5937 Report

ASSESSING FLOWS FOR FISH
BELOW DAMS
A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO EVALUATE
COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
CODE 5937
THEODORE E. GRANTHAM
PETER B. MOYLE
CENTER FOR WATERSHED SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
ONE SHIELDS AVENUE
DAVIS, CA 95616
OCTOBER 22, 2014
This report was prepared by:

Theodore E. Grantham and Peter B. Moyle
Center for Watershed Sciences
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
Corresponding author:
Theodore (Ted) Grantham

tgrantham@usgs.gov
Copyright 2014 The Regents of the University of California
All rights reserved

The University of California prohibits discrimination or harassment of any person on the
basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy (including
childbirth, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth), physical or mental
disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital
status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or service in the uniformed services (as defined
by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994: service in
the uniformed services includes membership, application for membership, performance of
service, application for service, or obligation for service in the uniformed services) in any of
its programs or activities. University policy also prohibits reprisal or retaliation against any
person in any of its programs or activities for making a complaint of discrimination or
sexual harassment or for using or participating in the investigation or resolution process of
any such complaint. University policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of
applicable State and Federal laws.
Please cite this report as:

Grantham, T. E. and P. B. Moyle. 2014. Assessing flows for fish below dams: a systematic
approach to evaluate compliance of Californias dams with Fish and Game Code Section
5937. Center for Watershed Sciences Technical Report (CWS-2014-01), University of
California, Davis. 106 p.
ii
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... v
Figures .................................................................................................................................................. vi
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... ix
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... x
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Effects of dams on Californias rivers .................................................................................................. 2
Effects of dams on Californias fish populations ................................................................................. 4
Section 5937 and fish in good condition ............................................................................................. 6
Applying Section 5937 to restore flows below dams ........................................................................... 8
A systematic approach for evaluating dams ..................................................................................... 10
Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Step 1. Building a dam database ....................................................................................................... 13
Step 2. Assessing flow regime alteration below dams ...................................................................... 15
Step 3. Assessing condition of native fish below dams ..................................................................... 16
Step 4. Identifying regulatory considerations ................................................................................... 18
Step 5. Identifying and ranking candidate dams .............................................................................. 18
Step 6. Preliminary case study investigations .................................................................................. 20
Evaluation Results ............................................................................................................................... 21
Flow regime alteration below dams ................................................................................................... 22
Indicators of fish condition ................................................................................................................. 30
Relationships between hydrologic alteration and fish condition ..................................................... 33
Dams subject to federal environmental flow requirements ............................................................. 36
Identification and ranking of candidate dams .................................................................................. 37
Preliminary site investigations .......................................................................................................... 44
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Systematic evaluation of dams ........................................................................................................... 48
Limitations .......................................................................................................................................... 49
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 50
Case Studies ......................................................................................................................................... 52
Case study 1: Black Butte Dam ......................................................................................................... 53
Hydrologic Conditions .................................................................................................................. 55
iii
Condition of Downstream Fish Populations ............................................................................... 56
Management of Downstream Flows for Fish .............................................................................. 57
Case study 2: Conn Creek Dam.......................................................................................................... 58
Case study 3: Peters Dam ................................................................................................................... 62
Case study 4: Woodbridge Diversion Dam ........................................................................................ 67
Case study 5. Twitchell Dam .............................................................................................................. 73
Case study 6. Long Valley Dam ......................................................................................................... 77
Case study 7. Casitas Dam ................................................................................................................. 81
Case study 8. Boles Meadow Dam ..................................................................................................... 85
Case study 9. Pine Flat Dam .............................................................................................................. 89
iv
Case study 10. Dwinnell Dam ............................................................................................................ 93
Case study findings ............................................................................................................................. 97
References ............................................................................................................................................ 99
Appendix A ......................................................................................................................................... 107
Sensitive native fish species list ...................................................................................................... 107
Appendix B ......................................................................................................................................... 110
List of dams evaluated ...................................................................................................................... 110
Appendix C ......................................................................................................................................... 129
Model performance evaluation ......................................................................................................... 129
Appendix D......................................................................................................................................... 136
List of candidate dams ...................................................................................................................... 136
TABLES
Table 1. Top 20-ranking dams sorted by storage capacity and seasonal flow deviation ...................... 40
Table 2. Top 20-ranking dams sorted by native species richness and sensitive species
richness ................................................................................................................................... 42
Table 3. Top 20-ranking dams sorted by ESA-listed salmon and steelhead trout populations ........... 44
Table 4. Case study dams .......................................................................................................................... 46
Table 5. Black Butte Dam on Stony Creek, Tehama County ................................................................. 56
Table 6. Conn Creek Dam on Conn Creek, Napa County ....................................................................... 61
Table 7. Peters Dam on Lagunitas Creek, Marin County ...................................................................... 64
Table 8. Woodbridge Diversion Dam on the Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County ......................... 70
Table 9. Twitchell Dam on the Cuyama River, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties ........... 75
Table 10. Long Valley Dam on the Owens River, Mono County ............................................................ 79
Table 11. Casitas Dam on Coyote Creek, Ventura County ..................................................................... 83
Table 12. Boles Creek Dam on Boles Creek, Modoc County. .................................................................. 87
Table 13. Pine Flat Dam on the Kings River, Fresno County. ............................................................... 91
Table 14. Dwinnell Dam on the Shasta River, Siskiyou County. ........................................................... 94
vi
FIGURES
Figure 1. Dams in California ...................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Pre-dam and post-dam mean monthly flows for the American River at Fair Oaks
(USGS gage #1144650) ............................................................................................................ 3
Figure 3. Conceptual diagram of dam evaluation approach ................................................................... 11
Figure 4. Evaluation approach and criteria for identifying dams where improved downstream
flows may be warranted for Section 5937 compliance ......................................................... 14
Figure 5. Dams evaluated in California (n =753) with frequency distributions of dam height,
storage capacity, and upstream catchment areas ................................................................ 21
Figure 6. Histograms of observed/expected mean monthly flows for all gaged dams. O/E
values between 0.75-1.25 (gray bars) indicate that observed flows are similar to
expected values ...................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 7. Histogram of observed/expected maximum 1-day discharge. O/E values near 1 (gray
bar) indicate that observed flows are similar to expected values ....................................... 24
Figure 8. Histogram of correlation coefficient between observed and expected monthly
flows, for all gages below dams. Gray bar denotes high correlation, or strong
correspondence, between observed and expected seasonal monthly flow patterns ........... 25
Figure 9. Examples of seasonal flow alteration below dams, as measured by correlation
between expected (modeled unimpaired) and observed mean monthly flows.................... 26
Figure 10. Impounded runoff (IR) ratio for dams in California, representing the capacity
relative to the (modeled) mean annual inflow; inset map illustrates the
difference between IR and CIR for series of dams on the Pit River ................................... 27
Figure 11. Relationship between O/E monthly flows, O/E maximum 1-day flows, Pearsons r
and the cumulative impounded runoff (CIR) ratio at gaged dams ..................................... 29
Figure 12. Patterns of species loss from HUC12 watersheds for 28 native fish species with
historical and current range data ......................................................................................... 30
Figure 13. Patterns of sensitive species richness within Californias HUC12 watersheds;
population status of each native species based on Moyle et al. 2011 ................................. 31
Figure 14. Current distribution of anadromous salmonid species, listed as threatened or
endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act .................................................... 332
Figure 15. Native species richness plotted against annual discharge and cumulative storage ........... 33
Figure 16. Number of sensitive species plus species losses, plotted against annual discharge
and cumulative storage capacity ........................................................................................... 34
vii
Figure 17. Number of sensitive species plus species losses, plotted against impounded runoff
(IR), cumulative impounded runoff, monthly flow deviation, maximum 1-day flow
deviation, and seasonal flow deviation; flow deviation metrics are transformed:
increasing values (from 0) indicate increasing degree of deviation from modeled
unimpaired conditions ........................................................................................................... 35
Figure 18. Dams with (gray, n = 165) and without (black, n = 588) known federal
environmental flow requirements ......................................................................................... 36
Figure 19. High priority candidate dams (n = 220) for assessing compliance with Section
5937 ......................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 20. Ten case study dams from the list of candidate dams (n = 220), selected to provide
preliminary site investigation of the potential effects of dam operations on
downstream fish ..................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 21. Black Butte Dam and catchment (1,916 km2) on Stony Creek. Downstream flows
were evaluated at USGS gage #11388000 below the dam .................................................. 53
Figure 22. Expected (E, modeled) and observed (O) mean monthly flows below Black Butte
Dam and the O/E ratio ........................................................................................................... 56
Figure 23. Conn Creek Dam and catchment on Conn Creek, a tributary to Napa Creek in
Sonoma County. Downstream flows were evaluated at USGS gage #11456500 ............... 58
Figure 24. Peters Dam and upstream catchment (267 km2) on Lagunitas Creek in Marin
County. Downstream Flows were evaluated at USGS gage #11460400 ............................ 62
Figure 25. Expected (E, modeled) and observed monthly flow below Peters Dam on Lagunitas
Creek ....................................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 26. Woodbridge Diversion Dam and catchment (1,682 km 2) on the Mokelumne River,
San Joaquin County; inset map shows large upstream dams and USGS gages
above the dams (#11319500), below Camanche Dam (#11323500), and below
Woodbridge Dam (#11325500) .............................................................................................. 67
Figure 27. Observed daily discharge in the Mokelumne River for the 2010 water year, above
Pardee Dam, downstream of Camanche Dam, and below Woodbridge Dam ..................... 71
Figure 28. Expected (E, modeled) and observed mean monthly flow below Woodbridge Dam
on the Mokelumne River ....................................................................................................... 72
Figure 29. Twitchell Dam and catchment (2,888 km 2) on the Cuyama River, in southern San
Luis Obispo and northern Santa Barbara counties ............................................................. 73
Figure 30. Long Valley Dam and catchment (994 km 2) on the Owen River, Mono County ................. 77
Figure 31. Casitas Dam and catchment (105 km2) on Coyote Creek, a tributary to the
Ventura River, Ventura County ............................................................................................ 81
viii
Figure 32. Mean monthly flows on Coyote Creek before and after construction of Casitas
Dam, assessed at USGS gage #11118000 ............................................................................. 83
Figure 33. Boles Meadow dam and catchment (692 km2) on Boles Creek, Modoc County ................... 85
Figure 34. Pine Flat Dam and catchment (4,000 km2) on the Kings River in Fresno County.
Flows were evaluated at USGS gage #11221500 ................................................................ 90
Figure 35. Expected (E, modeled) and observed mean monthly flows below Pine Flat Dam on
the Kings River....................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 36. Dwinnell Dam and catchment (142 km2) on the Shasta River, Siskiyou County ............... 93
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people have contributed to this report. The development of the evaluation approach
benefited greatly from conversations with Curtis Knight, Monty Schmitt, Brian Johnson,
and Rene Henery, who offered a broad range of expertise pertaining to the management of
dams and their impacts to Californias river ecosystems. We received excellent support from
researchers at the University of California Davis Center for Watershed Sciences. In
particular, Josh Viers, Nick Santos, and Jacob Katz were instrumental in the development
and analysis of the PISCES database. Eric Holmes and Sarah Yarnell also provided helpful
feedback and research support. Sydney Vickery assisted with figure development and Chris
Bowman provided valuable editorial advice. We thank Daren Carlisle and David Wolock for
technical guidance on hydrologic modeling. Additional helpful discussion and assistance
with data sources came from Marshall Olin, Chandra Ferrari, Joe Merz, Jonathan Koehler,
Steve Parmenter, Dale Mitchell, Greg Andrew, Stuart Reid, Darren Mierau, Mark Drew,
Gordon Becker, Matt Kondolf, Larry Brown and Jeff Thompson. This research was
supported with funding from the Natural Resources Defense Council, California Trout and
Trout Unlimited. We alone are responsible for the analysis, results and recommendations of
this report and any errors herein.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There are thousands of dams in California, most of which were built and are operated for
water supply and flood protection benefits with little consideration for their effects on fish.
For more than 100 years, however, the State of California has legally recognized the need to
ensure that adequate flows are released below dams to maintain fish in good condition. In
the early 20th century, Fish and Game Code 5937 was adopted, which states that the
owner of any dam shall allow sufficient water at all timesto pass over, around, or
through the dam, to keep in good condition any fish that may be planted or exist below the
dam. Despite the clear language and intent of Section 5937 to protect fish below dams,
dam owners have generally not met this requirement and the state agencies charged with
its implementation have not enforced it. However, successful lawsuits since the 1970s have
applied Section 5937 on several regulated rivers to improve flows for fish and wildlife, and
indicate that there is an opportunity for broader implementation of environmental flows in
Californias rivers and streams.
Sections 5937s legal requirement to ensure adequate flows for fish potentially applies to
thousands of dams in California. However, determining which dams may not be in
compliance with the code is a daunting task that state agencies have not undertaken to
date. There remains a need for a systematic assessment of dams to ensure uniform and
balanced implementation of Section 5937 flow protections throughout California. Such flow
protections are critical to the preservation of Californias native fish species and fishery
resources, which are severely threatened by river ecosystem degradation, human
population growth and climate change.
This technical report presents an evaluation approach to identify dams in California where
flow modifications and/or other management actions may be warranted to comply with
Section 5937. The approach follows a tiered framework that focuses on the inventory,
characterization, and selection of dams based on evidence of flow regime alteration and
downstream fish community impairment. First, a database of dams is compiled and used to
define the distribution and characteristics of California dams. Next, hydrologic conditions
below dams are assessed to quantify the extent to which flows may deviate from natural,
unimpaired conditions. The condition of native fish in proximity to each dam is then
evaluated based on range maps and population status. Indicators of fish condition
impairment were assessed in the sub-watersheds within which dams were located and
included (1) the loss of native fish species based on their historic range and (2) the presence
of native fish species considered at risk of extinction. All dams associated with evidence of
hydrologic alteration and indicators of fish condition impairment were then identified and
ranked. Finally, a series of case studies were selected from the list of dams potentially in
need of improved environmental flows to provide diverse, site-specific examples of how dam
operations may be affecting the condition of downstream fish.
xi
Following an initial evaluation of more than 1,400 large dams in California, this analysis
focused on 753 dams that are likely subject to Section 5937 flow requirements. These dams
occur within a broad range of biogeographic settings and represent a diversity of sizes and
operational purposes. They are distributed throughout the state, but occur in highest
density in the Sierra Nevada, central and south Coast Ranges, and the upper Klamath
River Basin. There are relatively few qualifying dams in the north coast region of
California, which has a dense network of rivers, and in the southeastern region of the state
where few rivers are present.
There is evidence that many of the dams evaluated have potential to alter downstream flow
regimes. About 350 dams have storage capacities large enough to capture more than 50% of
annual river inflow. Reservoir storage capacity was equal or greater than total annual
inflow for 178 dams. For dams with downstream flow gages (about 200), there was evidence
of substantial flow regime alteration. For the vast majority of gaged dams, observed flows
deviated from expected natural patterns by at least 50% for at least six months of the year.
In addition, for more than half of the gaged dams evaluated, maximum 1-day flows were
less than 50% of predicted values. Although several dams appear to have substantially
altered seasonal flow patterns (assessed by correlation between observed and expected
monthly flows), flow seasonality has been largely preserved below most gaged dams.
About 400 of the 753 dams evaluated are within the range of at least one sensitive fish
species (i.e., those with vulnerable or threatened population status), including more than
200 within the range of anadromous salmonids listed under the federal Endangered Species
Act. There are an additional 250 dams located in watersheds that have lost at least one
native species based on their historic ranges. A comprehensive, statistical analysis of the
relationships between dam-related flow alteration and fish condition was beyond the scope
of this study. There was, however, some evidence that the number of sensitive species and
species losses is associated with hydrologic alteration below dams. For example, dams with
no sensitive species or losses were generally associated with the lowest degree of hydrologic
alteration, based on impounded runoff, cumulative impounded runoff, and maximum 1-day
flow deviation metrics. The association of dams with indicators of biological impairment is
not causal evidence that dam operations are responsible for the poor condition of fish.
However, a large body of literature documenting the impacts of dams on fish assemblages
strongly suggests that dam operations remain an important threat to the persistence of
Californias native fish populations.
From an initial list of more than 1,400 dams, 220 were identified as high-priority sites to
further assess the condition of fish based on evidence of hydrologic and biological
impairment. These dams were then ranked and sorted based on their physical features
(reservoir capacity), hydrologic indicators (degree of seasonal flow alteration), and
associated fish community characteristics. High-priority dams with the largest water
storage capacities include many of the states biggest dams: Trinity Dam on the Trinity
River, New Melones Dam on the Stanislaus River, Pine Flat on Kings River, and Folsom
xii
Dam on the American River. Dams associated with the greatest downstream hydrologic
alteration were also identified and ranked. Among the subset of dams with downstream
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations, Tinemaha Dam on the Owens River, and
Anderson Dam on Coyote Creek, and Calaveras Dam on Calaveras Creek were associated
with the greatest alteration to seasonal monthly flow patterns. High-priority dams
associated with the greatest richness of native species include Woodbridge Diversion Dam
on the Mokelumne River, Nash Dam on a tributary to Stillwater Creek in Shasta County,
and a series of three Rubber Dams on lower Alameda Creek. The dams associated with the
greatest number of native species with sensitive population status included Keswick and
Anderson-Cottonwood dams, Woodbridge Diversion Dam, and Nash Dam.
Ten case studies were selected from the list of high-priority candidate dams to provide
specific examples of how dam operations may be affecting the downstream fish community.
The case study dams were selected to illustrate the diversity of dam types throughout the
state, and do not necessarily represent those in greatest need of improved flows for fish.
The case study investigations found that indicators of hydrologic alteration and fish
population impairment assessed in the systematic evaluation generally corresponded with
documented, site-specific environmental effects of dams. In addition, observed downstream
flow alteration was generally coupled with significant downstream habitat alteration.
Therefore, poor habitat conditions below many dams suggest that improving flows for fish
may also require habitat restoration to maintain fish in good condition. Overall, the case
studies illustrated that each dam has a unique set of management constraints,
jurisdictional issues, and environmental factors that must be addressed in the context of
Section 5937. This is probably true of all dams, and we recommend that site-specific
analyses presented in the case studies be done for every high-priority dam identified in this
investigation.
This investigation revealed inaccurate data a general lack of information on dam
operations, downstream flow regimes, and affected fish communities. The vast majority of
dams currently have no downstream flow monitoring stations. The states inaccurate
reporting and tracking of water availability and use (i.e., diversions) significantly impedes
management of environmental flows in Californias rivers. In addition, the sporadic
availability and quality of fish observations greatly hinders a statewide assessment of the
ecological impacts of dams. For this investigation, we used a new geospatial database of
California fish distributions to identify fish species associated with dams at the HUC12watershed scale. However, the spatial association of fish species downstream of specific
dams (upon which the selection criteria are based) is not conclusive. We recommend that
indicators of fish community impairment (e.g. sensitive species or loss of species from
historic range) below dams be confirmed as part of site-specific investigations.
The effects of California dams in downstream flows remains poorly documented. Therefore,
this evaluation approach can be improved as new data and modeling tools become
available. Additional monitoring data on downstream flows and fish communities could
xiii
change the rankings of dams on the high-priority list. New criteria could also be
incorporated in the evaluation framework to support the selection and ranking of highpriority dams for further assessment. Information on the relative vulnerability of
Californias fish assemblages to climate change is particularly needed for informing
environmental flow implementation strategies. The data-driven framework for evaluating
dams is a flexible and adaptive way to incorporate new sources of information to guide river
management and decision-making.
This investigation represents the first attempt to systematically evaluate the impacts of
Californias major dams on native fish species in the context of Section 5937. The study
presents evidence indicating that many California dams are not in compliance with Section
5937. Given the rapid decline of Californias fish fauna and pervasive alteration of the
states river ecosystems, environmental flow protections are critical for conservation of
many native fish populations and are likely to become increasingly so in the future. There
is an urgent need for the State to develop an approach to evaluate the compliance of
existing dams with its laws to protect Californias fish. This initial screening approach
identifies dams that likely warrant site-specific studies and offers guidance on
implementing environmental flows to comply with Section 5937.
Keywords: environmental flows, water management, regulated rivers, freshwater fishes,

