabilities 
3-Xh-46 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION NEEDS

of early life stages of sturgeon. This information is vital to determining approach and sweeping velocities and 

how screens should be designed.

Alternatives to reduce entrainment at irrigation diversion and intakes would be screening using state-of-theart fish screen technology or, potentially, sonic barriers. Investigations to determine minimum mesh size to 

prevent YOY sturgeon entrainment should be conducted.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Techniques used to reduce entrainment at 

the state and federal water projects may be applied to agricultural diversions.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Federal and state agencies, irrigation districts, 

and other diverters.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Screening Delta diversions presents many problems resulting 

from species diversity and water transport rates. Additionally, it may require a long time to develop and 

evaluate alternative screening methods or sonic barriers.

Predicted benefits: Benefits include reduced entrainment mortality of larvae and juvenile sturgeon. Benefits 

cannot be quantified.

Action 4: Improve water quality.

Objective: Improve the survival and condition of sturgeon.

Location: The Delta.

Narrative description: Organic compounds and trace elements can negatively affect sturgeon reproduction. 

White sturgeon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary accumulate PCBs, dioxin, mercury, and selenium in 

egg tissue, and these toxins may reduce reproductive potential (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 

1992; Kohlhorst 1980; Kohlhorst pers. comm.). PCBs are of special concern for sturgeon in the Central 

Valley (Kohlhorst 1980). Sturgeon in San Pablo Bay showed gonadal PCB concentrations of 49.3 24.7 

ppm and 23.3 27.8 ppm in males and females, respectively (Kohlhorst 1980). Although sturgeon sampled 

in subsequent years showed lower PCB levels than those reported in 1980, the potential exists for negative 

impacts on sturgeon.

Trace elements may also adversely affect sturgeon. Sturgeon sampled in the estuary in 1989 and 1990 had 

selenium levels in muscle tissue of 14.6 ppm (dry weight) and 15.0 ppm (dry weight), respectively. 

USFWS (USFWS 1990b) reported that selenium levels found in sturgeon are near levels that produce 

chronic and acute effects in other freshwater fish species. Selenium levels of 16-18 ppm (dry weight, whole 

body samples [whole body levels most comparable to muscle]) in adult bluegill caused partial to complete 

+_

_

+
SECTION X. REPORTS FROM THE TECHNICAL TEAMS -

H. WHITE AND GREEN STURGEON 3-Xh-47

mortality of fry during the yolk-sack stage. Also, chinook salmon fry began to die when whole body 

selenium levels were 5-8 ppm (dry weight). Applicability of these data to sturgeon are unknown. 

Therefore, effects of selenium and other trace elements on sturgeon production should be investigated.

Related actions that may impede or augment the action: Increases in flows of uncontaminated water 

needed to meet other actions will help dilute contaminant concentrations in the river.

Agency and organization roles and responsibilities: Waste dischargers and chemical users within the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin River system. Federal, state, and local agencies with responsibility for creation 

and enforcement of environmental regulations.

Potential obstacles to implementation: Entities accustomed to using chemicals and discharging 

contaminated water are likely to resist implementation of this action.

Predicted benefits: Benefits are expected to be far reaching, improving habitat for all organisms in the Delta.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-1

SECTION XI. CITATIONS

PRINTED REFERENCES

Aceituno, M. E. 1993. The relationship between instream flow and physical habitat availability for chinook 

salmon in the Stanislaus River, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. 

Sacramento, CA.

Allen, M. A., and T. T. Hassler. 1986. Species profile: Life histories and environmental requirements of 

coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) - chinook salmon. (Biological Report 82[11.49].) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC.

American Fisheries Society. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and 

Canada. Fifth edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 20, Bethesda, Maryland. 183 

pp.

Anonymous. 1918. Few sturgeon left. California Fish and Game 4:86.

Anonymous. 1940. Sturgeon on the increase. Outdoor California 1(8):1. (Press release.)

Anonymous. 1959. Case of the virgin sturgeon - the story of Butte County=s largest fish catch. Butte 

County Historical Society Diggin=s 3:6-8.

Armour, C., D. Duff and W. Elmore. 1994. The effects of livestock grazing on western riparian and stream 

ecosystem. Fisheries. vol. 19 num. 9. pp. 9 - 12.

Azevedo, R. L., and Z. E. Parkhurst. 1958. The upper Sacramento River salmon and steelhead 

maintenance program, 1949-1956. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office report.

Bailey, H. C. 1992. The effect of agricultural drainage on striped bass (mozone saxatilis). (WRINT 

DWR-202, State Water Resources Control Board 1992 Bay-Delta proceedings, Sacramento, CA.) 

California Department of Water Resources. Sacramento, CA.

Barannikova, I. A. 1968. In T. A. Dettlaff, A. S. Ginsburg, O. J. Schmalhausen, Sturgeon fishes, 

developmental biology and aquaculture. Springer-Verlag 1993.

Barnes, R. D. 1974. Invertebrate zoology. Third edition. W. B. Saunders Company. Philadelphia, PA. 
3-XI-2 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Barnhart, R. A., and J. Parsons. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of 

coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) - steelhead. (Biological Report 82[11.60], TR EL82-4.) Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.

Beak Consultants, Inc. 1989. Summary report of technical studies on the lower Yuba River, California. 

(Yuba River Fisheries Investigations, 1986-1988.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for California 

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Beer, K.E. 1981. Embryonic and Larval Development of white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus. 

Unpublished Masters' Thesis, University of California, Davis, 93 pp.

Belcher, E. 1843. Narrative of a voyage round the world, performed in Her Majesty=s Ship Sulphur, 

during the years 1836-1842, ... Admiralty. Volume 1. H. Colburn, London, England.

Bell, M. C. 1990. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. Portland, OR.

Binkowski, F. P., and S. I. Doroshov. 1985. North American sturgeons: biology and aquacultural 

potential. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordecht, Netherlands.

BioSystems Analysis, Inc. 1992. Updated WSMP EIS/EIR Appendix B1. Lower Mokelumne River 

Management Plan.

BioSystems Analysis, Inc. 1993. Delta smelt in a newly-created, flooded island in the Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Estuary, Spring 1993. Tiburon, CA.

Borgeson, D. P. 1966. Trout lake management. 168-178. A. Calhoun (ed.). Inland fisheries 

management. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 

Botsford, L. W., and J. Brittnacher. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow 

incremental methodology. (Instream Flow Information Paper No. 12.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group. Fort Collins, CO.

Botsford, L. W., and J. Brittnacher. 1994. A model for projection of striped bass abundance in terms of 

flows and diversions. Prepared for the Striped Bass Technical Team for the Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-3

Bovee, K. D. 1978. Probability of use criteria for the family salmonidae. (Instream Flow Information 

Paper No. 4, FWS/OBS-78/07.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, 

Western Energy and Land Use Team. Washington, DC.

Bovee, K. D. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. 

(Instream Flow Information Paper No. 12.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperative Instream 

Flow Service Group. Fort Collins, CO.

Boyd, S. 1994. Predation on fall run chinook salmon smolts below Woodbridge Dam in the Mokelumne 

River. East Bay Municipal Utility District, Orinda, CA.

Brannon, E., S. Brewer, A. Setter, M. Miller, F. Utter, and W. Hershberger. 1985. Columbia River white 

sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) - early life history and genetics study. (Project 83-316.) 

Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

Brannon, E., A. Setter, M. Miller, S. Brewer, G. Winans, F. Utter, L. Carpenter, and W. Hershberger. 

1986. Columbia River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) population genetics and early life 

history. (Contract DE-AI79-84B018952, Project 83-316.) Prepared for Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland, OR.

Brannon, E., A. Setter, J. A. Hick, and M. Miller. 1987. Columbia River white sturgeon genetics and 

early life history population segregation and juvenile feeding behavior. (Contract DE-AI79-

84BP18952, Project 83-316.) Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

Brannon, E. L., C. L. Melby, and S. D. Brewer. 1984. Columbia River white sturgeon (Acipenser 

transmontanus) enhancement. (Contract DE-AI79-84BP18952, Project 83-316.) Prepared for 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

Brennan, J. S., and G. M. Cailliet. 1991. Age determination and validation studies in white sturgeon, 

Acipenser transmontanus, in California. Pages 209-234 in P. Williot (ed.), Acipenser: Acts of the 

First International Sturgeon Symposium. October 3-6, 1989. Cemagref-Dicova. Bordeaux, France.

Brett, J. R., W. C. Clar, and J. E. Shelbourn. 1982. Experiments on the thermal requirements for growth 

and food conversion efficiency of juvenile chinook salmon. Can. Tech. Rep. of Fish. and Aq. Sci. 

1127. Pac. Biol. Stat., Nanaimo, BC.

Brewer, S. D. 1987. Behavioral responses and patterns of distribution during the early life history of white 

sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus. M.S. thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
3-XI-4 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Brown, M. 1994. Fishery Impacts from reverse operations of the constant head orifice at Stony Creek and 

the Tehama-Colusa Canal, California. USFWS. Draft Report No. AFF1-FRO-94-.

Brown, R. L. 1987. Toxics and young striped bass. California Department of Water Resources. 

Sacramento, CA.

Brown, R. L. 1992. Bay/Delta fish resources. (WRINT DWR-30, State Water Resources Control 

Board 1992 Bay-Delta proceedings, Sacramento, CA.) California Department of Water Resources. 

Sacramento, CA. 

Brown, R. L. n.d. Screening agricultural diversions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. California 

Department of Water Resources. Sacramento, CA.

Buddington, R. K., and S. I. Doroshov. 1984. Feeding trials with hatchery produced white sturgeon 

juveniles (Acipenser transmontanus). Aquaculture 36:237-243.

Buer, K. Y., J. N. Eaves, R. G. Scott, and J. R. McMillian. 1984. Basin changes affecting salmon habitat 

in the Sacramento River. California Department of Water Resources. Red Bluff, CA.

Butte County Superior Court. 1942. Butte Creek Judgement and Decree No. 18917. 79p. Brown, Charles 

J. 1992. A Review of Butte Creek Fisheries Issues. 30p.

California Bureau of Marine Fisheries. 1949. The commercial fish catch of California for the year 1947 

with an historical review 1916-1947. (Fish Bulletin 74:51-53.) California Department of Fish and 

Game. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1956. Report on Clear Creek, Shasta County, with reference to 

fishway project on McCormick-Saeltzer Dam. March 14. 6 pages.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1956-1990. Annual spawning reports.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1961. Preliminary fisheries evaluation of the proposed Paskenta 

Dam Irrigation Project on Thomes Creek, Tehama County, California. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1965. California fish and wildlife plan. Vol. III, Part B.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1967. Sacramento Valley eastside investigation, California 

Department of Water Resources. (Bulletin No. 137, 1967.) Appendix C - Fish and Wildlife.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1971. File report on salmon spawning habitat in Clear Creek, 

Shasta County. 5 pages.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-5

California Department of Fish and Game. 1974. Assessments for federal water projects adversely 

affecting California's salmon and steelhead resources--3. Trinity River Division, Central Valley Project. 

Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1977. A study of Trinity River steelhead emigration. 

(Anadromous Fisheries Branch Administrative Report No. 77-5.) Sacramento, CA.) Sacramento, 

CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1981. The John E. Skinner Delta Fish Protective Facility, 1986 

- 1980. A summary of the first thirteen years of operation. (Anadromous Fisheries Branch

Administrative Report No. 81-6.) Bay-Delta Fishery Project. Stockton, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1982a. Calaveras River winter-run king salmon. Memorandum 

to the file (Bellota fish screen and ladder and Calaveras River, Calaveras County). Region 2. Rancho 

Cordova, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1982b. Sacramento River and tributaries bank protection 

and erosion control investigation evaluation of impacts of fisheries. Final Report. Sacramento, 

CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1984. Calaveras River fishery below New Hogan Dam. 

Memorandum to the file. (Calaveras River, San Joaquin County). Region 2. Rancho Cordova, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1987a. Summary of Delta outflow effects on San Francisco Bay 

fish and invertebrates. (DFG Exhibit No. 59, State Water Resources Control Board 1987 water 

quality/water rights proceeding for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,

Sacramento, CA.) Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1987b. Associations between environmental factors and the 

abundance and distribution of resident fishes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. (DFG Exhibit No. 

24, State Water Resources Control Board 1987 water quality/water rights proceeding for the San 

Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sacramento, CA.) Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1987c. Factors affecting striped bass abundance in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin River system. (DFG Exhibit No. 25, State Water Resources Control Board, 

1987 water quality/water rights proceeding for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 

Sacramento, CA; and Technical Report 20, Interagency Ecological Studies Program for the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.) Stockton, CA. 
3-XI-6 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

California Department of Fish and Game. 1987d. Requirements of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) in 

the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system. (DFG Exhibit No. 23, State Water Resources Control 

Board 1987 water quality/water rights proceeding for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta, Sacramento, CA.) Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1987e. Delta outflow effects on the abundance and distribution 

of San Francisco Bay fish and invertebrates, 1980-1985. (DFG Exhibit No. 60, State Water 

Resources Control Board 1987 water quality/water rights proceeding for the San Francisco

Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sacramento, CA.) Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1987g. Estimates of fish entrainment losses associated with the 

State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project facilities in the south Delta. (DFG Exhibit No. 

17, State Water Resources Control Board 1987 water quality/water rights proceeding for the San 

Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sacramento, CA.) Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1987h. The status of San Joaquin drainage chinook salmon 

stocks, habitat conditions and natural production factors. (DFG Exhibit No. 15, State Water 

Resources Control Board 1987 water quality/water rights proceeding for the San Francisco

Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sacramento, CA.) Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1987i. Opening day creel census, Calaveras River below New 

Hogan. (Calaveras River, San Joaquin/Calaveras County). Region 2. Rancho Cordova, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1989. Striped bass restoration and management plan for the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary: Phase I. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1991a. Lower Mokelumne River fisheries management plan. 

Rancho Cordova, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1991b. Striped bass management program for fiscal year 1991-

92 for the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary: Phase II. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1991c. Lower Yuba River fisheries management plan. (Stream 

Evaluation Report No. 91-1.) Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1992a. Trinity River Basin salmon and steelhead monitoring 

project, 1990-1991 season. Annual report. Inland Fisheries Division. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1992b. Impact of water management on splittail in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. (WRINT DFG-5, State Water Resources Control Board 1992 

Bay-Delta proceedings, Sacramento, CA.). Sacramento, CA.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-7

California Department of Fish and Game. 1992c. Revised and updated estimates of fish entrainment losses 

associated with the state water project and Federal Central Valley Project facilities in the South Delta. 

Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1992d. Estuary dependent species. (WRINT DFG-6, State 

Water Resources Control Board 1992 Bay-Delta proceedings, Anadromous Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1992e. Written testimony: delta smelt. Bay-Delta and special 

water projects division. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1992f. A re-examination of factors affecting striped bass 

abundance in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. (State Water Resources Control Board 1992 

Bay-Delta proceedings, Sacramento, CA.) Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1992g. Interim actions to reasonably protect San Joaquin fallrun chinook salmon. (WRINT-DFG Exhibit 25.) Prepared for the Water Rights Phase of the State 

Water Resources Control Board Bay/Delta Hearing Proceedings, June. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1993a. Past trends and present status of selected fish and 

invertebrate species of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary. Bay-Delta and 

Special Water Projects Division. Stockton, CA. Prepared for the Bay Delta Oversight Council, 

Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1993b. Factors controlling the abundance of aquatic resources 

in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1993c. Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1993d. Draft. Stream corridor protection plan. May 1993. 

49 pages

California Department of Fish and Game. 1993e. Restoring Central Valley streams: a plan for action. 

Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1993f. Memorandum to the Bureau of Reclamation identifying 

flow and temperature recommendations for Whiskeytown Dam releases dated January 26, 1994. 4 

pages.
3-XI-8 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Memorandum dated November 17, 1994, to the Central 

Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding basin plan amendments. 4 pages.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Restoring Central Valley streams: a plan for action. 

Review draft. February. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game Bay-Delta Project, Selenium Verification Study 1988-90.

California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1987. Agreement between 

DFG and Reclamation regarding interim instream flows and fishery studies in the Stanislaus River below 

New Melones Dam. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources. 1964. Bulletin No. 109, Colusa Basin Investigation. 112p.

California Department of Water Resources. 1976. Sutter Bypass study. 143p.

California Department of Water Resources. 1984a. Middle Sacramento River spawning gravel study. 

Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources. 1984b. Sacramento Valley rice irrigation hydrology study. 

103p.

California Department of Water Resources. 1985. "Clear Creek Fishery Study". 70 pages.

California Department of Water Resources. 1989. Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian 

Habitat Management Plan. 158p.

California Department of Water Resources. 1990a. Draft environmental impact report and environmental 

impact statement, North Delta program. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources. 1990b. Colusa Basin Appraisal. 80p.

California Department of Water Resources. 1992a. Sacramento River spawning gravel restoration. Phase 

I: Project report. Red Bluff, CA.

California Department of Water Resources. 1992b. Biological assessment for south Delta temporary 

barriers project (biological assessment for USFWS Section 7 endangered species permit). The 

Resources Agency. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources. 1993a. Interagency ecological studies program for the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. Compiled by P.L. Herrgesell. Sacramento, CA.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-9

California Department of Water Resources. 1993b. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta atlas. Sacramento, 

CA.

California Department of Water Resources. 1993c. Day flow data summaries for water years 1955-1956 

through 1991-1992. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources. 1993d. Butte and Sutter basin water data atlas. 64p.

California Department of Water Resources. 1993e. Memorandum, Butte and Sutter basins. 179 p.

California Department of Water Resources. 1994a. Comprehensive needs assessment for chinook salmon 

habitat improvement projects in the San Joaquin River Basin. Prepared for the California Department 

of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources. 1994b. Use of alternate gravel sources for fishery restoration 

and riparian habitat enhancement, Shasta and Tehama counties, California. 189 pages

California Department of Water Resources and California Department of Fish and Game. 1986. 

Agreement between the Department of Water Resources and the Department of Fish and Game to 

offset direct fish losses in relation to the Harvey O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1991. Stanislaus River basin 

and Calaveras River water use program scoping report. Sacramento, CA.

California Division of Mines. 1947. California Journal of Mines and Geology 43:2(111).

California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1991. Rice season toxicity monitoring results. Central 

Valley Region. Sacramento, CA.

California State Lands Commission. 1991. Delta-Estuary California's inland coast: a public trust 

report. Sacramento, CA.

California State Lands Commission. 1993. California's rivers: a public trust report. Sacramento, CA.

California State Water Resources Control Board. 1978. Water quality control plan: Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh. Sacramento, CA.

California State Water Resources Control Board. Date. Toxic substances monitoring program: ten year 

summary report 1978-1987. (90-1WQ.) August 1990. 133p.
3-XI-10 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1959-1960. 1960. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 60-19.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1960-61. 1961. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 61-15.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1961-62. 1963. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 63-5.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1962-63. 1963. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 63-13.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1963-64. 1965. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 65-4.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1964-65. 1966. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 66-2.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1965-66. 1967. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 67-1.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1966-67. 1968. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 68-1.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1967-68. 1969. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 69-2.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1968-69. 1970. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 70-1.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-11

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1969-1970. 1971. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 71-8.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1970-1971. 1972. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 72-5.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1971-1972. 1973. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 73-5.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1972-1973. 1974. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 74-2.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1973-1974. 1975. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 75-2.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1974-1975. 1975. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 75-4.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1975-1976. 1976. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 76-5.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1976-1977. 1977. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 77-3.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1977-1978. 1978. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 78-3.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1978-1979. 1980. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 80-1.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.
3-XI-12 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1979-80. 1982. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 82-5.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1980-81. 1984. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 84-1.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1981-82. 1984. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 84-3.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1982-83. 1984. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report 84-4.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California trout, salmon, and warmwater fish production and costs, 1984-85. n.d. (Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. 

Sacramento, CA.

California. The Resources Agency. 1989. Upper Sacramento River fisheries and riparian habitat 

management plan. Sacramento, CA.

Calkins, R. D., W. F. Durand, and W. H. Rich. 1940. Report of the Board of Consultants on the fish 

problems of the Upper Sacramento River. Report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on

recommended fish salvage measures associated with the Shasta Dam project. June 21. Stanford 

University. Stanford, CA.

Cannon, T. C. 1982. Factors related to the number of striped bass in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

estuary. Pages 201-213 in Kockelman, W. J, T. J. Conomos, and A. E. Leviton, (eds.), San 

Francisco Bay: use and protection. American Association for the Advancement of Science. San 

Francisco, CA.

Cannon, T. C. 1982. The importance of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary as a nursery area of young 

chinook salmon, striped bass, and other fishes. Prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Terminal Island, CA.

Carl Mesick Consultants. 1994. The effects of streamflow, water quality, Delta exports, ocean harvest, 

and El Nino conditions on fall-run chinook salmon escapement in the San Joaquin River drainage from 

1951 to 1989. Prepared for The Stanislaus River Council. 
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-13

Cech, J. J., Jr., S. J. Mitchell, and T. E. Wragg. 1984. Comparative growth of juvenile white sturgeon and 

striped bass: effects of temperature and hypoxia. Estuaries 7:12-18.

CH2M Hill. 1985. Klamath River Basin fisheries resource plan. Redding, CA. Prepared for U.S. Bureau 

of Reclamation, Sacramento, CA.

CH2M Hill. 1992. Conceptual design report Western Canal Water District Butte Creek Siphon. 

CH2M Hill. 1994. Continuous Service Study. Report to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District.

Chadwick, H. K. 1959. California sturgeon tagging studies. California Fish and Game 45:297-301.

Chadwick, H. K. 1967. Recent migrations of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River striped bass populations. 