biodiversity conservation, dams, Fish and Game Code Section 5937, California
INTRODUCTION | 1
INTRODUCTION
California has thousands of dams, from small earthen barriers
that create ponds for local use to megastructures hundreds of
feet tall impounding the states major water-supply sources.
Building dams on Californias free-flowing streams and rivers
began in the 1850s, accelerated during the 19th century in
response to demands of hydraulic mining and logging, and
peaked between 1900 and 1920 with the expansion of irrigated
agriculture. Construction of the States largest water-supply
dams, mostly by the federal government, was concentrated
between 1940 and 1970. Today there are more than 1,400 dams
that are large enough to fall under state regulations for safety
(DWR 2010). In addition, more than 1,700 smaller dams have
been inventoried on Californias rivers and streams (CDFW
2012). These dams a on essentially every major river and
stream in the state (Figure 1) and collectively impound over 42
million acre feet, equivalent to 60% of the average runoff in
California (Mount 1995).
Figure 1
Dams in California
2 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS
E FFECTS OF DAMS ON C ALIFORNIA S

RIVERS
All dams alter the timing and magnitude of river flows.
Californias mediterranean climate is characterized by a
distinct wet season, associated with brief, intense storms
followed by a prolonged period of seasonal drought. This
seasonal pattern of water availability is out-of-phase with
human water demands, which increase during the dry season
primarily to support irrigated agriculture. Californias climate
seasonality thus has been a strong catalyst for reservoir
construction (Gasith and Resh 1999). In addition, multi-year
droughts are common in California, as are extreme flood events
(Cayan et al. 1999), prompting the need for large reservoirs to
enhance water-supply reliability and provide flood protection.
As a result, one of the most common effects of dams on river
flows in California is reduction in magnitude and frequency of
high-flow events (Kondolf and Batalla 2005). Stream flows
below dams are often augmented in the summer through late
fall to support irrigated agriculture and to expand flood
retention capacity of reservoirs (Grantham et al. 2012; Singer
2007). Flattening of the seasonal flow regime, resulting from
decreased high flows and increased base flows, has been
observed in the Sacramento River and all its major tributaries
(Brown and Bauer 2010), such as the American River (Figure
2).
INTRODUCTION | 3
Figure 2
Pre-dam and post-dam mean monthly flows for the American
River at Fair Oaks (USGS gage #1144650)
Flow alteration by dams often leads to downstream changes in

channel morphology. As a result of reduced peak flows, width of
the high-flow channel tends to decrease and the area of
regularly inundated floodplain is reduced (Graf 2006). With the
loss of flows that scour the streambed, vegetation can establish
in the active channel, resulting in the loss of channel
complexity and instream habitat structure (Magdaleno and
Fernndez 2011). Dams also impact sediment transport
processes. Large dams completely block bedload transport and
reduce suspended sediment transport by inducing deposition in
the low-velocity waters of reservoirs. Since the construction of
major dams in the SacramentoSan Joaquin basin, annual
bedload transport has fallen by an average of 45%, with total
bedload of particles greater than 8 mm decreasing by 42%
(Minear 2010). When reaches below dams are deprived of their
sediment load, a condition known as hungry water can occur,
whereby flows still have the energy to move sediment but have
lost their supply, resulting in downstream erosion and bed
incision (Kondolf 1997). Exceptions occur when flows have been
reduced to the point that they can no longer carry sediments
from downstream tributaries, resulting in aggradation (Kondolf
et al. 2012).

Finally, an obvious, but perhaps underappreciated effect of
dams is the creation of artificial reservoirs, which have
considerably different physical and ecological properties than
free-flowing rivers. The conversion of lotic (flowing water) to
lentic (standing water) freshwater ecosystems alters the flux of
nutrients and organic matter through river networks, increases
surface water losses through evaporation, and creates novel
habitats to which native biota may be poorly adapted. In
regions that naturally have few perennial freshwater lakes,
such as Californias coast ranges, the creation of artificial
reservoirs by dams represents a significant transformation of
river ecosystem structure and functions.
E FFECTS OF DAMS ON C ALIFORNIA S FISH

POPULATIONS
Californias native freshwater fish species are experiencing
widespread and rapid decline. A recent assessment of
Californias freshwater fish populations indicates that 76% of
the states native fish species are vulnerable to extinction if
present trends continue (Moyle et al. 2011). Predicted effects of
climate change are likely to accelerate this declining trend
(Moyle et al. 2012). While many factors have contributed to the
imperilment of Californias native fish species, the alteration of
river ecosystems by dams is recognized to be a dominant driver
of population declines (Moyle 2002; Katz et al. 2012; Moyle et
al. 2011).
Dams have particularly impacted Californias anadromous fish
populations, including commercially and culturally significant
salmon and steelhead trout (Katz et al. 2012), but also several
species of lamprey and sturgeon (Moyle 2002). Dams create
barriers along river corridors that restrict or completely block
access to upstream habitat of migratory species. For example,
construction of impassable dams in the Sacramento River basin
has reduced availability of habitat historically used by salmon
and steelhead by more than 70% (Yoshiyama et al. 2001;
Lindley et al. 2006). Migratory fish species also encounter
many small dams, diversions, and culverts that obstruct
movement; more than 17,000 potential barriers to fish passage
have been documented in Californias river and streams
INTRODUCTION | 5
(CDFW 2012). The loss of habitat connectivity within river
networks has significant implications for the persistence of
anadromous fishes and other cold-water species, because
warming water temperatures from climate change is expected
to reduce the suitability of remaining accessible habitats below
dams (Katz et al. 2012; Moyle et al. 2012).
The alteration of flows below dams is generally considered to be
the most serious threat to ecological sustainability of rivers
(Bunn and Arthington 2002; Nilsson et al. 2005; Dudgeon et al.
2006). Fish and other aquatic organisms are highly adapted to
the natural seasonal flow variability that characterizes river
ecosystems (Lytle and Poff 2004). For example, adult Pacific
salmon typically enter Californias rivers to begin their
migration to spawning grounds following the first major storms
of the year, when elevated flows facilitate upstream passage
(Moyle 2002). Spawning often occurs in the early spring, when
flows are still elevated by the risk of egg mortality by bedscouring flows is low (Montgomery et al. 1999). Out-migrating
juvenile salmonids take advantage of seasonally inundated
floodplains in the spring for rearing, which improves their
growth and survival (Opperman et al. 2010). Other native
species such as the Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys
macrolepidotus) are also dependent on the inundation of
floodplain habitats in the early spring for spawning (Moyle
2002). Therefore, when seasonal patterns in the timing and
magnitude of flows (including floodplain inundation flows) are
altered by dams, many species are unable to successfully
complete their life cycles.
Dams also cause downstream incision and reduction in channel
complexity (Graf 2006), deteriorating the quality and
availability of habitat for fish and other aquatic biota. The
disruption of sediment transport can lead to the coarsening of
channel bed materials and loss of spawning habitat for salmon,
trout, and other species. In several of Californias regulated
rivers, gravel is regularly imported and deposited below dams
to maintain spawning habitat for threatened salmon
populations (Pasternack et al. 2004).

Finally, dams impair native fishes by facilitating establishment
of non-native species (Bunn and Arthington 2002). Reservoirs
provide slow-water habitat favorable to non-native fishes such
as common carp (Cyprinus carpio), largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), sunfishes (Lepomis spp.), and
mosquito fishes (Gambusia spp.), which often outcompete or
prey upon resident natives. The stabilization of river flows
downstream of dams also promotes non-natives species, for
example, by reducing the frequency and intensity of flood
disturbance that would otherwise suppress their populations
(Marchetti and Moyle 2001).
S ECTION 5937 AND FISH IN GOOD

CONDITION
The potential for dams to harm fish and fisheries has long been
recognized in California. As early as 1852, less than two years
after California entered the Union, the state Legislature
outlawed the placement of instream obstructions to salmon
migrations (Brk et al. 2012). Subsequent laws enacted in 1870
and 1880 further protected migratory fish. Nevertheless,
repeated reports of drying rivers indicated that many dam
operators ignored early fish passage laws (Brk et al. 2012). A
1914 Fish and Game Commission study that documented
impacts of low water flows on fish prompted the Legislature to
enact the 1915 Flow Act, which explicitly required flow releases
below dams to protect fish. This law eventually became Section
5937 of the state Fish and Game Code, which states:
The owner of any dam shall allow sufficient water at all
times to pass through a fishway, or in the absence of a
fishway, allow sufficient water to pass over, around, or
through the dam, to keep in good condition any fish that
may be planted or exist below the dam.
The language plainly indicates that the dam owners have the
responsibility to release enough water to support fish. But
what does it mean to maintain fish in good condition and
what flows below dams are required to do so?
INTRODUCTION | 7
Good condition is not explained in the code, but has been
defined through a series of court decisions in the 1990s (Moyle
et al. 1998). In essence, fish downstream of dams are
considered to be in good condition when the species present are
comprised of healthy individuals with self-sustaining
populations and represent an assemblage that is dominated by
native species and is persistent over time (Box 1). In the
context of Section 5937, maintaining fish in good condition
requires a flow regime that allows for downstream fish to
complete their life history cycles, reproduce successfully in
most years, and maintain a species assemblage that is resilient
to disturbance.
Box 1
Dr. Peter Moyle has provided an interpretation of fish in good condition that has been
used in legal decisions concerning Section 5937 (Moyle et al. 1998). The condition of
fish is assessed at the individual, population, and community level.
Health at the individual level means that fish have a (1) robust body composition; (2)
are relatively free of disease, parasites, and lesions; (3) should have reasonable growth
rates for the region; and (4) respond in an appropriate manner to stimuli. This can be
generally assessed by examining the condition and growth rates of individual fish.
At the population level, good condition means that populations of individual species (1)
contain multiple age classes (evidence of reproduction); (2) a viable population size; and
(3) healthy individuals (as above).
At the community level, good condition is defined as a fish assemblage that is (1)
dominated by native, co-evolved species; (2) has a predictable structure as indicated by
niche overlap among the species and multiple trophics levels; (3) is resilient to
recovering from extreme events; (4) is persistent in species membership through time;
and (5) is replicated geographically.
A PPLYING S ECTION 5937 TO RESTORE

FLOWS BELOW DAMS
Despite the clear language and intent of Section 5937 to protect
fish below dams, dam owners have generally not met this
requirement and the state agencies charged with its
implementation have not enforced it (Brk et al. 2012).
However, recent lawsuits have re-affirmed the need to provide
adequate flows for fish under Section 5937 (Brk et al. 2012),
and illustrate how the code could be applied to other river
systems. Putah Creek offers a notable example of the
successful application of Section 5937 in California (Box 2).
However, Section 5937 has also played an important role in
restoring flows to streams that drain into Mono Lake
(California Trout, Inc. v. State Water Resources Control Board
and California Trout, Inc. v. Superior Court) and in increasing
water releases for fish below Friant Dam in the San Joaquin
River (NRDC v. Patterson).
While these cases provide useful illustrations of the application
of Section 5937, specific flows requirements to maintain fish in
good condition are highly context-dependent. For example,
large regulated rivers that support salmon and other
anadromous species below dams will have substantially
different flow needs than streams in upper watersheds that
support resident native species. Under Section 5937, all
waterways below dams that would naturally have perennial
flows should have sustained minimum flows needed to support
a living stream (Moyle et al. 1998). However, the magnitude
and timing of flow releases needed to support fish will require
consideration of the natural flow regime and ecological
requirements of the species present (or potentially present
under restored conditions) within the river of interest.
INTRODUCTION | 9
Box 2
In the 1950s, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation built Monticello Dam on Putah Creek, a
tributary to the Sacramento River in Yolo County. Stream flow in lower Putah Creek is
completely regulated, except when large storms cause the dam to spillover. During a late
1980s drought, releases were so meager that a 30-km section of lower Putah Creek dried,
resulting in fish kills and harm to riparian wildlife. In response, a citizens group, UC
Davis and the City of Davis sued to increase flows (Putah Creek Council v. Solano
Irrigation District and Solano County Water Agency). The trial court, citing Section 5937,
ordered a 50% increase in the minimum release schedule to keep the creek flowing to its
mouth. Subsequent negotiations led to the Putah Creek Accord (Accord), signed in May
2000, which established additional operational requirements to benefit fish and other
aquatic organisms (Moyle et al. 1998).
The Accords flow recommendations were based on the ecological needs of species and
assemblages in the creek and were derived from the three-tiered definition of fish in good
condition (Box 1, Moyle et al. 1998). The recommendations included increased spawning
and rearing flows for native fish; pulse flows to attract and support anadromous fish;
minimum flows to sustain fish in droughts.
Nine years of creek monitoring indicates that the new flow regime has been successful in
promoting the expansion and health of native-dominated fish assemblages throughout
the creek (Kiernan et al. 2012). Importantly, the restoration of native fishes was achieved
by manipulating stream flows at biologically important times of the year and only
required a small increase in the total volume of water delivered downstream (i.e., water
that was not diverted most years).
The requirements of Section 5937 are also not static in time. In

calling for downstream flows that keep fish in good condition
at all times, the code allows for flow requirements to be
adapted to changing circumstances in the future. This is
particularly relevant with respect to climate change, which is
expected to cause warmer water temperatures, altered flow
patterns, and water quality degradation, all threats to
Californias freshwater fish (Moyle et al. 2012). Therefore, the
successful application of Section 5937 requires an adaptive
approach, whereby flow requirements may be modified in
response to changes in the local environment and fish
community conditions, as determined by biological monitoring.

Sections 5937s legal requirement to ensure adequate flows for
fish potentially applies to thousands of dams in California.
However, determining which dams may not be in compliance
with the code is a daunting task that state agencies have not
undertaken to date. The number of dams and unique biological,
hydrological and geographic characteristics of each affected
river suggest that a systematic approach is needed to identify
dams where improved downstream flows may be required.
Although site-specific studies will be necessary to ultimately
determine the need for Section 5937 flows, an initial screening
of dams based on indicators of hydrologic alteration and fish
community condition, will help to prioritize sites for Section
5937 compliance.
A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH FOR

EVALUATING DAMS
The primary goal of this study was to develop an approach to
identify and evaluate California dams that have impaired
downstream fish communities associated with altered flow
regimes. The evaluation follows a systematic, six-step process
that focuses on the inventory, characterization, and selection of
dams where environmental flows may be warranted under
Section 5937 (Figure 3). First, a database of dams is compiled
and used to define their distribution and characteristics. Next,
hydrologic conditions below dams are assessed to quantify the
extent to which flows may deviate from natural, unimpaired
conditions. Third, condition of native fish near each dam is
evaluated. The fourth step is the identification of regulatory
considerations
that
could
affect
implementation
of
environmental flows below specific dams. In the fifth step,
dams with evidence of hydrologic alteration and indicators of
fish community impairment are identified and ranked. For the
sixth and final step, we select a subset of dams for initial
assessment of their potential effects on native fish downstream.
The assessments are a diverse series of case studies from
different regions of California.
INTRODUCTION | 11
Figure 3
Conceptual diagram of dam evaluation approach
This investigation is a first attempt at developing a

comprehensive,
data-driven
approach
for
evaluating
Californias major dams and their impacts on native fish
species in the context of Section 5937 requirements. The
evaluation identifies dams where altered downstream flow
regimes may be harming native fish. Deficiencies in the quality
and resolution of data on dam operations and their effects on
downstream fish make it impossible to conclusively assess
Section 5937 compliance. The evaluation, nevertheless,
provides clear indication of which dams are associated with
evidence of biological and hydrological alteration and can be
immediately used for setting priorities for further research,
including site-specific studies on the effects of dam operations
on fish.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
METHODS | 13
METHODS
S TEP 1. B UILDING A DAM DATABASE
We developed a database of California dams from three datasets: the
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) National Inventory of Dams
(USACE 2010), the Jurisdictional Dams from the California
Department of Water Resources (DWR 2010), and the National
Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) Dam Dataset for Assessing
Anadromous Fish Passage (Goslin 2005). The USACE and DWR
datasets are comprised of dams at least 1.8-m (6-ft) high with a
storage capacity greater than 60,000 m3 (50 acre feet), or that are
more than 7.6-m (25-ft) high and store at least 18,500 m3 (15 acre
feet).
The NMFS dataset was synthesized from earlier versions of the
USACE and DWR datasets, but includes quality-controlled
geographic location of dams in a GIS, based on the 1:100,000
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (Horizon Systems 2012). The
NMFS dataset was used as the foundation of the database, which
was updated with unique records and attributes from the more
recent USACE and DWR datasets. New dam records added to the
database were mapped in a GIS by their latitudinal and longitudinal
coordinates, and, where necessary, manually relocated to the correct
position based on the NHD streamline layer and ortho-rectified
aerial photos.
We then filtered the database for dams with potential to be managed
for environmental flows (Figure 4). First, we excluded dams not
directly located on a stream channel, based on the NHD 1:100,000scale streamlines. This included hydropower facilities (e.g., forebays)
that do not drain directly into streams and projects located in
urbanized catchments, such as wastewater treatment facilities,
percolation basins, and urban ponds. Debris basins, retention ponds,
and other passive impoundments were also excluded. For dams
comprised of multiple project works (e.g., those with multiple dikes
and spillways), we included only the primary impoundment
structure. Finally, dams with drainage areas less than 1 km2 (0.4
mi2) and with storage capacities less than 100,000 m3 (80 acre feet)
were excluded. While these dams are also subject to Section 5937,
we considered them low-priority for this initial assessment based on
their small size and location in upper watersheds.
Figure 4
Evaluation approach and criteria for identifying dams where improved downstream
flows may be warranted for Section 5937 compliance
METHODS | 15
S TEP 2. A SSESSING FLOW REGIME

ALTERATION BELOW DAMS
Dams have the potential to alter flow regimes in ways that
significantly affect fish and other aquatic biota, including
changes in the timing and magnitude of flows and disruption of
natural patterns of seasonal flow variability (Bunn and
Arthington 2002; Poff et al. 1997). To assess the degree of
hydrologic alteration below dams in California, we examined
USGS flow gaging records at, or near (within 1 km
downstream) dams. The analysis included only gages with at
least 10 years of daily flow records between 1970 and 2012.
We assessed potential changes in the magnitude and
seasonality of monthly flows and changes in the magnitude of
maximum 1-day flows below gaged dams (Figure 4).
Predictions of expected, unimpaired monthly and maximum 1day flows were generated using a statistical modeling approach
developed by USGS (Carlisle et al. 2010a; Carlisle et al. 2010b).
The models parameterize relationships between geospatial
attributes (e.g., climate, topography, soils) and hydrologic
responses at reference gages (i.e., those with no upstream dams
and limited land use disturbance) to predict hydrologic
conditions at dams based on upstream catchment
characteristics. Deviation from expected flow magnitudes was
assessed by the ratio of observed (calculated from daily flow
records) to expected (modeled) values. Alteration to seasonal
flow patterns was also assessed by quantifying the correlation
between observed and expected mean monthly flows (Batalla et
al. 2004; Kondolf and Batalla 2005). Pearsons correlation
coefficient (r) was calculated, which varies between -1 and 1,
with a value of 1 indicating a positive (increasing) correlation
and -1 indicating a negative correlation. Deviation from
expected seasonal flow patterns is expressed as decreasing
values from 1.
Because of the limited distribution of USGS gage stations,
information on downstream flows was not available for the
majority of dams evaluated in this study. However, the
potential for flow alteration was assessed for all dams by the
impounded runoff (IR) ratio, which is the reservoir storage
capacity divided by the mean annual inflow. The IR reflects the

dams capacity to capture a rivers flow and is strongly
correlated with indicators of hydrologic alteration, such as
reductions in peak-flow magnitudes and disruption of seasonal
flow patterns (Batalla et al. 2004; Kondolf and Batalla 2005;
Singer 2007). Mean annual inflow at each dam was calculated
by the statistical modeling approach (described above). The
storage capacity for each dam was derived from values reported
in public dam datasets (USACE 2010; DWR 2010). The
cumulative impounded runoff (CIR) was also calculated to
consider the potential influence of dams from the upper
catchments on a downstream dam. For each dam, the reservoir
storage capacity was added to the storage capacity of all
reservoirs in the upstream catchment area, which was then
divided by the mean annual inflow.
S TEP 3. A SSESSING CONDITION OF