 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 96(3):327-342.

Chadwick, P. 1993. Factors controlling the abundance of aquatic resources in the Sacramento-San 

Joaquin estuary. Draft. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Chapman, D. W. 1988. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds of large 

salmonids. Trans. Am Fish. Soc. 117(1):1-21.

Chapman, D. W. 1992. Comments on plans for management of fisheries of the lower Mokelumne River. 

Submitted to California State Water Resources Control Board. 

Chapman, F. A. 1989. Sexual maturation and reproductive parameters of wild and domestic stocks of 

white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California. Davis, CA.

Clark, G. H. 1929. Sacramento-San Joaquin salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) fishery of California. 

 (Fish Bulletin No. 17.) California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Cochnauer, T. G. 1983. Abundance, distribution, growth, and management of white sturgeon (Acipenser 

transmontanus) in the middle Snake River, Idaho. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Idaho. Moscow, 

ID.

Collins, B. W. 1981. Growth of adult striped bass in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. California Fish 

and Game 68(3):146-159.

Conte, F. S., S. I. Doroshov, P. B. Lutes, and E. M. Strange. 1988. Hatchery manual for the white 

sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus with application to other North American Acipenseridae. 
3-XI-14 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

(Publication 3322.) University of California Cooperative Extension, Division of Agriculture and 

Natural Resources. Davis, CA.

Cooper, W. E., and L. B. Crowder. 1979. Patterns of predation in simple and complex environments. In

H. Clepper (ed.), Predator-prey systems in fisheries management. Sport Fishing Institute. 

Washington, DC.

Coots, M., and T. Healey. 1966. Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Battle Creek System Power 

Project, minor part license number 1121. California Department of Fish and Game Region 1 file 

report.

Coyle et al. 1993. Effect of dietary selenium on the reproductive success of bluegill sunfish (Lepomis 

macrochirus). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 12:551-565.

Cramer, S. P., D. Demko, C. Fleming, and T. Loera. 1990. Survival of juvenile chinook at the GlennColusa Irrigation District's intake. Progress report. April-July 1990. S. P. Cramer and Associates. 

Corvallis, OR. Prepared for Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Willows, CA.

Daniels, R. A. and P. B. Moyle. 1983. Life history of splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. Fishery Bulletin 81(3):647-654.

Dees, L. T. 1961. Sturgeons. (Fish Leaflet 526:1-8.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of 

Commercial Fisheries. Washington, D.C.

Dettlaff, T. A., A. S. Ginsburg, and O. I. Schmalgauzen. 1981. Development of acipenserid fish. 

Publishing House "Nauka", Moscow, Russia.

Dettlaff, T. A., A. S. Ginsburg, and O. I. Schmalgauzen. 1993. Sturgeon fishes-developmental biology 

and aquaculture. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Dettman, D. H., and D. W. Kelly. 1987. The roles of Feather and Nimbus salmon and steelhead 

hatcheries and natural reproduction in supporting fall run chinook salmon populations in the Sacramento 

River Basin. D. W. Kelly & Associates. Newcastle, CA. Prepared for California Department of 

Water Resources, Sacramento, CA.

Dettman, D. H., D. W. Kelly, and W. T. Mitchell. 1987. The influence of flow on Central Valley salmon. 

D. W. Kelley and Associates. Newcastle, CA. Prepared for California Department of Water 

Resources, Sacramento, CA.

Doroshov, S. I. 1985. Biology and culture of sturgeon acipenseriformes. Pages 251-274 in J. F. Muir 

and R. J. Roberts (eds.), Recent advances in aquaculture, volume 2. Westview Press. Boulder, CO.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-15

Doroshov, S. I. 1990. Reproductive biology of the white sturgeon. Annual meeting of the North Pacific 

International Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Everett, WA. (Abstract only.)

Doroshov, S. I., W. H. Clark, Jr., P. B. Lutes, R. L. Swallow, K. E. Beer, A. B. McGuire, and M. D. 

Cochran. 1983. Artificial propagation of the white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus Richardson. 

Aquaculture 32:93-104.

Doroshov, S. I., G. Gall, and R. Swallow. 1988. Establishment of parameters critical to sturgeon 

management in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 33-35 in: California Sea Grant: Biennial report of 

completed projects, 1984-1986. University of California, La Jolla, CA.

Duke, S. D., T. J. Underwood, G. M. Asbridge, R. G. Griswold, M. J. Parsley, and L. G. Beckman. 

1990a. In A. A. Nigro (ed.), Status and habitat requirements of white sturgeon populations in the 

Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam. (Annual Progress Report.) Bonneville Power 

Administration. Portland, OR.

Duke, S. D., T. J. Underwood, G. M. Asbridge, R. G. Griswold, M. J. Parsley, and L. G. Beckman. 

1990b. Reproductive biology of the white sturgeon. Annual meeting of the North Pacific International 

Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Everett, WA. (Abstract only.)

East Bay Municipal Utility District. 1994. Major limiting factors affecting salmon and steelhead production 

in the lower Mokelumne River (1967-1991) and options for restoration. Draft report. 

Edwards, E. A., D. Krieger, M. Bacteller, and O. E. Maughan. 1982a. Habitat suitability index models: 

black crappie. (FWS/OBS-82/10.6.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, 

Western Energy and Land Use Team. Washington, DC.

Edwards, E. A., D. Krieger, G. Gebhard, and O. E. Maughan. 1982b. Habitat suitability index models: 

white crappie. (FWS/OBS-82/10.7.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, 

Western Energy and Land Use Team. Washington, DC.

Emig, J. W. 1966. Smallmouth bass. Pages 354-365 in A. Calhoun (ed.). Inland fisheries management. 

California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Envirosphere Company. 1988. Lower Mokelumne River fisheries study. Draft report prepared for the 

California Department of Fish and Game, Region II, Rancho Cordova, CA.

Estey, D. 1992. DFG Hatchery Manager. Personal communication to Joe Miyamoto.
3-XI-16 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Everest, F. H., and D. W. Chapman. 1972. Habitat selection and spatial interaction by juvenile chinook 

salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho streams. Journal of the Fisheries Resource Board of Canada 

29:91-100.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1993. FEIS. Proposed modifications to the Lower 

Mokelumne River Project, California.

Federal Power Commission. 1976. Order issuing license (major), accepting surrender of minor-part 

license, approving lease of project lands, and disposing of petitions to intervene. Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company project No. 1121.

Fickeisen, D.H., D.A. Nietzel, and D.D. Dauble. 1984. White sturgeon research needs: workshop results. 

 Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.

Foe, C. 1995. Diazinon pulses in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. Water Quality News. 

California Department of Water Resources. Winter 1995.

Fredricksen, Kamine and Associates. 1980. Proposed Trinity River Basin fish and wildlife management 

program. Summary report. Final. (Contract No. 8-07-02-V0035.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for 

the U.S. Department of Interior, Water and Power Resources Service. Sacramento, CA.

Fry, D. H., Jr. 1961. King salmon spawning stocks of the California Central Valley, 1940-1959. 

California Fish and Game 47(1):55-71.

Fry, D. H. 1973. Anadromous fishes of California. California Department of Fish and Game. 

Sacramento, CA. 111 p.

Fujimura, R. W. 1991. Observations on temporal and spacial variability of striped bass eggs and larvae 

and their food in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system. (Technical Report 27, Interagency 

Ecological Studies Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.) California Department of Fish 

and Game. Stockton, CA.

Galbreath, J. L. 1979. Columbia River colossus, the white sturgeon. Oregon Wildlife, March 1979.

Ganssle, D. 1966. Fishes and decapods of San Pablo and Suisun Bay. D. W. Kelley (ed.). Ecological 

studies of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Part 1. (Game Fish Bulletin 133.) California 

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Gard, M. 1994. Replacement of the Corning Canal Siphon, Thomes Creek. Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act Report. USFWS. Ecological Services, Sacramento, CA.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-17

Gislason, J. C. 1985. Aquatic insect abundance in a regulated stream under fluctuating and stable diel 

flow patterns. N.Am.J.Fish.Mgmt. 5:39-46.

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, California Department of Fish and Game, and CH2M Hill. 1989. 

GCID/CDF&G fish protection and gradient restoration facilities: Final feasibility report, Volume I. 

Willows, CA. 

Goettl, J. P., Jr., and P. H. Davies. 1978. Water pollution studies. (Job Progress Report, Federal Aid 

Project F-33-R-13.) Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. 

45 pp.

Goodson, L. F. 1965. Diets of four warmwater game fishes in a fluctuating, steep-sided California 

reservoir. California Fish and Game 51(4):259-269.

Green, R. H. 1979. Sampling design and statistical methods for environmental biologists. John Wiley & 

Sons, Inc. New York, NY.

Hallock, R. J. n.d. Status of the Sacramento River system salmon resource and escapement goals. 

California Department of Fish and Game. Red Bluff, CA.

Hallock, R. J. 1989a. Upper Sacramento River steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, 1952-1988. 

Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, CA.

Hallock, R. J. 1989b. Sacramento River system salmon and steelhead problems and enhancement 

opportunities. A report to the California Commission on salmon and steelhead trout. 

Hallock, R. J., and D. H. Fry, Jr. 1967. Five species of salmon, Oncorhynchus, in the Sacramento River, 

California. California Fish and Game 53:5-22.

Hallock, R. J., and F. W. Fisher. 1985. Status of winter-run chinook salmon Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha, in the Sacramento River. California Department of Fish and Game, Anadromous 

Fisheries Branch. Sacramento, CA.

Hallock, R. J., and W. F. Van Woert. 1959. A survey of anadromous fish losses in irrigation diversions 

from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. California Fish and Game 45:227-296.

Hallock, R. J., D. A. Vogel, and R. R. Reisenbichler. 1982. The effect of Red Bluff diversion dam on the 

migration of adult radio tagged fish. (Administrative Report No. 82-8.) California Department of Fish 

and Game, Anadromous Fisheries Branch. Sacramento, CA.
3-XI-18 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Hallock, R. J., R. F. Elwell, and D. H. Fry, Jr. 1970. Migrations of adult king salmon, Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha, in the San Joaquin River Delta as demonstrated by the use of sonic tags. (Fish Bulletin 

151.) California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Hampton, M. 1988. Development of habitat preference criteria for anadromous salmonids of the Trinity 

River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, CA.

Hankin, D. G. 1982. Estimating escapement of Pacific salmon: marking practices to discriminate wild and 

hatchery fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111:286-298.

Hankin, D. G. 1991. Interaction of hatchery and naturally-spawning chinook salmon stocks in Battle 

Creek, Shasta and Tehama Counties. Draft report to California Department of Fish and Game.

Hanson, C. H. 1994. June 1994 Mokelumne River Technical Advisory Committee minutes. 

Hanson, H. A., O. R. Smith, and P. R. Needham. 1940. An investigation of fish salvage problems in 

relation to Shasta Dam. (Special Scientific Report No. 10.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Hartwell, R. D. 1993. Rearing of juvenile chinook salmon in the lower Mokelumne River, 1993. East Bay 

Municipal Utility District, Orinda, CA.