NATIVE FISH BELOW DAMS
To assess condition of fish in rivers affected by dams, we used
PISCES (Viers et al. 2012), a GIS database and visualization
system for mapping, modeling and analysis of California native
fish species. PISCES incorporates empirical data and expert
knowledge to estimate historic and current species ranges at
the Hydrologic Unit Code 12 (HUC12) watershed scale. Within
California, there are 4,644 HUC12 watersheds, which have an
average area of 9154 km2 [3520 mi2 (meanSD)]. Because of
the spatial scale at which data are compiled in PISCES, data
on fish assemblages are generally not distinguished for river
reaches above and below dams within a HUC12 watershed.
Therefore, the indicators of fish community condition are
associated spatially with dams, but do not necessarily reflect
the causal effects of dam operations on fish.
Fish in good condition at the community level is defined by an
assemblage of species that is persistent in time (Box 1).
Therefore, the loss of native species from HUC12-watersheds
affected by dams was selected as a potential indicator that the
fish community is not in good condition. To determine if native
fish species have been lost in watersheds affected by dams, we
compared historic to current range maps and calculated the
change in native species richness for all watersheds. The
METHODS | 17
analysis focused on 28 native species for which reliable historic
and current range information was available. All dams were
identified that have lost native species from the HUC12
watershed within which they occur.
Fish in good condition also applies at the population level. To
assess the condition of native fish populations potentially
affected by dams, current species range maps were integrated
with a recent assessment of population status (Moyle et al.
2011). As part of the assessment, each of Californias 129
native fish species was assigned a conservation status,
indicating whether their population is extinct (0), endangered
(1), vulnerable (2), near-threatened (3), or relatively secure (4).
For this study, we considered all species with a status of 2 or
less to be an indicator that a population may not be in good
condition. We identified all dams within the current range of
these sensitive species (n = 66, Appendix A), which could
potentially be affected by the operation of upstream dams.
As a final criterion, we identified dams within the current
range of Pacific salmon listed as threatened and endangered
under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). These species
include Central Valley spring- and winter-run and California
coast Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Central
California coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California coho
salmon (O. kitsutch), and several distinct population segments
of steelhead trout (O. mykiss), including Southern California,
Central and South Central California coast, Central Valley,
and Northern California. These populations are all considered
sensitive (as defined by the Moyle et al. (2011) population
status of 2 or less) and are evaluated independently because of
their high conservation importance, fishery value, and cultural
significance.
Once the set of criteria describing hydrologic- and fish
conditions was compiled for each dam, we explored the
association among variables. A robust statistical analysis of the
relationships between dam-related flow alteration and fish
condition was beyond the scope of this study. However, a series
of box plots were generated to provide an initial qualitative
assessment of the associations among the hydrologic and
ecological variables.
S TEP 4. I DENTIFYING REGULATORY

CONSIDERATIONS
The fourth step in dam evaluation involves identification of
regulatory considerations relevant to Section 5937. Because the
goal of this study is to identify dams that may require
improved downstream flows to support native fish, those with
established regulatory processes to protect environmental flows
were filtered from the analysis. For example, hydropower dams
regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) are subject to a licensing process that requires
environmental flows to mitigate impacts to downstream biota.
Therefore, implementation of Section 5937 at FERC dams is
considered a lower priority than at dams not subject to FERC
regulations. For this reason, we excluded all FERC-regulated
dams for evaluation. Likewise, we excluded dams subject to a
federal biological opinion requiring environmental flows for
ESA-listed species.
S TEP 5. I DENTIFYING AND RANKING

CANDIDATE DAMS
The goal of this step in the evaluation process is to identify a
subset of candidate dams for which evidence of hydrologic
alteration and fish community impairment exists, excluding
those subject to federal environmental flow requirements.
The criteria for hydrologic alteration were based on deviation
from observed flow patterns (magnitude of monthly and
maximum 1-day flows and seasonality) and high values for
impounded runoff and cumulative impounded runoff, which
indicates that the dam has the potential to capture most or all
of the rivers annual inflow at that location. There are no
general, transferable quantitative relationships between flow
alteration and ecological responses that can be used to set
objective thresholds of flow impairment likely to harm fish and
other stream biota (Poff and Zimmerman 2010). However, a
review of environmental flow standards suggested that flow
alteration greater than 20% is likely to cause moderate to
major changes in natural ecosystem structure and functions.
METHODS | 19
(Richter et al. 2011). There is also evidence that the risk of
ecological impairment consistently increases with the
magnitude of hydrologic alteration (Carlisle et al. 2010b; Poff
and Zimmerman 2010).
We considered deviation in monthly and maximum 1-day flows
of 50% as a reasonable threshold criterion, which is likely to
result in ecological impacts and is large enough to limit the
potential effects of model uncertainty on flow alteration (i.e.,
observed/expected flow metrics). The threshold criterion for
deviation in seasonal flow patterns was defined by a Pearsons
r correlation coefficient of less than 0.5. Values greater than 0.5
indicate that observed and expected monthly flows are highly
correlated, signifying that observed flow seasonality generally
follows expected patterns. Finally, an impounded runoff (IR) or
cumulative runoff (CIR) index greater than 0.75 was used as a
criterion for hydrologic alteration, based on previous studies
that have shown IR values to be a strong indicator of flow
regime impacts (Kondolf and Batalla 2005; Singer 2007; Eng et
al. 2012).
The criteria for selecting dams associated with fish community
impairment included (1) the loss of at least one native fish
species, (2) the presence of species with populations in decline
or at risk of extinction, and (3) the presence of ESA-listed
Pacific salmon. Using the PISCES database, we evaluated
indicators of fish impairment at all HUC12 watersheds
containing dams. Dams within watersheds that have lost at
least one species (based on the comparison of historic versus
current ranges of 28 native fish) were selected, as were dams in
watersheds within the current range of sensitive species [i.e.,
conservation status of 2 or less per Moyle et al. (2011)]. Dams
associated with ESA-listed Pacific salmon were also identified.
The final subset of dams consisted of those satisfying one or
more of the hydrologic criteria and those associated with at
least one indicator of fish impairment. These dams were then
sorted and ranked by dam size (reservoir capacity), impounded
(and cumulative impounded) runoff ratio, and other hydrologic
impact criteria. These sorting criteria emphasize the largest
dams and those with potential for significant hydrologic
impacts. Additional sorting criteria were applied to highlight
dams affecting fish assemblages of potential conservation

significance, and included the number of sensitive species and
total number of native species potentially present in the
affected watershed.
S TEP 6. P RELIMINARY CASE STUDY

INVESTIGATIONS
Several case study dams were selected from the final subset
(Step 5). These dams are not necessarily those most in need of
environmental flow management. Rather, they exemplify the
broad geographic distribution of dams in the state and
illustrate the diversity of dam types, size and operations. For
each dam, we describe its basic structural and operational
characteristics, current downstream flow regime, and the
native fish species potentially affected. Where available,
technical reports and other relevant sources were used to
validate and expand upon results of the evaluation.
EVALUATION RESULTS | 21
EVALUATION RESULTS
A total of 1,440 unique California dam records were compiled
from existing datasets (Goslin 2005; USACE 2010; DWR 2010).
From this list, 515 were identified as off-stream dams,
retention basins, or other facilities that do not release water
directly into streams. An additional 172 dams with small
drainage areas [<1 km2 (<0.4 mi2)] and/or low storage
capacities [<100,000 m3 (<80 acre feet)] were excluded. The 753
remaining dams were selected for further assessment
(Appendix B). These dams represent a broad range of sizes,
storage capacities, and drainage areas (Figure 5). The dams
also include those that are privately owned (n = 339) and those
owned and operated by local (n = 279), state (n = 27) and
federal agencies (n = 108).
Figure 5
Dams evaluated in California (n =753) with frequency distributions of dam height,
storage capacity, and upstream catchment areas
F LOW REGIME ALTERATION BELOW DAMS

A total of 209 USGS flow gages were identified at or
immediately downstream of dams. Potential alteration to flow
magnitudes and seasonal flow patterns was first assessed by
comparing modeled mean monthly flows (representing expected
hydrologic conditions in the absence of dams) with observed
flows. Only gages with at least 27 days of daily flow records per
month for 10 years or more were included, resulting in 172
gages below 185 dams. For most gage sites, the ratio of
observed-to-expected (O/E) mean monthly flows was less than
1, indicating that flow releases from dams are, on average,
lower than expected. Monthly O/E values were generally lower
in winter and spring (Nov-May) than in the summer and fall
(Jul-Oct) when values were greater than 1 for some sites
(Figure 6). This probably represents the effects of water storage
and flood control in the winter, and augmented flow releases in
the late summer for agricultural water deliveries. Comparisons
of observed and predicted flows at reference gages indicated
that the model was unbiased and reasonably accurate
(Appendix C).
All gaged dams had evidence of some degree of monthly flow
alteration. Among the 185 dams evaluated, each one had at
least one month in which observed monthly flows deviated from
expected values by more than 50%. For 66 dams, monthly flows
were altered by more than 50% for all 12 months, and for the
vast majority of dams (n = 171), monthly flows were altered by
50% for 6 or more months.
Figure 6
Histograms of observed/expected mean monthly flows for all gaged dams.
O/E values between 0.75-1.25 (gray bars) indicate that observed flows are
similar to expected values

Next, potential effects of dams on downstream peak flows were
assessed by comparing observed with expected values of mean
maximum 1-day flow. Only gages with more than 350 days of
daily flow records per year for 10 years were included, resulting
in 153 unique sites. Maximum 1-day flows were generally
lower than expected values, indicating a reduction in peak-flow
magnitudes below most dams (Figure 7). Of 153 sites
evaluated, observed maximum 1-day flows were less than 50%
of expected values at more than half (n = 83) of the gages.
Figure 7
Histogram of observed/expected maximum 1-day discharge. O/E
values near 1 (gray bar) indicate that observed flows are similar to
expected values
Changes in seasonal flow patterns were assessed by examining

the correlation between observed and expected monthly flows.
For the majority of gages (n = 125 of 172), observed and
expected monthly flows were strongly correlated (r > 0.75),
indicating that monthly seasonal flow patterns were largely
preserved. However, low correlation (r < 0.5) of monthly flows
below several dams provides evidence that seasonal flow
patterns have been highly altered in some rivers (Figure 8).
There were 14 gages with correlation values less 0, indicating a
reversal of natural seasonal flow patterns in those affected
rivers. An example of a dam in which downstream flows closely
follow expected seasonal patterns is the R.W. Mathews Dam on
the Mad River (r = 0.99, Figure 9). Deviation from expected
seasonal flow patterns is evident below dams such as New
Melones Dam on the Stanislaus River (r = 0.63) and Indian
Valley Dam on North Fork Cache Creek (r = 0.05)
Figure 8
Histogram of correlation coefficient between observed and expected
monthly flows, for all gages below dams. Gray bar denotes high
correlation, or strong correspondence, between observed and expected
seasonal monthly flow patterns
Figure 9
Examples of seasonal flow alteration below dams, as measured
by correlation between expected (modeled unimpaired) and
observed mean monthly flows
The impounded runoff (IR) values exhibited a bi-modal
distribution, with most dams having either values less than 0.2
(i.e., storage capacity less than 20% of annual inflow volume) or
greater than 1 (i.e., storage capacity greater than mean annual
inflow) (Figure 10). A total of 345 dams have an IR greater
than 0.5, 229 greater than 0.75, and 178 greater than 1.
Storage capacity is thus strongly correlated with expected
annual discharge, suggesting that many dams in California are
designed to capture a significant proportion of available annual
supplies. Thus, even dams that are relatively small may
capture most or all of the annual discharge of an affected river
or stream. While dams with high IR-values occur throughout
the state, they are clustered in particularly high densities in
arid regions, such as southern coastal California and the Modoc
plateau (Figure 10).
Figure 10
Impounded runoff (IR) ratio for dams in California,
representing the capacity relative to the (modeled) mean
annual inflow; inset map illustrates the difference between IR
and CIR for series of dams on the Pit River

The cumulative impounded runoff (CIR) ratio reflects the
potential effects of all dams in the catchment above a specific
dam of interest. For example, the series of dams on the Pit
River have individually low IR values (<0.1), but because they
are below Lake Almanor, a large reservoir with a high IR value
(>1), downstream flows are likely to exhibit greater
impairment than otherwise expected (inset map in Figure 10).
To evaluate how the IR and CIR relate to observed patterns of
hydrologic alteration at gaged dams, the O/E and seasonality
metrics were plotted against IR and CIR (only CIR presented,
Figure 11). There was substantial variability in the data, but
average monthly O/E values were positively correlated with
CIR, signifying that higher CIR values are associated with
increased deviation in monthly flows. In contrast, there was a
weak negative relationship between O/E maximum 1-day
values and CIR, indicating that dams with greater CIR values
tend to reduce peak flows. Pearsons r, signifying the
correlation between observed and expected seasonal flow
patterns, was not highly correlated with CIR. However, low
values of Pearsons r occurred more frequently at high CIR
values (>0.5) than at low CIR values, indicating that degree of
seasonal flow alteration may be higher for dams with high CIR.
Figure 11
Relationship between O/E monthly flows, O/E maximum 1-day
flows, Pearsons r and the cumulative impounded runoff (CIR)
ratio at gaged dams
I NDICATORS OF FISH CONDITION

To assess the condition of fish in river basins affected by dams,
we first evaluated the association of dams with the loss of
native species from their historic range. Based on the 28 fish
taxa for which reliable historical distribution data exists, at
least one species has been lost from 265 (HUC12) watersheds
affected by 263 dams (Figure 12). Dams associated with the
loss of species were concentrated in the central and southern
California coast, the Sierra Nevada foothills and in the upper
Sacramento and Klamath river basins. Among species with
known historic ranges, Arroyo chub, Central Coast coho
salmon, Central Valley fall Chinook salmon, and Sacramento
perch were the most common species to be lost from
watersheds affected by dams.
Figure 12
Patterns of species loss from HUC12 watersheds for 28 native
fish species with historical and current range data
The condition of native fish populations was then evaluated by
integrating range maps with the Moyle et al. (2011) population
status assessment, yielding a statewide map of sensitive taxa
richness at the HUC12-watershed scale (Figure 13). All dams
falling within range of sensitive species populations (considered
endangered or vulnerable) were then identified. The regions of
California supporting the highest richness of sensitive species
populations are the Central Valley, the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta, the upper Sacramento River, and
Klamath River Basin (Figure 13).
Figure 13
Patterns of sensitive species richness within Californias
HUC12 watersheds; population status of each native species
based on Moyle et al. 2011

A total of 378 dams are within the range of at least 1 sensitive
species. Of these, 211 are within the range of anadromous ESAlisted salmon and steelhead trout species, such as the
endangered Southern California steelhead trout (Figure 14).
Figure 14
Current distribution of anadromous salmonid species, listed as
threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered
Species Act
R ELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HYDROLOGIC

ALTERATION AND FISH CONDITION
A series of box plots were generated to explore relationships
between
hydrologic
variables
and
fish
community
characteristics. First, the total richness of native fish species
was compared with hydrologic metrics for each dam. There was
a positive association between the number of native species
present and estimated annual discharge and cumulative
storage. This indicated that species richness tends to increase
with river size (Figure 15). However, there was no apparent
trend between native species richness and other indicators of
hydrologic alteration.
Figure 15
Native species richness plotted against annual discharge and
cumulative storage

Next we examined the association between the number of
sensitive species present (plus any native species extirpations)
and the hydrologic alteration metrics. There was substantial
variation in the data for all variables, but differences among
the species richness bins were generally small. The total
number of sensitive and lost species was slightly greater for
dams with large mean annual discharge and cumulative
storage (Figure 16). In addition, dams with no sensitive species
had the lowest mean value for impounded runoff, cumulative
impounded runoff, and maximum 1-day flow deviation (Figure
17). Differences in sensitive species richness did not appear to
vary significantly by the degree of monthly and seasonal flow
deviation.
Figure 16
Number of sensitive species plus species losses, plotted against annual
discharge and cumulative storage capacity
Figure 17
Number of sensitive species plus species losses, plotted against impounded runoff
(IR), cumulative impounded runoff, monthly flow deviation, maximum 1-day flow
deviation, and seasonal flow deviation; flow deviation metrics are transformed:
increasing values (from 0) indicate increasing degree of deviation from modeled
unimpaired conditions
D AMS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL

ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW REQUIREMENTS
A total of 165 dams were excluded because they are subject to
federally determined environmental flows (Figure 18). These
included 159 FERC-regulated dams and others, such as Shasta
Dam that operate under a federal biological opinion to protect
ESA-listed species.
Figure 18
Dams with (gray, n = 165) and without (black, n = 588) known
federal environmental flow requirements
I DENTIFICATION AND RANKING OF

CANDIDATE DAMS
Of the 753 dams evaluated, 385 were associated with at least
one indicator of altered downstream flows. All 185 gaged dams
had modified monthly flows (deviation greater than 50%) in at
least one month, while 91 of them were associated with
impaired maximum 1-day flows (deviation greater than 50%),
and 41 had evidence of significant seasonal flow alteration (i.e.,
weak correlation between observed and expected monthly flow
patterns). A total of 288 dams had IR or CIR values greater
than 0.75.
Among all 753 dams, 495 were associated with at least one
indicator that fish are not in good condition (e.g., loss of species
or presence of sensitive species populations). For 263 dams, at
least one species has been lost its HUC12 watershed, while a
total of 378 dams are within the range of sensitive species. A
total of 268 dams (of the 495 with indicators of fish
impairment) also had evidence of flow regime alteration.
Excluding dams with federally regulated environmental flows,
there are 220 remaining candidate dams considered high
priority for assessing compliance with Section 5937 (Appendix
D, Figure 19).
Figure 19
High priority candidate dams (n = 220) for assessing
compliance with Section 5937

To further examine the final subset, candidate dams were
ranked and sorted by their physical features (reservoir
capacity), hydrologic indicators (degree of seasonal flow
alteration), and associated fish community characteristics.
Dams with large storage capacities are ranked because of their
influence on downstream water availability for fish is likely
significant. Also, most large storage dams are designed to
control the timing and magnitude of flow releases, which could
facilitate the conjunctive management of reservoirs for
multiple benefits, including flows for fish. Dams with the
largest water storage capacities include Trinity Dam on the
Trinity River, New Melones Dam on the Stanislaus River, Pine
Flat on Kings River, and Folsom Dam on the American River
(Table 1). Dams associated with the greatest downstream
hydrologic alteration were also identified and ranked by
correlation of observed to expected mean monthly flows. Among
the subset of dams with downstream USGS gaging stations (n
= 185), Tinemaha Dam on the Owens River, Anderson Dam on
Coyote Creek, and Calaveras Dam on Calaveras Creek were
associated with the greatest alteration to seasonal monthly
flow patterns (Table 1).
Table 1
Top 20-ranking dams sorted by storage capacity and seasonal
flow deviation
Rank
a.
Storage capacity (106 m3)
Monthly flow deviation (r)a
Trinity
3,019
Tinemaha
-0.55
New Melones
2,960
Anderson
-0.03
Pine Flat
1,233
-0.01
Folsom
1,203
Warm Springs
470
Calaveras
Mendota
Diversion
Crocker Diversion
San Antonio
432
San Antonio
0.16
Nacimiento
419
Bradbury
0.23
Castaic
399
Nacimiento
0.27
New Hogan
391
Seven Oaks
0.32
10
Casitas
313
Keswick
0.37
11
Twitchell
296
Lewiston
0.45
12
Stampede
279
Lake Kaweah
0.55
13
Bradbury
253
West Valley
0.57
14
Long Valley
226
Success
0.61
15
Mathews
224
New Melones
0.62
16
Seven Oaks
180
Casitas
0.63
17
Black Butte
177
Donner Lake
0.65
18
Lake Kaweah
176
Lake ONeill
0.70
19
Coyote Valley
151
Dwinnell Dam
0.74
0.11
0.12
20
El Capitan
139
Martis Creek
0.74
Assessed only at dams with downstream gages (n = 185) by
calculating the correlation between observed and expected (modeled)
mean monthly flows.

Candidate dams associated with a high richness of native
species and sensitive species were also identified. The highestranking dams are those in watersheds that support
particularly high fish biodiversity. This suggests that their
management would be important to native fish conservation.
Dams associated with the greatest richness of native species
include Woodbridge Diversion Dam on the Mokelumne River,
Nash Dam on a tributary to Stillwater Creek in Shasta County,
and a series of three Rubber Dams on lower Alameda Creek
(Table 2). The dams associated with the greatest number of
sensitive species included Keswick and Anderson-Cottonwood
dams on the Sacramento River, Woodbridge Diversion Dam,
and Nash Dam (Table 2).
Table 2
Top 20-ranking dams sorted by native species richness and
sensitive species richness
Rank
Native species richness
Sensitive species richness
Woodbridge Diversion
10
Keswick
Nash
10
Woodbridge Diversion
Alameda Creek Rubber Dams
Anderson Cottonwood
Folsom
Nash
Nimbus
Folsom
Goodwin
San Pablo
Crocker Diversion
Nimbus
Farmington
Novato Creek
New San Leandro
Crocker Diversion
10
Woodward
Lake Anza
11
Prosser Creek
Englebright
12
Lewiston
Lower Crystal Springs
13
Chabot
Farmington
14
Clementia
New San Leandro
15
Putah Diversion
Woodward
16
La Grange
Modesto Reservoir
17
San Lorenzo Creek (Don Castro)
San Andreas
18
Rodden Lake
Lewiston
19
Hamel
Chabot
20
Dry Creek
Guadalupe
Dams were also identified within the range of ESA-listed

salmon and steelhead trout species (Table 3). The list does not
include all dams within the species ranges just those in the
final subset of candidate dams. Only four candidate dams are
within the range of Southern Oregon/Northern California coho
salmon (ESA endangered): Trinity and Lewiston Dams on the
Trinity River, Dwinnell Dam on the Shasta River, and Scout
Lake Dam on a tributary to Berry Creek in Mendocino County.
Dams located within the range of ESA-endangered Central
California Coast coho salmon are: Warm Springs Dam on Dry
Creek in Sonoma County, Peters, Bon Tempe and Alpine Dams
in the Lagunitas Creek watershed, Soulajule Dam on Arroyo
Sausal (also in Marin County), and Newell Dam on the San
Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz County.

These dams are also within the range of ESA-threatened
Central California Coast Steelhead Trout, as are San Antonio
Dam on the San Antonio River in Monterey County,
Nacimiento Dam on the Nacimiento River in San Luis Obispo
County, and Coyote Valley Dam on the east fork of the Russian
River in Mendocino County.
The largest dams potentially affecting Southern California
steelhead trout (ESA endangered) are Casitas, Twitchell, and
Bradbury Dams on Coyote Creek, Cuyama River, and Santa
Ynez River, respectively. There are 20 candidate dams within
the range Central Valley steelhead trout (ESA threatened).
The largest are Folsom, New Hogan, Black Butte, and
Englebright.
Table 3
Top 20-ranking dams sorted by ESA-listed salmon and steelhead trout populations
Southern
Oregon/Northern
California Coho
Central
California Coast
Coho Salmon
Central
California Coast
Steelhead Trouta
Southern
California
Steelhead Trout
Central Valley
Steelhead Trout
Trinity
Warm Springs
Warm Springs
Casitas
Folsom
Dwinnell Dam
Peters
San Antonio
Twitchell
New Hogan Dam
Lewiston
Soulajule
Nacimiento
Bradbury
Black Butte
Scout Lake
Alpine
Coyote Valley
El Capitan
Englebright
Newell
Calaveras
San Vicente
Modesto
Reservoir
Bon Tempe
Anderson
Whittier
Narrows
Keswick
Bean Hollow #2
Lower Crystal
Springs
Morena
Nimbus
Lopez
Barrett
Anthony House
James H Turner
San Gabriel
Woodbridge
Diversion
San Pablo
Lake Hodges
Davis No 2
New San
Leandro
Bouquet Canyon
Anderson
Cottonwood
Whale Rock
Santa Fe
Clementia
Peters
Morris
Putah Diversion
Conn Creek
Ramona
Goodwin
Salinas
Wood Ranch
La Grange
San Andreas
Gibraltar
Nash
Hernandez
Juncal
Rodden Lake
Lake Curry
Trampas Canyon
Hamel
Soulajule
Mission Viejo
Crocker
Diversion
Chabot
Upper Oso
Foothill Ranch
Top 20 largest (by storage capacity) of 48 candidate dams that occur

within the range of Central California Coast steelhead trout.
a
In summary, 220 dams were identified as sites where improved

environmental flows are likely warranted under Section 5937,
based on evidence of hydrologic alteration and indicators of fish
population impairment. These dams are statewide (Figure 19)
and represent a broad diversity of ownership (e.g., public
utilities, private, state agencies), impoundment sizes and
functions (e.g., flood control, water storage, and diversions).
None is regulated by FERC, although some are subject to
environmental flow requirements of federal or state agencies.
Regardless, it is unknown whether flow releases from any of
the candidate dams are managed to keep fish in good condition.
While this analysis provides evidence of flow regime alteration
and fish population impairment for all candidate dams,
determination of Section 5937 compliance will likely require
site-specific assessment.
P RELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATIONS

We present 10 of the candidate dams as case studies to how
operations may affect fish downstream (Table 4, Figure 20).
The case-study dams are not necessarily those most in need of
improved flows for fish. Rather, they serve to highlight the
broad diversity of dams in California, in terms of their size,
location, ownership, and function. Many of the case dams were
selected from the ranked lists (Tables 1-3). In Chapter V, we
describe for each of the 10 dams basic structural and
operational characteristics, the downstream flow regime, and
native fish species potentially affected.
Table 4
Case study dams