Hartwell, R. D. 1994. Upstream migration and spawning of fall run chinook salmon in the Mokelumne 

River 1993. East Bay Municipal Utility District, Orinda, CA.

Harvey, C. D. 1994. Draft progress report. Adult steelhead counts on Mill and Deer Creeks, Tehama 

County, October 1993-January 1994. Inland Fisheries Division, California Department of Fish and 

Game.

Haynes, J. M., R. H. Gray, and J. C. Montgomery. 1978. Seasonal movements of white sturgeon 

(Acipenser transmontanus) in the mid-Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 107:275-280.

HDR Engineering, Inc. 1994. Fish screen modification feasibility report. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. 

Healey, M. C. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha). In Pacific salmon life histories, 

edited by C. Groot and L. Margolis. UBC Press. Vancover, Canada.

Healey, M. C., and W. R. Heard. 1984. Inter- and intra-population variation in the fecundity of chinook 

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and its relevance to life history theory. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 

41:476-483.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-19

Herbold, B. 1994. Habitat requirements of Delta Smelt. Interagency Ecological Studies Program for the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary Newsletter Winter: 1-3.

Herbold, B., A. D. Jassby, and P. B. Moyle. 1992. Status and trends report on aquatic resources in the 

San Francisco estuary. San Francisco Estuary Project, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Oakland, CA.

Herrgesell, P. L. 1991. 1990 annual report. Interagency Ecological Studies Program for the SacramentoSan Joaquin Estuary. California Department of Fish and Game. Stockton, CA.

Herrgesell, P. L. 1993. 1991 annual report. Interagency Ecological Studies Program for the SacramentoSan Joaquin Estuary. California Department of Fish and Game. Stockton, CA.

Hesse, L. W., and W. Sheets. 1993. The Missouri River hydrosystem. Fisheries 18(5):5-14.

Hesse, L. W., G. R. Chaffin, and J. Brabander. 1989. Missouri River mitigation: a system approach. 

Fisheries 14(1):11-15.

Higgins, P. S. Dobush, and D. Fuller. 1992. Factors in Northern California threatening stocks with 

extinction. Unpublished manuscript. Humboldt Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. Arcata, CA.

Hilborn, R. 1992. Can fisheries agencies learn from experience? Fisheries 17(4):6-14.

Hillaire, T. 1992. Butte and Sutter basins (draft). (Memorandum, May 8, 1992.) California Department 

of Water Resources. Sacramento, CA.

Hindar, K., N. Ryman, and F. Utter. 1991. Genetic effects of cultured fish on natural fish populations. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:945-957.

Hinze, J. A. 1959. Annual report, Nimbus salmon and steelhead hatchery, fiscal year 1957-58. (Inland 

Fisheries Administrative Report No. 59-4.) California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, 

CA.

Hoffman, J. 1980. Determining optimum releases from Lewiston Dam to improve salmon and steelhead 

habitat in the Trinity River, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, 

Sacramento, CA.
3-XI-20 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Hollibaugh, J. T., I. Werner. 1991. Potamocorbula amurensis: Comparison of clearance rates and 

assimilation efficiencies for phytoplankton and bacterioplankton. (Technical Report 29, Interagency 

Ecological Studies Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.)

Hubbell, P. 1973. A program to identify and correct salmon and steelhead problems in the Trinity River 

Basin. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Trinity River Basin 

Fish & Wildlife Task Force, Sacramento, CA.

Hunter, C. J. 1991. Better trout habitat: a guide to stream restoration and management. Island Press, 

Washington, DC.

Hunter, J. R. 1981. Feeding ecology and predation of marine fish larvae. Pages 34-77 in R. Lasker (ed.), 

Marine fish larvae. University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA.

Hymanson, Z. P. 1991. Results of a spatially intensive survey for Potamocorbula amurensis in the San 

Francisco Bay Estuary. (Technical Report 30, Interagency Ecological Studies Programs for the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.) 

Interagency Ecological Studies Program. 1987. 1986 annual report. (Interagency Ecological Studies 

Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary.) California Department of Fish and Game. 

Stockton, CA.

Interagency Ecological Studies Program. 1991. 1990 annual report. (Interagency Ecological Studies 

Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.) California Department of Fish and Game. 

Stockton, CA.

Jassby, A. D. 1993. Isohaline position as a habitat indicator for estuarine resources: San Francisco 

estuary. In San Francisco Estuary Project 1993. Managing freshwater discharge to the San Francisco 

Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary: the scientific basis for an estuarine standard, Appendix 3. 

 San Francisco, CA.

Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1987. White bass sampling program final report. Sacramento, CA. 

Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, CA.

Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1990a. 1990 field investigations of Yuba River American shad. (JSA 

90-098.) Prepared by William T. Mitchell and Phillip L. Dunn. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Yuba 

County Water Agency, Marysville, CA.

Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1990b. Draft environmental impact report/environmental impact 

statement for the Salinas Valley seawater intrusion program. Prepared for Monterey County Water 
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-21

Resources Agency, Salinas, CA; Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, Pacific Grove, 

CA; and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Sacramento, CA.

Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1991. Evaluation of the effects of flow fluctuations on Yuba River 

chinook salmon redds and fry, October 15-December 31, 1990. January 31, 1991. Sacramento, 

CA. Prepared for Yuba County Water Agency, Marysville, CA.

Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1992a. Fish passage and screening criteria for evaluating the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers' gradient restoration facility on the Sacramento River. Sacramento, CA. Prepared 

for Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. Fort Collins, CO.

Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1992b. Sutter Bypass fisheries technical memorandum I: potential 

effects of proposed gravel mining on fisheries resources. December 30, 1992. (JSA 91-272.) 

Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Teichert Aggregates, Sacramento, CA.

Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1992c. Biological assessment for federal threatened, endangered, and 

candidate species for the Los Vaqueros Project. August 6, 1992. (JSA 90-211.) Sacramento, CA. 

Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, CA, and Contra Costa Water District, 

Concord, CA.

Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1992d. Expert testimony on Yuba River fisheries issued by Jones & 

Stokes Associates' aquatic and environmental specialists representing Yuba County Water Agency. 

January 20, 1992. (JSA 91-220.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for State Water Resources Control 

Board, Water Rights Hearing on Lower Yuba River, February 10, 11, and 13, 1992, Sacramento, 

CA.

Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1993a. Sutter Bypass fisheries technical memorandum II: potential 

entrapment of juvenile chinook salmon in the proposed gravel mining pond. May 27, 1993. (JSA 91-

272.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Teichert Aggregates, Sacramento, CA.

Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1993b. Delta smelt: general ecology and effects of Contra Costa Water 

District diversions. May 7, 1993. (JSA 92-133.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Contra Costa 

Water District, Concord, CA.

Kelley, D. W., P. M. Bratovich, H. Rooks, and D. H. Dettman. 1985. The effect of streamflow on fish in 

the lower American River: second report. Prepared for Bets, Best, and Krieger. 

Kerstetter, T. H. and M. Keeler. 1976. Smolting in steelhead trout salmo gairdneri: a comparative study 

of populations in two hatcheries and the Trinity River, Northern California, Using Gill, Na, K, ATPase 

assays. (Humboldt State University Sea Grant No. 9.) Arcata, CA.
3-XI-22 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Kimmerer, W. 1992. An evaluation of existing data in the entrapment zone of the San Francisco Bay 

estuary. (Technical Report 23, Interagency Ecological Studies Program for the Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Estuary.) California Department of Water Resources. Sacramento, CA.

Kjelson, M. A., S. Greene, and P. Brandes. 1989. A model for estimating mortality and survival of fall-run 

chinook salmon smolts in the Sacramento River Delta between Sacramento and Chipps Inland. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Stockton, CA.

Kjelson, M. J., P. F. Raquel, and F. W. Fisher. 1982. Life history of fall run juvenile chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Pages 393-411 in 

U.S. Kennedy (ed. 7, Estuarine Comparisons). Academic Press. New York, NY. 

Kohlhorst, D. W. 1976. Sturgeon spawning in the Sacramento River in 1973, as determined by 

distribution of larvae. California Fish and Game 62(1):32-40.

Kohlhorst, D. W. 1979. Effect of the first pectoral fin ray removal on survival and estimated harvest rate 

of white sturgeon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. California Fish and Game 65(3): 173-177.

Kohlhorst, D. W. 1980. Recent trends in the white sturgeon population in California Sacramento-San 

Joaquin estuary. California Fish and Game 66(4):210-219.

Kohlhorst, D. W. 1993. Use of a mathematical model as a management tool to evaluate sport angling 

regulations for white sturgeon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. MS presented at the 

Second International Symposium on the Sturgeon, September 1993. Moscow, Russia.

Kohlhorst, D. W., D. E. Stevens, and L. W. Miller. 1992. A model for evaluating the impacts of 

freshwater outflow and export on striped bass in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. California 

Department of Fish and Game. Stockton, CA.

Kohlhorst, D. W., L. W. Botsford, J. S. Brennan, and G. M. Cailliet. 1991. Aspects of the structure and 

dynamics of an exploited central California population of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus). 

Pages 277-293 in: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Sturgeon, P. Williot, 

editor. CEMAGREF. Bordeaux, France.

Kondolf, G. M., and M. Katzel. 1991. Spawning gravel resources of Battle Creek, Shasta and Tehama 

counties. Draft report to Thomas R. Payne and Associates, Arcata, California. 

Kondolf, G. M., and M. L. Swanson. 1993. Channel adjustments to the reservoir construction and gravel 

extraction along Stony Creek, California. Environmental Geology 21:256-259.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-23

Kondolf, G. M., and W. V. Graham Matthews. 1993. Management of coarse sediment on regulated 

rivers. (University of Calif. Report No. 80. ISSN 0575-4968.) Berkeley, CA. 

LaFaunce, D. A. 1965. A steelhead spawning survey of the Upper Trinity River system, 1964. (Marine 

Resources Administrative Report No. 65-4.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland 

Fisheries Division. Sacramento, CA.

Langley, R. 1971. Practical statistics simply explained. Dover Publications, Inc. New York, NY. 399 

pp. 

Lapin, L. 1975. Statistics: meaning and method. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. New York, NY. 591 

pp. 

Lasker, R. 1981. The role of a stable ocean in larval fish survival and subsequent recruitment. Pages 80-

87 in R. Lasker (ed.), Marine fish larvae. University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA.

Leidy, G., and M. Myers. 1984. Central valley fish and wildlife management study: fishery management 

problems at major Central Valley reservoirs, California. Special report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 

Mid-Pacific Region. Sacramento, CA.

Leidy, G. R., and S. Li. 1987. Analysis of river flows necessary to provide water temperature 

requirements of anadromous fishery resources of the Lower American River. (Lower American River 

Court Reference, EDF V. EBMUD, Exhibit No. 69-A.) Prepared for McDonough, Holland, and 

Allen, Sacramento, CA.