Dam
County
River
Capacity
(106 m3)
Ownership
Primary
Purpose
Sensitive species
potentially
affected
Flood control
and
irrigation
Central Valley
steelhead, Central
Valley fall-run and
spring-run Chinook
Central California
coast steelhead trout
Black Butte
Dam
Tehama
Stony Creek
177.3
Army Corps
of Engineers
Conn Creek
Dam
Napa
Conn Creek
38.2
City of Napa
Urban water
supply
Peters Dam
Marin
Lagunitas
Creek
40.5
Marin
Municipal
Water
District
Urban water
supply
Woodbridge
Diversion
Dam
San
Joaquin
Mokelumne
River
Woodbridge
Irrigation
District
Recreation,
irrigation
and urban
water supply
Twitchell
Dam
San Luis
Obispo
Cuyama
River
296
Bureau of
Reclamation
Irrigation
Long Valley
Mono
Owens River
226.3
City of Los
Angeles
Casitas Dam
Ventura
Coyote Creek
313.3
Bureau of
Reclamation
Boles
Meadow Dam
Modoc
Boles Creek
6.2
Forest
Service
Irrigation
Pine Flat
Dam
Fresno
Kings River
1,233.5
Army Corps
of Engineers
Flood control
Kern brook lamprey
Irrigation
Southern
Oregon/Northern
California coho
salmon, Upper
Klamath-Trinity
fall- and spring-run
Chinook salmon
Dwinnell
Dam
Siskiyou
Shasta River
3.0
61.6
Montague
Water
Conservation
District
Hydroelectric
and water
supply
Irrigation
and water
supply
Central California
coast coho salmon,
Central California
coast steelhead
Central Valley
steelhead, Central
Valley fall-run
Chinook salmon,
southern green
sturgeon, white
sturgeon
Southern California
coast steelhead
trout, Arroyo chub
Owens tui chub,
Owens speckled
dace, Owens pupfish
Southern California
coast steelhead,
Arroyo chub
Shortnose sucker,
Lost River sucker,
Klamath largescale
sucker, Klamath
marbled sculpin
Figure 20
Ten case study dams from the list of candidate dams (n = 220),
selected to provide preliminary site investigation of the
potential effects of dam operations on downstream fish
DISCUSSION | 47
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
DISCUSSION
S YSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF DAMS
This study offers a systematic framework for identifying dams
that likely need improved downstream fish flows as required
under Section 5937. From an original pool of more than 1,400
dams, we identified 220 as high-priority candidates for further
investigation of environmental flow needs for fish. These dams
fall within a broad range of biogeographic settings and
represent a wide diversity in size, function and ownership.
For the vast majority of dams, flows observed at downstream
gages deviated from expected natural patterns by at least 50%
for at least six months of the year. In addition, for more than
half of the gaged dams evaluated, maximum 1-day flows were
less than 50% of predicted values. While model prediction error
of expected flows could be contributing to apparent deviation
from observed values, the lack of model bias (Appendix C) and
magnitude of effects among gaged dams suggests that the
deviation reflects true impacts of dam operations. Although
several dams appear to have substantially altered seasonal
flow patterns, flow seasonality has been largely preserved
below the majority of gaged dams. This may be the result of
water spilling over dams in winter and minimum flow releases
in the summer, likely to provide water for downstream water
rights holders.
The lack of gaging records restricted the hydrologic impact
analysis to a relatively small subset of dams (about 200).
However, the correlation between O/E- and seasonal flow
alteration metrics indicates that the impounded runoff ratio is
a reasonable proxy for predicting potential hydrologic
alteration below dams. Thus, large IR values for many dams in
the state suggest that alteration to downstream flows is likely.
A significant proportion of the dams assessed are within the
range of least one native fish species considered at risk of
extinction. A total of 378 dams (of the 753 assessed) are within
the range of at least one sensitive fish species, including 211
within the range of ESA-listed anadromous salmonids.
DISCUSSION | 49
Furthermore, at least one native fish species has been lost from
watersheds affected by 263 of the 753 dams.
There is some evidence that the number of sensitive species
and species losses is associated with hydrologic alteration
below dams. For example, dams with no sensitive species or
extirpations tended to have lower deviation values in
maximum 1-day flows and lower impounded and cumulative
impounded runoff than dams with 1 or more sensitive species
and extirpations. While the association of dams with sensitive
fish populations or reduced species ranges is not causal
evidence, the potential for dams to impair fish populations is
well-established in California (e.g., Marchetti and Moyle 2001;
Brown and Ford 2002; Brown & Bauer 2010; Moyle et al. 2011)
and elsewhere (e.g., Gehrke and Harris 2001; Clavero et al.
2004; Rinne et al. 2005). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that
dam operations are an important influence on the condition
and persistence of fish populations.
L IMITATIONS
The investigation revealed a notably lack of information
detailing dam operations, downstream flow regimes, and
affected fish communities. The void presented a major
challenge in building a standardized, high-resolution database
of California dams and associated conditions. The National
Inventory of Dams (USACE 2012) and State Jurisdictional
Dam Database (DWR 2010) provided dimensions, location, and
ownership of dams, but none of the operational information
needed to effects on downstream flows. The vast majority of
dams have no flow monitoring downstream. In those cases, we
used the impounded runoff index as a proxy for hydrologic
alteration.
The effects of Californias dams on downstream flows remains
poorly documented. The study not only highlights the need for
improved stream flow monitoring, but also for public reporting
of dam operations and water use. To quantify potential
hydrologic effects of diversion dams (which generally have a
small storage capacity, but may divert substantial volumes of
water), we examined the Water Rights Database of the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB 2012). This database
includes coordinate locations for all points of diversion linked

to the projects water rights permit or license. But the database
was not useful for quantifying the hydrologic effects of
diversions because there was little concurrence between the
face value of water rights and actual water use (e.g. assessed at
flow gage or from secondary data source). The lack of accurate
reporting of water use represents a significant impediment to
managing for environmental flows in Californias rivers.
The UC Davis PISCES database (Viers et al. 2012) is the most
comprehensive compilation of standardized data on Californias
native fish species. PISCES is a software and data storage
platform that uses primary source data, modeling, and expert
analysis to generate best-known ranges for the states fish. But
data are compiled and presented at the HUC12 watershed
scale, making it impossible to distinguish between fish
assemblages below and above dams. Thus, the spatial
association of fish species with specific dams (upon which the
selection criteria are based) is not definitive; indicators of fish
community impairment (e.g. sensitive species or loss of species
from historic range) below dams should be confirmed as part of
site-specific investigations.
R ECOMMENDATIONS
Our evaluation approach can be improved as new data and
modeling tools become available. Additional monitoring data on
downstream flows and fish communities could change the
relative rankings of dams on the high-priority list. New criteria
could also be incorporated in the evaluation framework to
support the selection and ranking of high-priority dams for
further assessment. For example, criteria based on the quality
and quantity of downstream available fish habitat would help
prioritize dams for environmental flow management. There is a
broad suite of additional indicators of hydrologic alteration that
could also be assessed below gaged dams (Olden and Poff 2003).
Also, information on the relative vulnerability of Californias
fish assemblages to climate change is needed for informing
environmental flow implementation strategies. Most dammed
rivers in California support native fish species considered
highly vulnerable to climate change (Moyle et al. 2012). For
example, the availability of suitable habitat for many coldwater species such as salmon is likely to decrease in the future
DISCUSSION | 51
(Katz et al. 2012; Null et al. 2013). Modification of flow releases
from dams to maintain cold-water habitat could be an
important tool to reduce impacts of climate change on fishes.
The integrated database developed for this study can be used to
examine the relationships between physical drivers of river
alteration and ecological responses. In this study, associations
between hydrological metrics and indicators of fish condition
were examined through qualitative, exploratory analysis.
While not conclusive or exhaustive, these relationships are
strong indicators of the linkage between dam-driven flow
changes and fish condition, and highlight the need for more
robust, statistical analyses to quantify the effects of dam
operations on Californias native fish assemblages. Such
analyses could be helpful in developing environmental flow
recommendations for regulated rivers throughout the state and
elsewhere.
In summary, there is evidence that flows below many of
Californias dams may be insufficient to maintain fish in good
condition. Given the rapid decline of Californias fish fauna and
pervasive alteration to the states river ecosystems,
environmental flows are important if not critical to
conservation of many native fish populations. Section 5937
requires that such flows be restored and protected. Other
states and countries have similar legal mechanisms for
protecting environmental flows (Annear et al. 2004; Arthington
2012; Gillilan and Brown 1997), including the Public Trust
Doctrine (Frank 2012), of which 5937 could be regarded as an
extension (Brk et al. 2012). Thus, our evaluation method is
applicable beyond California where systematic assessments of
dams could help guide the management and conservation of
freshwater ecosystems.
CASE STUDIES
Ten case study dams were selected from the 220 candidate
dams associated with evidence of flow alteration and fish
population impairment. Several dams were selected for their
potential impacts to ESA-listed salmon and steelhead trout:
Black Butte Dam on Stony Creek was selected because
of its location in the upper Sacramento River basin and
potential effects on Central Valley fall- and spring-run
Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout.
Conn Creek Dam is a smaller dam in the Napa River
watershed managed for municipal water supply and has
the potential to affect Central California coast steelhead
trout populations.
Peters Dam, which is also managed for municipal water
supply, affects populations of Central California coast
coho salmon and steelhead trout.
Dwinnell Dam on the Shasta River potentially affects
populations of Southern Oregon/Northern California
coho salmon.
Casitas Dam and Twitchell Dams within the range of
Southern California steelhead trout.
Other dams were selected to illustrate a diversity of operations
and management objectives:
Woodbridge Diversion Dam on the Mokelumne River
was selected to highlight potential impacts of water
diversion facilities. Diversion dams often have low
water storage capacities, but may divert substantial
amounts of water that would otherwise flow
downstream. Woodbridge also illustrates the effect of
upstream dams on local operations
Long Valley Dam on the Owens River impounds
municipal water supplies imported from Mono Lake
Basin. Though outside the range of anadromous fishes,
the potentially affects several highly endemic and
threatened native fish species.
Boles Meadow Dam on Boles Creek impounds a small
(6.2106 m3; 5,000 acre feet), seasonal reservoir that is
managed for livestock forage. The creek also supports a
highly endemic and threatened natiuve fish fauna.
Pine Flat Dam on the Kings River impounds one of the
states largest reservoirs [more than 12,000106 m3
(1,000,000 acre feet)] and is operated for multiple
benefits, including flood control and agricultural water
supply.
CASE STUDIES | 53
C ASE STUDY 1: B LACK B UTTE D AM

Black Butte dam is in Tehama County (Figure 21) and
captures runoff from upper Stony Creek (1,916 km2), which
drains the eastern slope of the Coast Range and flows into the
Sacramento River, near Hamilton City. The 48-meter (156-ft)
earthen dam was built in 1963 and is owned and operated by
the USACE. Its operations are also coordinated with the US
Bureau of Reclamations (USBR) Central Valley Project and
the Orland Project, which has several water storage and
diversion dams in the Stony Creek watershed.
Figure 21
Black Butte Dam and catchment (1,916 km2) on Stony Creek.
Downstream flows were evaluated at USGS gage #11388000
below the dam
Aerial view of Black Butte Dam in Tehama County. Source: Army Corps of Engineers Digital Visual
Library
Black Butte Dam is managed for flood control, recreation, and

water supply. The dam impounds Black Butte Reservoir, with a
total storage capacity of about 177106 m3 (144,000 acre feet).
A small re-regulating dam is immediately downstream. Several
large dams are upstream of Black Butte Dam within the Stony
Creek watershed, including East Park Dam and Stony Gorge
Dam.
Black Butte Dam was included on the list of candidate dams
because of observed deviation in expected monthly flows, its
high cumulative impounded runoff ratio, and potential to affect
threatened populations Central Valley Chinook salmon,
Central Valley steelhead trout, and other sensitive fish species
(Table 5).
CASE STUDIES | 55
Table 6
Black Butte Dam on Stony Creek, Tehama County
Black Butte Dam
Physical
Characteristics
Hydrologic Alteration
Dam height: 48 m
Reservoir capacity: 1.77108 m3
Catchment area: 1,916 km2
Mean annual inflow: 6.11108 m3
Impounded runoff (IR) ratio: 0.29 ; Cumulative IR ratio: 0.50
Observed flows at downstream gage indicate a significant reduction in peak 1-day flows,
enhanced summer flows and reduced late fall flows. Monthly flows follow expected
seasonal patterns (r = 0.94)
Condition of
Downstream Fish
Sensitive species potentially affected below dam: Central Valley fall-run, late fall-run,
winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead trout, and hardhead
Low-flows and degraded habitat conditions may adversely affect condition of
downstream native fish populations.
H YDROLOGIC C ONDITIONS
Flow releases from Black Butte dam are primarily controlled
for flood control and irrigation purposes. The reservoir is also
managed for boating and a warm-water fishery. The USBR
operates the dam April to October for irrigation and the
USACE manages it for flood control from November to March
(H.T. Harvey & Associates 2007).
The unimpaired annual inflow to Stony Creek at Black Butte
Dam is about 6109 m3 (50,000 acre feet), yielding an
impounded runoff ratio of 0.29. When accounting for the
capacity of upstream dams, the cumulative impounded runoff
ratio at the dam is 0.50.
Flows observed at the USGS gage below Black Butte Dam
(#11388000) were compared with modeled unimpaired
hydrologic metrics. Mean annual flow below Black Butte is
about 80% of its expected value, a reflection of irrigation
diversions. Observed mean monthly flows (1970-1990) from
January to May were slightly lower than modeled unimpaired
flows, with observed-to-expected (O/E) ratios generally between
0.75 and 1.0 (Figure 22). Observed flows were similar to
expected values in June and July (O/E 1), but were
substantially higher in August and September (O/E >1.5). In
the fall, mean flows below the dam were lower than expected,

with O/E values of 0.44 in October, 0.29 in November, and 0.64
in December. Maximum 1-day peak flows have been
significantly reduced, with an O/E value of 0.60. There is no
evidence that flow seasonality has been altered, with observed
monthly flows following expected seasonal patterns (r = 0.94).
Figure 22
Expected (E, modeled) and observed (O) mean monthly flows
below Black Butte Dam and the O/E ratio
C ONDITION
OF
D OWNSTREAM F ISH P OPULATIONS
Stony Creek historically supported Central Valley steelhead

and spring and fall runs of Central Valley Chinook salmon.
Black Butte dam completely blocked anadromous fish
migration to the upper Stony Creek watershed. However,
steelhead and Chinook salmon and other native fish species
have been observed in lower Stony Creek, in addition to several
non-native species (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2007). Sensitive
fish species potentially affected by management operations
downstream of Black Butte Dam include Central Valley fallrun (Status 2), late fall-run (Status 1), and spring-run Chinook
salmon (Status 2, ESA-listed as threatened), and Central
Valley steelhead (Status 2, ESA-listed as threatened). Stony
Creek may also be important for spawning of Sacramento
CASE STUDIES | 57
sucker, Sacramento pikeminnow, and hardhead and other
native fishes moving up from the Sacramento River during
high flows in spring.
M ANAGEMENT
OF
D OWNSTREAM F LOWS
FOR
F ISH
Black Butte Dam is operated to control downstream flooding

and erosion in winter, and to supply irrigated farms in the
summer. An Incidental Take Permit for ESA-listed salmonids
in lower Stony Creek limits flood control ramping rates and
minimum flow releases during the spawning period (NMFS
2008). Also, spring flow releases for salmon and steelhead are
negotiated each year, based on water storage levels in Black
Butte Reservoir and upstream reservoirs in the basin.
Nevertheless, stream flows from late fall through spring are
consistently less than levels (approximately 10-30 m3/s [4001,000 ft3/s]) required for spawning and incubation and to
support rearing of fall-run Chinook salmon juveniles (H.T.
Harvey & Associates 2007, p. 54). Low flows in the late fall are
likely a critical limiting factor to salmon and other native fish
taxa in lower Stony Creek.
A recent fish habitat assessment of Lower Stony Creek
reported that opportunistic use by salmonids of Stony Creek
is limited spatially and temporally because of their life cycle,
the water temperature and stream flow (H.T. Harvey &
Associates 2007, p. 56). Passage barriers, diversions, habitat
degradation, and altered flow regimes also inhibit salmon
recovery in the creek (NMFS 2008).
C ASE STUDY 2: C ONN C REEK D AM

Conn Creek Dam is about 12 km (7.5 mi) upstream from the
mouth of Conn Creek at its confluence with the Napa River in
Napa County (Figure 23). The 38-m (125-ft) high earthen dam
impounds Lake Hennessey, which has a storage capacity of
38.2106 m3 (31,000 acre feet) and is the largest reservoir in
the Napa River watershed.
Figure 23
Conn Creek Dam and catchment on Conn Creek, a tributary to
Napa Creek in Sonoma County. Downstream flows were
evaluated at USGS gage #11456500
CASE STUDIES | 59
Conn Creek dam was built in 1948 by the City of Napa, which
uses the reservoir as its primary municipal water source.
Water is delivered to the city through the Conn Transmission
Main pipeline. Although the dam was originally authorized as
a flood control project, its operation for water supply typically
results in high storage volumes and limited flood storage
capacity. When the reservoir at capacity, excess flows drain
from a spillway into lower Conn Creek. The dam does not have
gateways or infrastructure elements to allow for controlled
water releases. Conn Creek Dam was included on the list of
candidate dams for its high impounded runoff ratio and
potential to affect a population of threatened Central California
coast steelhead trout (Table 6).
Conn Creek Dam in Napa County. Source: T. Grantham

Table 7
Conn Creek Dam on Conn Creek, Napa County
Conn Creek Dam
Physical
Characteristics
Dam height: 38 m
Catchment area: 135 km2
Mean annual inflow: 24.3106 m3 (City of Napa, 2006); 54.2106 m3 (model)
Hydrologic
Alteration
IR: 1.6, Cumulative IR: 1.6

Historic downstream flow gage indicates that natural stream drying may have
occurred later in the year than under present conditions. Conn Creek below
the dam currently does not have a flow gage.
Condition of
Downstream Fish
Sensitive species potentially affected below dam: Central California coast

steelhead trout
Lack of perennial flows, low-flows, and degraded habitat conditions may
adversely affect condition of downstream native fish populations.
Mean annual inflow to Conn Creek Dam was predicted by the
hydrologic model to be 54.2106 m3 per year. The citys water
management reports estimate annual inflows at 24.3106 m3,
based on hydrologic analysis of local empirical data. Using the
local estimate, Lake Hennessey (with a storage capacity of
38.2106 m3) has an impounded runoff index of 1.6.
Flow records from a pre-dam USGS gage (#11456500) indicate
a rainfall-runoff dominated hydrograph, with peak flows
between January and March, followed by a low-flow period
between April and November. The creek typically has
intermittent flows by July and was dry from September to
October, except for a few large pools. A recent stream inventory
by the Napa County Resource Conservation District (Napa
RCD) reported that seasonal drying of the entire channel below
the dam typically occurred by mid-June (Napa RCD 2005),
indicating that dam operations have resulted in lower flows in
the dry season. Napa maintains storage volumes near capacity
for water supply reliability. Therefore, the dam presumably
does not reduce peak winter flows.
CASE STUDIES | 61
C ONDITION
OF
Conn Creek historically supported a run of Central California

coast steelhead trout, but construction of the dam cut off access
to spawning and rearing grounds in upper Conn Creek and its
tributaries. Chinook salmon may have historically used the
low-gradient reaches of Conn Creek for spawning and rearing.
Pacific lamprey was also historically present in the Conn Creek
watershed (Murphy 1949). Chinook salmon continue to spawn
in the Napa River near the confluence with Conn Creek, and
intermittently flowing reaches of lower Conn Creek may be
used opportunistically for spawning (Napa RCD 2005). Conn
Creek below the dam currently provides limited habitat for fish
because of the absence of perennial flows, habitat degradation,
and high summer water temperatures. Lower Conn Creek
lacks summer habitat for rearing of steelhead. More tolerant
native species, mainly California roach, persist in the few large
pools that remain wet through the summer (Napa RCD 2005).
Unlike steelhead, which require a year or more of stream
residence, Chinook parr may successfully out-migrate from the
creek in late spring prior to seasonal drying (Napa RCD 2005).
M ANAGEMENT
OF
D OWNSTREAM F LOWS
FOR
F ISH
Most of the water stored behind Conn Creek Dam is diverted to

the City of Napa. According to the citys Urban Water
Management Plan, about 21.5106 m3 (or 90%) of the annual
water yield at the dam is diverted (City of Napa 2006). The
Plan states that the City is required to provide sufficient
releases from the reservoir to provide minimum stream flows
but these requirements do not significantly affect supply
reliability (City of Napa 2006, p. 4-6). However, flows below
Conn Creek Dam are not monitored and the quantity of
downstream flows provided for fish is unknown.
C ASE STUDY 3: P ETERS D AM

Peters Dam is in the Lagunitas Creek watershed (267 km2),
which drains the western slope of the Coast Range into the
Pacific Ocean at Tomales Bay, in western Marin County
(Figure 24). The dam impounds Lagunitas Creek to form Kent
Lake. The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) manages
the dam and several other reservoirs in the watershed to
supply Marin County residents. Built in 1953, Peters Dam was
raised by 13 meters in 1982 to increase water storage capacity
to 40.5106 m3 (33,000 acre feet), making it the largest
reservoir in the watershed. Peters Dam was included on the
list of candidate dams for its high impounded runoff ratio and
potential to affect sensitive species in the Lagunitas Creek
watershed, including Central Coast coho salmon and Central
California coast steelhead trout (Table 7).
Figure 24
Peters Dam and upstream catchment (267 km2) on Lagunitas
Creek in Marin County. Downstream Flows were evaluated at
USGS gage #11460400
CASE STUDIES | 63
Kent Lake and Peters Dam in Marin County. Source: K. Manohar.
Table 8
Peters Dam on Lagunitas Creek, Marin County
Peters Dam
Physical
Characteristics
Dam height: 70 m
Hydrologic
Alteration

Observed flows at gage indicate that flows are slightly lower than under
(modeled) natural conditions for most months, but that seasonal flow
patterns are preserved.
Condition of
Downstream Fish
Sensitive species potentially affected below dam: Central California coast

coho salmon, Central coast steelhead trout.
Flows are managed under an inter-agency agreement to support life history
cycles of anadromous salmon and steelhead trout, and other endangered
aquatic species. Degraded habitat conditions may be a primarily limiting
factor for native fish populations downstream of the dam.
Flows in Lagunitas Creek are primarily controlled by releases
from Peters Dam and natural inflow from tributaries, including
San Geronimo and Devils Gulch creeks. Annual inflow is
approximately 29.5106 m3 per year, yielding impounded runoff
values of 1.3. When accounting for the storage capacity of dams
above Peters, the cumulative impounded runoff value is 1.9.
This indicates that the reservoirs have the capacity to
cumulatively store about twice the mean annual runoff of the
upper Lagunitas Creek watershed.
Comparing modeled unimpaired hydrologic metrics with flows
observed at USGS gage #11460400 below Peters Dam, mean
monthly flows were slightly lower than expected values (O/E
>0.7) from December to June and higher than expected (O/E
=1.22 2.18) from July to October (Figure 25). Observed
November monthly flows were about half (O/E =0.5) of expected
values. Managed water releases and natural spillover events
and unimpaired tributary inflows appear to maintain a
seasonal hydrography in Lagunitas Creek that is similar to
historic conditions (r = 0.97).
Figure 25
Expected (E, modeled) and observed monthly flow below Peters
Dam on Lagunitas Creek
CASE STUDIES | 65
C ONDITION
OF
Lagunitas Creek watershed supports the largest remaining

wild population of Central California Coast coho salmon
(Status 1, ESA endangered) and an important population of
Central California Coast steelhead trout (Status 2, ESA-listed
as threatened). Lagunitas Creek also has one of the largest
extant populations of California freshwater shrimp (ESA
endangered), a species endemic to Marin, Napa and Sonoma
Counties. Peters and other dams in the watershed have blocked
anadromous salmonid fish passage to about 50% of their
historically available habitat (MMWD 2011). Coho and
steelhead continue to use 24 km (15 mi) of the creek below the
dam and all accessible tributaries for spawning and rearing.
The stream retains a complete native fish assemblage with
relatively low numbers of non-native fish. Native fish species in
the watershed include California roach, Sacramento sucker,
three-spine stickleback, Pacific lamprey and at least two
sculpin species.
M ANAGEMENT
OF
D OWNSTREAM F LOWS
FOR
F ISH
The raising of Peters Dam in 1982 required State Water

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) approval. Following 15
years of study and negotiations, the SWRCB issued Order
WR95-17, which required MMWD to mitigate potential impacts
to Lagunitas Creek fish. Pursuant to the order, the district
maintains streamflow below Peters Dam to protect all life
stages of coho salmon, steelhead, and California freshwater
shrimp. Instream flow requirements are evaluated at the
Samuel P. Taylor Park USGS gage #11460400 (Figure 21).
During normal water years, minimum flow requirements range
from 0.2 0.7 m3/s (8 25 ft3/s) (MMWD 2011). Because San
Geronimo Creek enters Lagunitas Creek upstream of the gage,
instream flow requirements may be met in part from these
natural inflows, thus reducing the need to release water from
Peters Dam. In the winter, substantial inflow from San
Geronimo Creek makes it possible to maintain minimum
releases from Peters Dam at 0.03 m3/s (1 ft3/s). In the summer,
however, San Geronimo Creek flows are low (<0.03 m3/s)
resulting in Peters Dam releasing virtually all flow in
Lagunitas Creek (G. Andrew, personal communication).

The managed flows release water from deep in Kent Lake and
provide a consistent source of cold (<20 C) water for the creek,
which helps maintain conditions suitable for rearing juvenile
coho salmon and steelhead. In addition to minimum flow
requirements that vary by season, four upstream migration
flows of at least 1 m3/s (35 ft3/s) for three consecutive days
must be provided between November and February of each
year to provide for the upstream migration of adult
anadromous fish.
Stream habitat degradation resulting from historic logging,
along with more recent fine sediment loading and wood
removal have been identified as important limiting factors to
coho salmon and steelhead populations throughout the
watershed (Stillwater Sciences 2008). As a result, MMWD,
other agencies and local watershed groups are enhancing
habitat with placement of large wood in the stream, erosion
control/sediment reduction measures, riparian vegetation
management, and fish passage improvements in the San
Geronimo Creek drainage (MMWD 2011).
CASE STUDIES | 67
C ASE STUDY 4: W OODBRIDGE D IVERSION

D AM
Woodbridge Diversion Dam is on the lower Mokelumne River
in Lodi, San Joaquin County (Figure 25). The 10-m (33-ft) high
dam impounds Lodi Lake, a 3.0106 m3 (2,400 acre-foot)
recreational reservoir. Water is diverted at the dam to the
Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) Diversion Canal. The
dam was built in 1910 for irrigated agriculture around Lodi.
Since the early 1990s, agricultural water deliveries by WID
have gradually been transferred to municipal water utilities.
The dam was re-built between 2006 and 2008 to improve fish
passage and increase flexibility in diversion-intake and
downstream flow-release operations.
Figure 26
Woodbridge Diversion Dam and catchment (1,682 km2) on the
Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County; inset map shows large
upstream dams and USGS gages above the dams (#11319500),
below Camanche Dam (#11323500), and below Woodbridge
Dam (#11325500)
Woodbridge Dam was included on the list of candidate dams for

its high cumulative impounded runoff ratio, evidence of
monthly and peak flow alteration and its potential to affect
sensitive populations of Central Valley Chinook salmon and
Central Valley steelhead (Table 8).
Woodbridge Diversion Dam on the Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County. Source: G. Wright.
CASE STUDIES | 69
Table 8
Woodbridge Diversion Dam on the Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County
Woodbridge Diversion Dam
Physical
Dam height: 10 m
Characteristics
Hydrologic
Alteration
IR: <0.01, Cumulative IR: 1.1

Flows are substantially lower than natural conditions in the winter and
spring because of large upstream dam and diversion operations. Peak flows
have also been greatly reduced. Despite the overall reduction in flow
magnitudes, monthly seasonal flow patterns have been preserved.
Condition of
Downstream Fish
Sensitive species potentially below dam: fall-run Central Valley Chinook

salmon, Central Valley steelhead, southern green and white sturgeon.
Low-flows and associated water quality degradation limit successful rearing
of juvenile anadromous fish below dam.
Mokelumne River inflows to Woodbridge are completely
regulated by large upstream dams. The total storage capacity
of Camanche Dam (5.2108 m3), Pardee Dam (2.6108 m3), Salt
Springs Dam (1.8108 m3), and other smaller dams upstream of
Woodbridge is 10.5108 m3, equivalent to 110% of the
Mokelumnes annual flow. The East Bay Municipal Water
District (EBMUD) operates Pardee Dam in conjunction with
Camanche Dam for flood control and water supply for Oakland,
Berkeley, and other San Francisco Bay Area communities.
EBMUD has a water right to divert up to 325 million gallons
per day, or up to 4.5108 m3 per year, from the Mokelumne
River at Pardee Dam. Based on flows measured at USGS
stations above and below Pardee Dam, 30% (or 2.5108 m3) of
annual inflow of the Mokelumne River is diverted on average
(1963-2011). An additional 1.9108 m3 is diverted from the
river at Woodbridge Dam. As a result, observed annual flow
below Woodbridge is approximately 50% of the rivers natural
unimpaired flow. The operation of Woodbridge and larger
upstream dams has resulted in significant reduction in annual
discharge, lower peak flows, and decreased flow variability.