Leidy, R. A., and G. R. Leidy. 1984. Life stage periodicities of anadromous salmonids in the Klamath 

River Basin, northwestern California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, 

Sacramento, CA. 

Leitritz, E. 1970. A history of California's fish hatcheries 1870-1960. (Fish Bulletin 150.) California 

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Lichatowich, J. 1993. Ocean carrying capacity. Recovery issues for threatened and endangered Snake 

River salmon. (Technical Report 6 of 11.) Bonneville Power Administration. Portland, OR.

Lister, D. B., and H. S. Genoe. 1970. Stream habitat utilization by cohabiting underyearlings of chinook 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (O. kisutch) salmon in the Big Qualicam River, British 

Columbia. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 27:1215-1224. 

Loudermilk, W. E. 1994. Draft Stanislaus River fishery study agreement amendment. February 25. 
3-XI-24 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Low, A. F., and L. W. Miller. 1986. 1984 striped bass egg and larva study in the Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Estuary. (Technical Report II, Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Estuary.) California Department of Fish and Game. Stockton, CA.

Markmann, C. 1986. Benthic monitoring in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: results from 1975 through 

1981. (Technical Report 12, Interagency Ecological Studies Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Estuary.) California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 

Maslin, P. E., and W. A. McKinney. 1994. Tributary rearing by Sacramento River salmon and steelhead. 

 California State University, Chico. Unpublished report dated May 30, 1994.

McEnroe, M., and J. Cech, Jr. 1985. Osmoregulation in juvenile and adult white sturgeon, Acipenser 

transmontanus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 14:23-30.

McEwan, D., and T. Jackson. 1993. Steelhead management plan for California. California Department of 

Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Sacramento, CA.

McEwan, D., and J. Nelson. 1991. Steelhead restoration plan for the American River. California 

Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Sacramento, CA.

McKechnie, R. J., and R. B. Fenner. 1971. Food habits of white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus in 

San Pablo and Suisun bays, California. California Fish and Game 57:209-212.

Meinz, M. 1981. American shad, Alosa sapidissima, sport fishery in the Sacramento River system, 

1976-1978: catch and effort. (Anadromous Fisheries Branch Administrative Report 81-1.) California 

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Meinz, M. 1985. Effects of EBMUD's dewatering of Mokelumne River on chinook salmon redds. 

Memorandum report dated 2/25/85 to Jerry Mensch, Environmental Services supervisor - Region II, 

from M. Meinz, Fishery Biologist. California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, CA.

Menchen, R. S. 1968. King (chinook) salmon spawning stocks in California's Central Valley, 1967. 

California Department of Fish and Game, Marine Res. Br. Admin. Rpt. No. 68-6. 27 pp.

Menchen, R. S. 1980. Sunset pumps diversion study: 1977 and 1978. California Department of Fish and 

Game (Bay-Delta Division). Draft in-house report.

Meyer, F. 1983. American steelhead. Outdoor California 44(3):26-27.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-25

Michny, F., and R. Deibel. 1986. Sacramento River, Chico Landing to Red Bluff project 1985 juvenile 

salmonid study. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services. Sacramento, CA. 

Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA.

Michny, F., and M. Hampton. 1984. Sacramento River, Chico Landing to Red Bluff project 1984 juvenile 

salmonid study. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services. Sacramento, CA. 

Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA.

Miller, A. I., P. J. Anders, M. J. Parsley, C. R. Sprague, J. J. Warren, and L. G. Beckman. 1991. Report 

C. In A. A. Nigro (ed.), Status and habitat requirements of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia 

River downstream from McNary Dam. (Annual Progress Report.) Bonneville Power Administration. 

Portland, OR.

Miller, A. I., and L. G. Beckman. 1993. Predation on white sturgeon eggs by sympatric fish species in 

three Columbia River impoundments. Status and habitat of the wite sturgeon populations in the 

Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam, Volume II. U.S. Department of Energy. Available 

from Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

Miller, B., R. Reisenbichler, P. Wampler, C. Burley, D. Leith, B. Thorson, and P. Brandes. 1993. Vision 

action plan on supplementation, Region 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 

12 pp. 

Miller, D. J., and R. N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the coastal marine fishes of California. (Fish Bulletin 172.) 

California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Miller, L. W. 1972a. Migrations of sturgeon tagged in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. California 

Fish and Game 58(2):102-106. 

Miller, L. W. 1972b. White sturgeon population characteristics in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary as 

measured by tagging. California Fish and Game 58(2):94-101. 

Miller, M. J. 1987. Feeding in the white sturegon, Acipenser transmontanus: Ontogeny, functional 

morphology, and behavior. M.S. thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

 

Mills, T. J., and F. Fisher. 1993. Central Valley anadromous sport fish annual run-size, harvest estimates, 

and population trends, 1967 through 1991. Preliminary draft. (Inland Fisheries Technical Report.) 

California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Mills, T. J., and F. Fisher. 1994. Central Valley anadromous sport fish annual run-size, harvest, and

population estimates, 1967 through 1991. California Department of Fish and Game. Inland Fisheries 

Division Technical Report. 
3-XI-26 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Mitchell, W. T. 1987. Migrations of adult striped bass in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary in relation 

to water temperature with emphasis on the thermal niche hypothesis. D. W. Kelley and Associates. 

Newcastle, CA. Prepared for California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA.

Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Moyle, P. B., B. Herbold, D. E. Stevens, and L. W. Miller. 1992. Life history and status of delta smelt in 

the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

121:67-77.

Moyle, P. B., J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanayake. 1989. Fish species of special concern of 

California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, CA.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1992. Endangered species status review. Sacramento winter-run 

chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Protected Species Management Division, Southwest 

Region. Long Beach, CA.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1993. Biological opinion for the operation of the federal Central Valley 

Project and the California State Water Project. Santa Rosa, CA. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Sacramento, CA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1991. Distribution and abundance of fishes and 

invertebrates in West Coast estuaries. Volume II: species life history summaries. (ELMR Report 

Number 8.)

Natural Heritage Institute. 1992. Petition for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Longfin smelt and 

Sacramento splittail. San Francisco, CA.

Nikolskii, G. V. 1961. Special ichthyology. (OTS 60-21817.) U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of 

Technical Services, Washington, D.C.

Obrebski, S., J. J. Orsi, and W. Kimmerer. 1992. Long-term trends in zooplankton distribution and 

abundance in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. (Technical Report 32, Interagency Ecological 

Studies Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.) California Department of Water 

Resources. Sacramento, CA.

Odenweller, D. B. 1981. Screening agricultural diversions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary and its 

tributaries, a review of the problem. California Department of Fish and Game. Stockton, CA.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-27

Odenweller, D. B. 1992. Testimony of Dan Bowman Odenweller for the State Water Resources Control 

Board hearing on the Contra Costa Water District's Los Vaqueros Project - Application 20245. 

(DFG Exhibit No. 9, State Water Resources Control Board 1992 water rights proceedings on Contra 

Costa Water District's Los Vaqueros Project - Application 20245, Sacramento, CA.) California 

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Orsi, J. J. 1992. Long-term trends in abundance of native zooplankton in relation to Delta outflow in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. (WRINT DFG-27, State Water Resources Control Board 1992 

Bay-Delta proceedings, Sacramento, CA.) California Department of Fish and Game. Stockton, CA. 

Paced, L. P. 1969. Fisheries surveys on Thomes and Stony Creeks, Glenn and Tehama Counties, with 

special emphasis on their potential for king salmon spawning. California Department of Fish and 

Game. Water Projects Branch Administrative Report No. 69-3. 24 pp.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1993a. Historical ocean salmon fishery data for Washington, 

Oregon, and California. Portland, OR.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1993b. Review of 1992 ocean salmon fisheries. Portland, OR.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 1985. Re-examination of alternatives to reduce losses of striped bass 

at the Contra Costa and Pittsburg Power Plants. (E5-73.3.) San Francisco, CA.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 1990. NPDES permits for Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Contra 

Costa and Pittsburg Power Plants. San Francisco, CA.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 1993. DeSabla-Centerville Project, two-year water temperature and 

stream flow monitoring study.

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1992. White sturgeon management framework plan. 

Portland, OR.

Painter, R. E. 1979. Young American shad ecology. (Final Report Job No. 4, Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act, Project No. AFS-17.) California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, 

CA.

Painter, R. E., L. Wixom, and M. Meinz. 1980. Management plan for American shad (Alosa sapidissima) 

in central California. (Final Report Job No. 3, Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, Project No. AFS17.) California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.
3-XI-28 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Painter, R. E., L. H. Wixom, and S. N. Taylor. 1977. An evaluation of fish populations and fisheries in 

the post-Oroville project Feather River. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 

Prepared for California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA.

Paragamian, V. L., E. C. Bowles, and B. Hoelscher. 1992. Use of daily growth increments on otoliths to 

assess stockings of hatchery-reared kokanees. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

121:785-791.

Parsley, M. J., and L. G. Beckman. 1993. Spawning and rearing habitat use by white sturgeons in the 

Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

122:217-227.

Parsley, M. J., L. G. Beckman, and G. T. McCabe, Jr. 1992. Habitat use by spawning and rearing 

white sturgeon downstream of McNary Dam. In R. C. Beamesderfer and A. A. Nigro, eds., Status 

and habitat requirements of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream of McNary 

Dam. Volume I. Final report (Contract DE-AI79-86BP63584) to Bonneville Power Administration, 

Portland, OR. 

Pauley G. B., B. M. Bortz, and M. F. Shepard. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental 

requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest)--steelhead trout. (Biological 

Report 82[11.62], TR EL-82-4.) Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Viksburg, MS.

Payne, T. R. & Associates. 1991a. Anadromous fish migration barrier survey of Battle Creek, Shasta and 

Tehama counties. Draft report to California Department of Fish and Game. 

Payne, T. R. & Associates. 1991b. Battle Creek instream flow study. Draft report to California 

Department of Fish and Game.

Payne, T. R. & Associates. 1991c. Hydrologic analysis for Battle Creek, Shasta and Tehama counties. 

Draft report to California Department of Fish and Game.

Pearcy, W. 1992. Ocean ecology of North Pacific salmonids. (Books in Recruitment Fishery 

Oceanography.) University of Washington Press, Washington Sea Grant Program. Seattle, WA.

Pycha, R. L. 1956. Progress report on white sturgeon studies. California Fish and Game 42(1):23-35. 

Quigley, T. M. 1981. Estimating contributions of overstory vegetation to stream surface shade. Wildl. 

Soc. Bull. 9(1):22-27. 

Radtke, L. D. 1966a. Distribution and abundance of adult and subadult striped bass, Roccus Saxatilis, in 

the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Pages 15-27 in J. L. Turner and D. W. Kelley (eds.), Ecological 
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-29

studies of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Part II. (Fish Bulletin 136.) California Department of 

Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Radtke, L. D. 1966b. Distribution of smelt, juvenile sturgeon and starry flounder in the Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Delta. Pages 115-119 in S. L. Turner and D. W. Kelley (eds.), Ecological studies of the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Part II. (Game Fish Bulletin 136.) California Department of Fish and 

Game. Sacramento, CA.

Raleigh, R. F., W. T. Miller, and P. C. Nelson. 1986. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow 

suitability curves: chinook salmon. (Biological Report 82[10.122].) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Washington, DC.

Raleigh, R. F., L. D. Zuckerman, and P. C. Nelson. 1986. Habitat suitability index models and instream 

flow suitability curves: brown trout. (Biological Report 82[10.124].) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Office of Biological Services, Western Energy and Land Use Team, Washington, D.C.

Raleigh, R. F., T. Hickman, R. C. Solomon, and P. C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability information: 

rainbow trout. (FWS/OBS-82d/10.60.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological

Services, Western Energy and Land Use Team. Washington, DC.

Ramsden, G. R. 1993. Trinity River salmon and steelhead hatchery, 1991-1992. Annual report. (Inland 

Fisheries Administrative Report No. 93-3.) California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries 

Division. Sacramento, CA.

Reading, H. H. 1982a. Passage of juvenile chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, and American 

shad, Alosa sapidissima, through various trash rack bar spacings. (Interagency Ecological Study 

Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, Technical Report 5 [FF/BIO-4ATR/82-5].) 

California Department of Water Resources, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, CA.

Reading, H. H. 1982b. Sturgeon retention tests with perforated plate and continuous slot material. 

California Department of Fish and Game, Anadromous Fisheries Board Administrative Report. 82-6. 

9p. 

Reavis, R. 1983. Annual report: chinook salmon spawning stocks in California Central Valley, 1981. 

California Department of Fish and Game. Anadromous Fisheries Branch Administrative Report No. 

83-2. 

Reisenbichler, R. R. 1986. Use of spawner-recruit relations to evaluate the effect of degraded environment 

and increased fishing on the abundance of fall-run chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in 

several California streams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Seattle, WA.
3-XI-30 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Reiser, D. W., and T. C. Bjornn. 1979. Habitat requirements of anadromous salmonids. (General 

technical report PNW-96.) Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service.

Resource Consultants and Engineers, Inc. 1994. Draft EIR/EIS. Improvement of water intake, fish 

creening, and bypass conditions, at the GCID's Hamilton City pumping plant.

Reuter, J. E., and W. T. Mitchell. 1987. Spring water temperatures of the Sacramento River. (DWR 

Exhibit No. 562, State Water Resources Control Board 1987 water quality/water rights proceeding 

for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sacramento, CA.) D. W. Kelley and 

Associates. Newcastle, CA. Prepared for California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, 

CA.

Reynolds, F., J. Mills, R. Benthin, and A. Low. 1993. Central Valley anadromous fisheries and associated 

riparian and wetland areas protection and restoration action plan. California Department of Fish and 

Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Sacramento, CA.

Reynolds, F. L., T. Mills, R. Benthin, and A. Low. 1993. Restoring Central Valley streams: a plan for 

action. The Resources Agency, California State Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Reynolds, F. L., R. L. Reavis, and J. Schuler. 1990. Central Valley salmon and steelhead restoration and 

enhancement plan. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Sacramento, 

CA.

Rich, A. A. 1987. Water temperatures which optimize growth and survival of the anadromous fishery 

resources of the lower American River. A. A. Rich and Associates. San Rafael, CA. Prepared for 

McDonough, Holland and Allen, Sacramento, CA.

Richardson, T. 1987. An analysis of the effectiveness of the mitigation plan for Shasta and Keswick dams. 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, Sacramento, California. File report

Richardson, T. 1994. Notes on the Calaveras River prepared for the Lower Sacramento and Delta 

tributaries technical team (CVPIA) fish restoration program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Sacramento, CA. Notes held by Kate Puckett, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.

Ricker, W. E. 1958. Handbook of computations for biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin of the 

Fisheries Research Board of Canada 119. 300 pp.

Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics in fish populations. (Bulletin 

191.) Department of the environmental Fisheries and Marine Service. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-31

Ricker, W. E. 1980. Causes of the decline in age and size of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha). (Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 944.) Government 

of Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Nanaimo, British Columbia.

Ricklefs, R. E. 1973. Ecology. Chiron Press. Newton, MA.

Roberts, B. C., and R. G. White. 1992. Effects of angler wading on survival of trout eggs and preemergent fry. North American J. of Fish Manage. 12:450-459.

Rosgen, D. L. 1991. Applied fluvial geomorphology. 

Ross, R. M., T. W. H. Backman, and R. M. Bennet. 1993. Evaluation of habitat suitability index models 

for riverine life stages of American shad, with proposed models for premigratory juveniles. (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Biological Report 14.) Washington, DC.

Roussow, G. 1957. Some considerations concerning sturgeon spawning periodicity. Journal of the 

Fisheries Research Board of Canada 14:553-572.

Rowell, J. H. 1993. Stanislaus River Basin temperature model. Draft. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, MidPacific Region. Sacramento, CA.

Sacramento River Information Center. 1993. Toxic pollution of the Sacramento River. (Research Report 

No. 1.) Redding, CA.

San Francisco Estuary Project. 1993. Managing freshwater discharge to the San Francisco

Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary: the scientific basis for estuarine standard. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. Oakland, CA.

San Joaquin River Management Program Advisory Council. 1992. San Joaquin River Management 

Program second annual report to the legislature. Sacramento, CA.

San Joaquin River Management Program Fisheries Subcommittee. 1993. An action plan for San Joaquin 

fall-run chinook salmon populations. January. Prepared for the San Joaquin River Management 

Program Advisory Council. 

SAS Institute Inc. 1990a. SAS procedures guide, version 6, third edition. Cary, NC.

SAS Institute Inc. 1990b. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 6, fourth edition, Volume 2. Cary, NC.
3-XI-32 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Sasaki, S. 1966a. Distribution of young striped bass, Roccus saxatilis, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 136:44-58.

Sasaki, S. 1966b. Distribution of juvenile striped bass, Roccus saxatilis, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 136:59-67.

Scarnecchia, D. L., and H. H. Wagner. 1980. Contribution of wild and hatchery-reared coho salmon, 

Oncorhynchus kisutch, to the Oregon sport fishery. Fishery Bulletin 77:617-623.

Schlosser, I. J. 1991. Stream fish ecology: a landscape perspective. BioScience 41(10):704-712.

Schafter, R. G. 1980. Fish occurrence, size, and distribution in the Sacramento River near Hood, 

California, during 1973 and 1974. (Administrative Report No. 80-3.) California Department of Fish 

and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Schaffter, R. G. 1990. Inland and anadromous sport fish management research; Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta sturgeon population study, spawning habitat preference of sturgeon in California's Sacramento 

River. (Progress Report.) California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Schaffter, R. G. 1991. Spawning habitat preferences of sturgeon in California=s Sacramento River. Annual 

Performance Report, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, California F-51-R-3, Subproject No. 

VIII, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Sport Fish Management, Study No. II, Sturgeon Population 

Study (Research).

Schaffter, R. G. 1994. Some aspects of white sturgeon spawning migrations and spawning habitat in the 

Sacramento River, California. California Department of Fish and Game (Bay-Delta Division). Draft 

in-house report.

Schaffter, R. G., P. A. Jones, and J. G. Karlton. 1983. Sacramento River and tributaries bank protection 

and erosion control report. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Schoenberg, S. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Biologist. Personal communication. 

Schreiber, M. R. 1962. Observations on the food habits of juvenile white sturgeon. California Fish and 

Game 48(1):79-80.

Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. (Bulletin 184.) Fisheries 

Research Board of Canada. Ottawa, Canada.

Shapovalov, L., and A. C. Taft. 1954. The life histories of the steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri 

gairdneri) and silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisuteh) with special reference to Waddell Creek, 
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-33

California, and recommendations regarding their management. (Fish Bulletin 98.) California 

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Shasta County Department of Planning. 1993. Shasta County General Plan. March 1993.

Shirley, D. E. 1987. Age distribution of white sturegon (Acipenser transmontanus) in the SacramentoSan Joaquin Bay-Delta. M.S. thesis. University of California, Davis, California.

Sholes, W. H., and R. J. Hallock. 1979. An evaluation of rearing fall-run chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha, to yearlings at Feather River Hatchery, with a comparison of returns from hatchery and 

downstream releases. California Fish and Game 65:239-255.

Skinner, J. E. 1962. An historical review of the fish and wildlife resources of the San Francisco Bay area. 

(Water Projects Branch Report No. 1.) California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Slater, D. W. 1963. Winter-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River, California with notes on water 

temperature requirements at spawning. (Special Scientific Report-Fisheries No. 461.) U.S. Wildlife 

Service. Washington, DC.

Smith, L. H. 1987. A review of circulation and mixing studies of San Francisco Bay, California. (Circular 

1015.) U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, CO.

Snider, B., K. Urquart, D. McEwan, and M. Munos. 1993. Chinook salmon redd survey: Lower 

American River, fall 1992. California Department of Fish and Game, Stream Evaluation program. 

Envir. Sci. Div. 

Snider, B., and K. Vyverberg. 1995. Chinook salmon redd survey: lower American River, fall 1993. 

Department of Fish and GAme, Environ. Sci. Div., Stream Flow and Habitat Evaluation Program. 

Sacramento, CA.

Snider, W. M., and D. C. McEwan. 1992. Chinook salmon redd survey: Lower American River, 

1991-1992. California Department of Fish and Game, Stream Evaluation program. Envir.Sci.Div. 

Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. W. H. Freeman & Co. San Francisco, CA.

Spaar, S. 1992. Delta agricultural diversion evaluation-1992 pilot study. (California Department of Water 

Resources Technical Report 37; 1994.) Available from California Department of Water Resources, 

Sacramento, CA.
3-XI-34 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Spaar, S. 1993. 1992 entrainment of eggs and larvae to the State Water Project and Central Valley 

Project intakes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. California Department of Water Resources. 

Sacramento, CA.

Spaar, S. A. 1990. Results of 1988 striped bass egg and larva study near the State Water Project and 

Central Valley Project facilities in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. A cooperative study by 

California Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control Board, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. 

Geological Survey. Prepared for Interagency Ecological Studies Program for the Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Estuary, Stockton, CA.

State Water Contractors. 1987. Recommendations of the State Water Contractors regarding the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin striped bass resource. (SWC Exhibit No. 203, State Water Resources 

Control Board 1987 water quality/water rights proceeding for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Delta, Sacramento, CA.) Sacramento, CA.

Steitz, C. 1993. Letter dated March 24, 1993, to David Hoopaugh, California Department of Fish and 

Game files.

Steitz, C. 1994. Office memorandum, revisions for third draft of Central Valley anadromous sport fish 

annual run-size, harvest and population estimates, 1967 through 1991. 2p.

Stevens, D. E. 1966. Food habits of striped bass, Roccus saxatilis, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 136:68-96.

Stevens, D. E. 1972. Other fishes in the estuary: American shad. Chapter VII in Ecological studies of the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Stevens, D. E., and L. W. Miller. 1970. Distribution of sturgeon larvae in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

River system. California Fish and Game 56(2):80-86.

Stevens, D. E., D. W. Kohlhorst, L. W. Miller and D. W. Kelley. 1985. The decline of striped bass in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114:12-

30.

Stevens, D. E., and L. W. Miller. 1983. Effects of river flow on abundance of young chinook salmon, 

American shad, longfin smelt, and Delta smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 3:425-437.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-35

Stevens, D. E., L. W. Miller, and B. C. Bolster. 1990. Report to the Fish and Game Commission: a 

status review of the Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) in California. (Candidate Species Status 

Report 90-2.) California Department of Fish and Game. Stockton, CA.

Stier, D. J., and J. H. Crance. 1985. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: 

American shad. (Biological Report 82[10.88]). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological 

Services, Western Energy and Land Use Team. Washington, D.C.

Stockley, C. 1981. Columbia River sturgeon. (Progress Report No. 150.) Washington Department of 

Fisheries. Olympia, WA.

Studley, T. K., J. F. Baldrige, L. M. Wise, A. P. Spina, E. McElrary, R. W. Smith, T. D. F. Yuen, L. 

Travanti, S. D. Chose, and S. F. Railsbach. 1993. Response of fish populations to altered flows 

project: baseline report (1985-1992). Volume I. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Ramon, 

CA.

Swanson, M. 1994. Hydrology management plan for Big Chico Creek, one and five mile dam facilities 

and Lindo channel. Draft Final to City of Chico Park Department. July 14, 1994.

Summer, F. H. and O. R. Smith. 1940. Hydraulic mining and debris dams in relation to fish life in the 

American and Yuba rivers of California. California Fish and Game 26(1):2-22.

Sweetnam, D. A., and D. E. Stevens. 1991. Delta smelt study plan. California Department of Fish and 

Game. Stockton, CA.

Talbitzer, B. 1959. Case of the virgin sturgeon: the story of Butte County's largest fish catch. Butte 

County Historical Society, Diggin's 3:6-8.

Taylor, E. B. 1991. A review of local adaptation in Salmonidae, with particular reference to Pacific and 

Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture 98:185-207.

Taylor, G. 1992. Report of engineering and biological site review of the Woodbridge Irrigation District fish 

protection facilities on the lower Mokelumne River. Memo to USFWS files.

The Resources Agency. 1989. Upper Sacramento River fisheries and riparian habitat management 

plan. Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Advisory Council. Sacramento, 

CA.

Thomas, J. L. 1967. The diet of juvenile and adult striped bass, Roccus saxatilis, in the Sacramento-San 

Joaquin River system. California Fish and Game 53(1):49-62. 
3-XI-36 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Thomas, J. L. 1976. Striped bass spawning in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers in central California 

from 1963 to 1972. 

Thomas, J. L. 1987. Effects of geographic distribution of larval striped bass in determining year class size 

of striped bass in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. (USBR Exhibit No. 100, State Water 

Resources Control Board 1987 water quality/water rights proceeding for the San Francisco 

Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sacramento, CA.) U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Sacramento, 

CA.

Thompson, K. 1972. Determining streamflows for fish life. Pages 31-46 in Proceedings of the Instream 

Flow Requirement Workshop. Portland, OR.

Turner, J. L. 1966. Distribution of Cyprinid fishes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Pages 154-159 

in J. L. Turner and D. W. Kelley, editors, Ecological studies of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Part 

II. Fishes of the Delta. (Fish Bulletin 136.) California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, 

CA.

Turner, J. L., and H. K. Chadwick. 1972. Distribution and abundance of young-of-the-year striped bass, 

Morone saxatalis, in relation to river low in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 101(3):442-452.

Turner, J. L. and W. Heubach. 1966. Distribution and concentration of Neomysis awatschensis in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In J. L. Turner and D. W. Kelley (eds.), Ecological studies of the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Part II (Fish Bulletin No. 133.) California Department of Fish and 

Game, Sacramento, CA.

Tuss, C. 1989. Klamath River sturgeon. In Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1989 white 

sturgeon workshop proceedings. Abstract mimeo. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 

Portland, OR.

U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. 1940. An investigation of fish-salvage problems in relation to Shasta Dam. 

(Special Scientific Report No. 10.) 184 pages.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Redding resource management plan and record of decision. 

June 1993. 55 pages.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1983a. Central Valley fish and wildlife management study: Fishery problems 

at Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District Diversion Dam, Sacramento River, California. Special 

report. Sacramento, CA.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-37

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1983b. Central Valley fish and wildlife management study: Predation of 

anadromous fish in the Sacramento River, California. Special report. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1985. Central Valley fish and wildlife management study. Coleman National 

Fish Hatchery and Keswick fish trap operations. Special report. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1986a. Central Valley fish and wildlife management study: Temperature and 

flow studies for optimizing chinook salmon production, Upper Sacramento River, California. Special 

report. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1986b. Evaluation of the potential of a comprehensive restoration program 

for the San Joaquin River salmon fishery. Special report. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1992a. Long-term Central Valley project operations criteria and plan CVPOCAP. October. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1992b. Shasta Dam temperature control device. Progress report. October. 

 (Report No. 15.) Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1993a. Effects of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project on 

Delta smelt. Prepared by California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 

Mid-Pacific Region. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological 

Services, Sacramento Field Office, Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1993b. Red Bluff Diversion Dam pilot pumping plant program. Revised draft 

environmental assessment. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Water quality standards for surface waters of the 

Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and San Francisco Bay and Delta of the State of California. 

Federal Register 59(4):810-852. January 6, 1994.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Fish and wildlife aspects with Tehama-Colusa Canal, Sacramento 

Canal units, Sacramento River division, Central Valley project, California. Memorandum from 

Regional Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon to Regional Director, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California. January 5.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Klamath River Fisheries Investigation Program, Annual Report1981, Fishery Assistance Office. Arcata, CA. 
3-XI-38 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985a. Flow needs of chinook salmon in the lower American River. Final 

report on the 1981 lower American flow study. Division of Ecological Services. Sacramento, CA. 

Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985b. Restoration of salmon and steelhead in Clear Creek (projected 

improvement). November 19, 1985. Report prepared for Central Valley Fish and Wildlife 

Management Study.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Annual Report, Coleman National Fish Hatchery. Prepared for the 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region, Sacramento, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Division of Ecological Services, Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. The needs of chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. (USFWS Exhibit No. 31, State Water Resources Control Board 

1987 water quality/water rights proceeding for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 

Sacramento, CA.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Determine survival and productivity of juvenile chinook salmon in 

the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. Annual progress report. September 30, 1988. (FY 88 Work 

Guidance.) Fisheries Assistance Office. Stockton, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990a. Trinity River flow evaluation. Annual report. Sacramento, CA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990b. Yuba River watershed investigation: Lower Yuba River area. Vol. 

III. Enhancement Program, Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990c. American River watershed investigation: Lower American River 

area. Vol. III. Fish & Wildlife Enhancement Program, Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990d. Agricultural irrigation drainwater studies in support of the San 

Joaquin Valley Drainage Program. Final Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Fisheries Contaminant Research Center, Route 2, Columbia, Missouri 65201.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Measures to improve the protection of chinook salmon in the 

Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta. (WRINT USFWS-7.) Expert testimony of U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service on chinook salmon technical information for State Water Resources Control Board 

Water Rights Phase of the Bay/Delta Estuary Proceedings. July 6, 1992.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Shaded riverine aquatic cover of the Sacramento River 

System: classification as resource Category 1 under the USFWS mitigation policy. Sacramento 

Field Office. Sacramento, CA.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-39

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993a. Draft biological opinion: formal consultation on the 1994 operation 

of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project: effects on delta smelt. Sacramento, CA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993b. Abundance and survival of juvenile chinook salmon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. 1992 annual progress report. June. (FY 92 Work Guidance.) Fishery 

Resource Office. Stockton, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993c. Upper Sacramento River restoration reconnaissance investigation, planning aid report. Ecological Services, Sacramento Field Office. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993d. Comments submitted to FERC on the FEIS "Proposed 

Modifications to the Lower Mokelumne River Project, California".

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993e. Closing statement before the State Water Resource Control Board 

in the matter of the Water Rights Hearing for the Lower Mokelumne River, May 17, 1993.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993f. Memorandum to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation re: Stanislaus

River basin-Calaveras River conjunctive use water program study: a preliminary evaluation of fish and 

wildlife impacts with emphasis on water needs of the Calaveras River. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993g. Biological assessment on the effects of Coleman National Fish 

Hatchery operations on winter-run chinook salmon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994a. Central Valley Project Improvement Act - Plan of action for the 

Central Valley Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4001 North 

Wilson Way, Stockton, California 95205. 14 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b. The relationship between instream flow, adult immigration, and 

spawning habitat availability for fall-run chinook salmon in the upper San Joaquin River, California. 

Ecological Services, Sacramento Field Office, Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994c. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: revised proposed 

critical habitat determination for the delta smelt. Federal Register 59(4):852-862. January 6, 1994.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994d. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: notice of 1-year 

finding on a petition to list the longfin smelt. Federal Register 59(4):869-871. January 6, 1994.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Fish health policy. (FWM 170, Fisheries Part 713, FW 1-4.) 

Division of Fish Hatcheries. 
3-XI-40 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

U.S. Geological Survey. 1975-1978. Surface water records.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1992. Sacramento River flow at Butte City and Wilkins Slough. Denver, CO.

Van Cleve, R. 1945. A preliminary report on the fishery resources of California in relation to the Central 

Valley Project. California Division of Fish and Game, California Fish and Game 31(2):35-52.

Vogel, D. A. 1992. Assessment of the fish passage facilities at Lake Lodi in the Mokelumne River. Vogel 

Environmental Services, Red Bluff, CA.

Vogel, D. A., and H. Rectenwald. 1987. Water quality and water quantity needs for chinook salmon 

production in the Upper Sacramento River. (USFWS Exhibit No. 29, State Water Resources Control 

Board 1987 water quality/water rights proceeding for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta, Sacramento, CA.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and 

Game. Sacramento, CA.

Vogel, D. A., and K. R. Marine. 1991. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Central Valley Project guide to 

Upper Sacramento River chinook salmon life history. CH2M Hill. Redding, CA.

Vogel, D. A., and K. R. Marine. 1992. An assessment of the appraisal study of options for improving fish 

passage at Red Bluff Diversion Dam. Red Bluff, CA.

Vogel, D. A., and K. M. Marine. 1993a. Evaluation of the downstream migration of juvenile chinook 

salmon and steelhead in the lower Mokelumne River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (January 

through July 1993). Vogel Environmental Services, Red Bluff, CA.

Vogel, D. A., and K. R. Marine. 1993b. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Central Valley Project Guide to 

Upper Sacramento River Chinook Salmon Life History. CH2M Hill, Redding, CA.

Vogel, D. A., K. R. Marine, and J. G. Smith. 1988. Fish passage action program for Red Bluff Diversion 

Dam. Final report on fishery investigations, executive summary. (Report No. FR1/FAO-88-19.) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Assistance Office. Red Bluff, CA.

Volk, E. C., S. L. Schroder, and K. L. Fresh. 1990. Inducement of unique otolith banding patterns as a 

practical means to mass-mark juvenile pacific salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

7:203-215.

Von Geldern, C. E. 1974. Black bass: what does the future hold in store for these five game fish in 

California? Outdoor California 35(1):13-16.
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PRINTED REFERENCES 3-XI-41

Vronskiy, B. B. 1972. Reproductive biology of the Kamchatka River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha). Walbaum J. Icthyol. 12:259-273.

Wallace Kuhl & Associates, Inc. 1994. Ricelands winter flooding project water source study. 

Walsh, R. W., C. Marzuola, and E. Bianchi. 1992. Task Report Fisheries Studies on the Mokelumne 

River 1990-91. Draft Report. Biosystems Analysis, Inc. Tiburon, CA.

Wang, J. C. S. 1986. Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary and adjacent waters, California: a 

guide to the early life histories. (FS/10-4ATR 86-9, Technical Report 9, Interagency Ecological 

Studies Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.) California Department of Water 

Resources. Sacramento, CA. 

Wang, J. C. S. 1991. Early life history of the Delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus, in the SacramentoSan Joaquin estuary, with comparison of early life stages of the longfin smelt, Spirinchus thaleichthys. 

 (FS/BIO-IATR/91-28, Technical Report 28, Interagency Ecological Studies Program for the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.) California Department of Water Resources. Sacramento, CA.

Wang, J. C. S., and R. L. Brown. 1993. Observations of early life stages of Delta smelt, (Hypomesus 

transpacificus), in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary in 1991, with a review of its ecological status 

in 1988 to 1990. (FSI BIO-IATR/93-35, Technical Report No. 35, Interagency Ecological Studies 

Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.) California Department of Water Resources. 

Sacramento, CA.

Wang, Y. L. 1984. The effects of temperature on the early development of white sturgeon and lake 

sturgeon. M.S. thesis. University of California. Davis, CA.

Wang, Y. L., R. K. Buddington, and S. I. Doroshov. 1987. Influence of temperature on yolk utilization by 

the white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus. Journal of Fish Biology 30:263-271.

Wang, Y. L., F. P. Binkowski, and S. I. Doroshov. 1985. Effect of temperature on early development of 

white and lake sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus and A. fulvescens. Pages 43-50 in F. P. 

Binkowski and S. I. Doroshov (eds.), North American sturgeons: biology and aquaculture potential. 

Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Waples, R. S. 1991. Genetic interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids: lessons from the Pacific 

Northwest. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:124-133.

Warren, J. J., and L. G. Beckman. 1991. Fishway use by white sturgeon on the Columbia River. 

Washington Sea Grant Program. Seattle, WA.
3-XI-42 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Water Education Foundation. 1992b. Layperson's guide to California water. Sacramento, CA.

Water Education Foundation. 1992a. Layperson's guide to California rivers and streams. Sacramento, 

CA.

Waterline. 1993. Publication of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. Willows, CA.

Wedemeyer, G. A., R. L. Saunders, and W. C. Clarke. 1980. Environmental factors affecting

smoltification and early marine survival of anadromous salmonids. Marine Fisheries Review. (June): 1-

14.

Wendt, P. 1987. Preliminary evaluation of factors controlling striped bass salvage loss at Skinner Fish 

Facility: quality and direction of flow in the lower San Joaquin River, striped bass abundance and size, 

and total Delta exports. (DWR Exhibit No. 606, State Water Resources Control Board 1987 water 

quality/water rights proceeding for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,

Sacramento, CA.) Sacramento, CA.

Wilzbach, M. A. 1988. How tight is the linkage between trees and trout? Pages 250-255 in 

Proceedings of the California Riparian Systems Conference, Sept. 22-24, Davis, CA. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Forest Serve, Pacific Southwest Forest Range and Experiment 

Station, General Technical Report PSW-110.

Wixom, L. H. 1981. Age and spawning history of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) in central 

California, 1975-1978. (Anadromous Fisheries Branch Administrative Report No. 81-3.) California 

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Wright, S. 1993. Fishery management of wild Pacific salmon stocks to prevent extinctions. Fisheries 

(Bethesda) 18(5):3-4.

Yoshioka, G. n.p. Problems and issues, potential solutions, and needed investigations for anadromous 

salmonid restoration on Big Chico Creek. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game.

Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. Second edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 718 

pp.

Welch, D. W., and R. C. Beamesderfer. 1993. [In R. C. Beamesderfer and A. A. Nigro, eds., Status and 

habitat requirements of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream of McNary 

Dam. Volume II. Final report (Contract DE-AI79-86BP63584) to Bonneville Power Administration. 

 Portland, OR. 
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 3-XI-43

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Barrow, Scott. Fisheries biologist. California Department of Fish and Game, Stockton, CA. October 20, 

1991 - floppy disk of DVP and SWP salvage information; October 3, 1991 - electronic data on disk 

(salvage data 1985-1990).

Bartley, Red. Fisherman. [Stockton, CA.] September 1994 - telephone conversation. 

Baxter, Randy. Associate fisheries biologist. California Department of Fish and Game. Stockton, CA. 

January 14 and 19, 1994 - telephone conversation; January 18, 1994 - telephone conversation 

regarding splittail abundance; January 20, 1994 - telephone conversation and fax of midwater trawl 

abundance indices for 1993 and seining locations on the Sacramento River.

Delisle, Glenn. Senior fishery biologist. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 

January 10, 1994 - preliminary data on hatchery reared striped bass.

Doroshov, Serge. Professor. University of California, Davis, Davis, CA.

Foe, Christopher. Environmental specialist. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central 

Valley Region. Sacramento, CA.

Foley, Patrick. Research assistant. University of California, Davis, Davis, CA.

Ford, Stephen. Program manager. Delta Pumping Plant Fish Protection Agreement Program, California 

Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. August 23, 1993 - memorandum regarding notes 

of July 7, 1993 committee meeting; June 24, 1993 -memorandum regarding notes of May 5, 1993 

committee meeting.

Fox, William. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. February 14, 1992 - letter to Mr. 

Roger Patterson, Regional District of Reclamation, with Biological Opinion on effects of CVP 1992 

Operations on winter-run chinook salmon.

Herbold, Bruce. Fish biologist. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA. December 29, 

1993 - memorandum to Warren Shaul.

Hodges, Terry. Warden. California Department of Fish and Game, Oroville, CA. 
3-XI-44 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Hubbell, Paul. Supervisor, Klamath-Trinity Program, Field Operations. California Department of Fish and 

Game, Sacramento, CA. December 15, 1992 - memorandum to DFG staff concerning Klamath River 

Basin fall chinook salmon spawner escapement, in-river harvest, and run-size estimates, 1978-1992.

Kautsky, George. Fisheries biologist. Hoopa Tribe, Willow Creek, CA. November 25, 1993 - telephone 

conversation.

Kelly. (Upper Sac River Tribs)

Lee, Dennis P. Fishery biologist. California Department of Fish and Game, Region 2, Rancho Cordova, 

CA. July 16, 1992 - facsimile of graphs for warmwater species relating to spawning success with 

decreasing reservoir water levels.

Lenihan, Emmitt. Game warden. California Department of Fish and Game.

Libby, Ron. Biologist. California Department of Water Resources, Oroville, CA.

Mager, Randy. Graduate student. Animal Science Department, University of California, Davis, CA. May 

13, 1993 - meeting (Delta Smelt Workshop at California Department of Fish and Game, Stockton.

Maslin, Paul. Assistant professor. California State University, Chico, CA.

Menchen, Robert. Biologist. Folsom, CA.

Messersmith, James. Regional manager. California Department of Fish and Game, Region II, Rancho 

Cordova, CA. June 17, 1988 - memorandum to H. K. Chadwick, Program manager, California 

Department of Fish and Game, Bay-Delta Project.

Milton, Bob. South Sutter Water District. 

Myers, Fred. Biologist. California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, CA.

Parsley, Mike. Fishery biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cook, WA. September 21, 1992 -

telephone conversation.

Pisano, M. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. May 29, 1992 - memorandum to 

fisheries files.

Preston, Larry. ACID general manager. [Redding, CA.]
SECTION XI. CITATIONS -

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 3-XI-45

Rectenwald, Harry. Biologist. California Department of Fish and Game, Redding, CA. August 16, 1989 -

letter to Mr. Dick Daniel, Environmental Services Division of DFG, concerning the status of winter-run 

chinook salmon prior to construction of Shasta Dam.

Richardson, T. H. Fisheries biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. December 15, 1993 -

telephone conversation.

Rose, David. Fish habitat supervisor II. California Department of Fish and Game, Elk Grove, CA.

Running, S. R. Biologist. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Ramon, CA. December 14, 1993 -

telephone conversation.

Rutherford, Hugh. Warden. California Department of Fish and Game. August 18, 1994 - telephone 

conversation.

Schaffter, Ray. Biologist. California Department of Fish and Game. Stockton, CA.

Schnagl, Rudy. Chief of the Agricultural Regulatory Unit. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control 

Board, Sacramento, CA.

Schoenberg, S. Fish and wildlife biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. July 8 and 

August 1, 1994 - personal communication.

Sommer, Ted. Fisheries biologist. California Department of Water Resources, Environmental Studies 

Branch, Sacramento, CA. January 25, 1994 - telephone conversation.

Steitz, Curtis. Fishery biologist. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Ramon, CA. 

Thomas, Gene. The Old Fishermen Bait and Tackle, Modesto, CA. September 7, 1994 - telephone 

conversation. 

Turner, Bill. Fisherman. Gridley, CA.

Urquhart, Kevan. Fishery biologist. California Department of Fish and Game, Bay-Delta Project, 

Stockton, CA. January 8, 1987 - letter to Mr. David Leonhardt, Jones & Stokes Associates, 

describing Delta sampling results.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, CA. 1993 - memorandum to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

regarding Stanislaus River basin-Calaveras River conjunctive use water program study: a preliminary 

evaluation of fish and wildlife impacts with emphasis on water need of the Calaveras River.
3-XI-46 WORKING PAPER ON RESTORATION

Villa, Nick. Fisheries biologist. California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, CA. 

Ward, Paul. Fisheries biologist. California Department of Fish and Game, Hamilton City, CA. October 

1992 - telephone conversation.

White, Wayne. Field supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, CA. January 28, 1993 -

memorandum to regional director, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, CA, regarding Stanislaus 

River Basin Calaveras River Conjunctive Use Water Program Study.

Wigham, Bob. Fishing guide. California.

Williams, Carol. Biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Red Bluff, CA.

Wilson, Ron. Outdoor writer. Modesto Bee, Modesto, CA. September 7, 1994 - telephone 

conversation.