This is illustrated by the 2010 hydrograph at USGS gages
upstream of Pardee Dam, downstream of Camanche Dam, and
downstream of Woodbridge (Figure 27).
Figure 27
Observed daily discharge in the Mokelumne River for the 2010
water year, above Pardee Dam, downstream of Camanche Dam,
and below Woodbridge Dam
Overall, flows in the Mokelumne River below Woodbridge Dam
are controlled at lower and more stable levels than occurred
under natural conditions. Observed mean monthly flows in the
winter and spring (Jan Jun) are about 50% of expected values
(Figure 27), and are closer to expected values in October and
November during the rivers natural low-flow period. Although
flows have been substantially reduced below Woodbridge, the
correlation between observed and expected monthly flows is
high (r = 0.95), indicating that general seasonal patterns in
monthly flows are preserved, albeit at substantially lower
magnitudes (Figure 28). The observed maximum annual 1-day
flood is about 25% of the expected values. The significant
decrease in flood flow magnitudes in the lower Mokelumne is
consistent with reports in previous studies. Kondolf and
Batalla (2005) found that the Q2 (2-year return interval flood)
has been reduced by 80% and the Q10 by 75% after
construction of major dams on the Mokelumne River; and Merz
and Setka (2004) determined that after the construction of
CASE STUDIES | 71
Camanche Dam, annual peak flows have never exceeded 200
m3/s, while pre-dam peak flows were greater than 200 m3/s in
21 of 57 years.
Figure 28
Expected (E, modeled) and observed mean monthly flow below
Woodbridge Dam on the Mokelumne River
C ONDITION
OF
Sensitive fish species potentially affected by operations at

Woodbridge Dam include Central Valley fall-run Chinook
salmon (Status 2) and Central Valley steelhead (Status 2, ESAlisted as threatened). Southern green sturgeon (Acipenser
medirostris, Status 1, ESA-listed as threatened) and white
sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus, Status 2) may also be
present. Populations of Central Valley Chinook salmon and
hatchery steelhead are the subject of on-going monitoring and
restoration efforts. They are maintained by artificial
production at the Mokelumne River Fish Hatchery at
Camanche Dam, an impassable barrier. A fish passage facility
at Woodbridge Dam allows access to salmon and steelhead
spawning habitat below Camanche.
Rearing of juvenile steelhead trout has been observed in wet
years, when flow releases below Woodbridge are greatest
(NMFS 2002). But in dry years, downstream habitat conditions
are so poor that out-migrating juvenile salmon smolts are

captured at Woodbridge and transported by truck to a release
location in the Delta. Habitat and flow alterations in the lower
Mokelumne have promoted non-native species such as western
mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus) and
striped bass (Morone saxatilis). Abundant native species
include Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis),
Sacramento pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus grandis), tule perch
(Hysterocarpus traski), and prickly sculpin (Cottus asper). The
combined diversity of native and non-native fish species in the
Mokelumne River is greatest in the reaches below Woodbridge
Dam, presumably because of the effects of tidal action and
influence of tributary waterways (Merz and Saldate 2004).
M ANAGEMENT
OF
D OWNSTREAM F LOWS
FOR
F ISH
Flow releases to the Mokelumne River below Camanche and

Woodbridge Dams are dictated in a 1998 Joint Settlement
Agreement (JSA) between EBMUD, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Minimum required flow releases are designed to support
anadromous salmon, including adult upstream passage and
outmigration of juveniles. The amount of water released at
Camanche (and diverted at Woodbridge) depends on the season
and the water year. Based on a 10-year review of the JSA,
actual flows have always exceeded the required releases below
Camanche and Woodbridge dams (EBMUD et al. 2008).
However, low summer flows, high water temperatures, and
degraded habitat limit salmonids in most years.
CASE STUDIES | 73
C ASE STUDY 5. T WITCHELL D AM

Twitchell Dam is on the Cuyama River, a tributary to the
Santa Maria River in southern San Luis Obispo and northern
Santa Barbara counties (Figure 29). The dam impounds the
290106 m3 (235,000 acre feet) Twitchell Reservoir. The Bureau
of Reclamation built the dam in 1956 for water conservation,
irrigation, and flood control. It was designed primarily to
provide relatively short-term storage and releases of flows from
the Cuyama River to replenish the Santa Maria Valley
groundwater basin. The dam is operated by Santa Maria Valley
Water Conservation District. It was included on the list of
candidate dams for its large impounded runoff ratio and
potential to affect endangered Southern California steelhead
trout populations (Table 9).
Figure 29
Twitchell Dam and catchment (2,888 km2) on the Cuyama
River, in southern San Luis Obispo and northern Santa
Barbara counties
Twitchell Dam on the Cuyama River. Source: US Bureau of Reclamation.
Table 9
Twitchell Dam on the Cuyama River, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties
Twitchell Dam
Physical
Characteristics
Dam height: 64 m
Reservoir capacity: 290106 m3
Mean annual inflow: 64.5106 m3 (empirical), 1,043106 m3 (model)
Hydrologic
Alteration
Condition of
Downstream Fish
Sensitive species potentially below dam: Southern California steelhead

trout, arroyo chub
Low-flows may limit successful passage of steelhead trout through the
Santa Maria to spawning reaches.
CASE STUDIES | 75
Twitchell Dam captures surface runoff from the 2,888-km2
(1,115-mi2) Cuyama River basin. Inflows are intermittent and
highly variable, but yielded an annual average runoff of
64.5106 m3 from 1967-2010 (City of Santa Maria 2010). The
dam has capacity to capture all inflow in most years (IR = 4.5),
but is operated to release water relatively quickly, such that
the reservoir is often dry in the summer and fall. Releases are
controlled to prevent surface-water reaching the Pacific Ocean,
maximizing potential percolation into the downstream Santa
Maria groundwater basin. Predictions of expected mean flows
by the hydrologic model are unreliable for the Cuyama River
because of the high inter-annual variability of flow patterns.
Model predictions of mean annual flows were about 16 times
greater than observed values. Therefore, deviation of observed
from expected (modeled) flow metrics was not assessed. A
recent instream flow study on the Santa Maria River found
that Twitchell Dam has had no detectable effect on overall
patterns of annual no-flow and peak-flow conditions, but has
altered the timing and frequency of intermediate flows in both
the Cuyama and Santa Maria rivers (Stillwater Sciences and
Kear Groundwater 2012).
C ONDITION
OF
The Santa Maria River watershed continues to support

Southern California steelhead trout, listed as endangered
under the federal ESA. Both steelhead trout (anadromous O.
mykiss) and rainbow trout (resident O. mykiss) historically
occurred in the Cuyama River. The extent of historical
steelhead occurence in the Cuyama River watershed above
Twitchell Dam is unknown, but was likely confined to
perennial tributaries of the upper river basin (Stillwater
Sciences and Kear Groundwater 2012). The majority of suitable
habitat for steelhead occurs in the Sisquoc River watershed
(Figure 29), which is smaller than the Cuyama but is not
dammed and has higher flows.
Steelhead spawning in the Cuyama River below Twitchell Dam
has not been documented. Releases from Twitchell, however,
could influence the upstream migration of steelhead through
the Santa Maria River to suitable spawning areas in the

Sisquoc River and perennially flowing tributaries (Stillwater
Sciences and Kear Groundwater 2012). Arroyo chub (Gila
orcuttii, Status 2) may also be present in the Santa Maria
River watershed and could be affected by the operation of
Twitchell Dam.
M ANAGEMENT
OF
D OWNSTREAM F LOWS
FOR
F ISH
Twitchell Dam is primarily managed for groundwater recharge

without regard for the downstream flow needs of fish (Twitchell
Management Authority & MNS Engineers 2010). Although the
Cuyama River reach immediately below the dam historically
provided limited suitable habitat for O. mykiss and other
native fishes due to its ephemeral nature, intermittent flows
from the Cuyama improve fish passage opportunities through
the Santa Maria to the Sisquoc River (Stillwater Sciences and
Kear Groundwater 2012). There is evidence that current flow
management at Twitchell Dam has increased the frequency of
flows that trigger upstream steelhead movement. But the flows
are too brief for successful migration (Stillwater Sciences and
Kear Groundwater 2012). Adult steelhead that begin their
upstream migration under favorable flow conditions now run a
greater risk of being stranded.
CASE STUDIES | 77
C ASE STUDY 6. L ONG V ALLEY D AM

Long Valley dam impounds the 226106 m3 (183,500 acre-feet)
Crowley Lake on the Owens River in southern Mono County
(Figure 30). The 38-m (126-ft) earthen dam was built by the
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) in 1941
to supply the Los Angeles Aqueduct. It is the largest reservoir
in the Los Angeles water system. The dam is also managed for
flood control, hydroelectric power production and recreation.
Figure 30
Long Valley Dam and catchment (994 km2) on the Owen River,
Mono County
Long Valley Dam was included on the list of candidate dams
for its high cumulative impounded runoff ratio and potential to
affect sensitive native species populations, including the
endemic Owens tui chub (Siphatales bicolor snyderi, Status 1)
(Table 10). Owens speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus, Status

1) appears to have been lost from dams HUC12 watershed, but
its current range encompasses tributaries of the Owens River
downstream of the dam.
Long Valley Dam at the head of Owens Gorge impounds the Owens River to form Crowley Lake. Source: S. Volpin.
Table 10
Long Valley Dam on the Owens River, Mono County
Long Valley Dam
Physical
Characteristics
Dam height: 38 m
Mean annual inflow: 193106 m3 (modeled)
Hydrologic
Alteration
Condition of
Downstream Fish
Sensitive species potentially below dam: Owens tui chub, Owens speckled
dace
Native species lost from HUC12 watershed below dam: Owens speckled dace
Non-native species, population fragmentation, and habitat degradation may
adversely affect condition native fish.
CASE STUDIES | 79
Long Valley Dam impounds a 994-km2 (383-mi2) catchment of
the Owens Rivers, which is fed by runoff and springs. Inflows
to the dam are augmented by the Mono Craters Tunnel (Figure
27) and the Rock Creek Diversion. A 1998 Water Rights Order
(WR 98-05), allows an annual import through the tunnel of
19.7 106 m3 (16,000 acre feet), about a 10% increase in natural
inflows to the reservoir. The impounded runoff ratio of Long
Valley Dam is 1.2, excluding inflows from the tunnel. It is 1.1 if
the augmented flows are included.
No direct downstream discharge is permitted from Long Valley
Dam. All flows purposely bypass a 10-mile long reach
designated as critical habitat for Owens tui chub to prevent
introduction of genetically introgressed tui chub from Crowley
Lake. Flows in the 10-mile reach are maintained by leakage
from the earthen dam and inflows from spring-fed tributaries.
The next 10 river miles are managed for non-native trout and
riparian habitat, through flows from a power plant. Most flows
continue to bypass the Owens River Gorge through three power
plants before being spilling into a small reservoir serving
hydroelectric operations.
Long Valley Dam operations affect Owens River flows for
approximately 90 km (60 mi) to the Tinemaha Dam reservoir,
immediately upstream of Los Angeles Aqueduct intake. Flows
in the affected river reach have truncated peak volumes,
consistently reduced minima, and seasonally delayed high
flows (Hickson and Hecht 1992; Smeltzer and Kondolf 1999).
C ONDITION
OF
The Owens River historically supported a diverse assemblage

of native endemic fish species, including the Owens tui chub,
Owens specked dace, Owens pupfish, and Owens sucker
(Catostomus fumeiventris). Human activities, including major
Los Angeles water development projects, have caused the
decline of chub, dace, pupfish and other rare species in the
river basin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). With the
exception of the Owens sucker (Deinstadt and Parmenter 1997),

the basins endemic fish populations have become entirely
displaced from the Owens River by introduced predatory fishes.

The Owens tui chub is listed as endangered under both federal
and state ESAs. Once widespread and abundant in the basin,
the fish is currently confined to isolated sites, including a
section of Owens Gorge downstream of Long Valley Dam
designated as critical habitat (50 Federal Register 3159331597). Owens specked dace (Status 1) and Owens pupfish
(Status 1) also historically occurred in the river upstream and
downstream of the dam. The historic northern limit of the
pupfish (Status 1) occurred at the approximate site of Pleasant
Valley Dam, 25 river miles below Long Valley Dam. Also,
several alien game fish species have established permanent
populations in Crowley Reservoir and Owens River, including a
productive brown trout fishery.
M ANAGEMENT
OF
D OWNSTREAM F LOWS
FOR
F ISH
Long Valley Dam is primarily managed for water supply for

Los Angeles, with secondary power generation objectives.
Flows for fish are not considered in its operations. However,
artificial low flows below the dam appear to sustain an Owens
tui chub population in parts of the designated critical habitat.
Further downstream, hydroelectric diversions have historically
left the river partially or completely dewatered between the
power plants (City of Los Angeles 2010). Los Angeles initiated
a restoration project to improve flows for threatened fish
species between the plants in the downstream half of the gorge
in response to a 1991 state Fish and Game lawsuit over
potential violations of Section 5937 (City of Los Angeles 2010).
The proposed Owens Gorge Restoration Project involves a
modified schedule of flow releases through Owens Gorge that
provides improved base flows for sustaining brown trout and
seasonal pulse flows for riparian recruitment and channel
maintenance. The management of Crowley Lake for water
delivery and flood control is not affected by the project (City of
Los Angeles 2010), and the potential effects of Long Valley
Dam operations on downstream fish has not been evaluated.
Los Angeles is working with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other state
and federal agencies to approve and implement the Owens
Gorge Restoration Project (LADWP 2013).
CASE STUDIES | 81
C ASE STUDY 7. C ASITAS D AM

Casitas Dam is on Coyote Creek, approximately 5 km (3 mi)
above its confluence with the Ventura River in Ventura County
(Figure 30). The 102-m (334-ft) earth-fill dam impounds the
313106 m3 (254,000 acre-feet) Lake Casitas (USBR 2013). The
reservoir captures inflow from the 105-km2 (41 mi2) Coyote
Creek watershed and imported water delivered by canal from
the Robles Diversion Dam on the upper Ventura River (Figure
31). Outlet works at Casitas Dam convey water to the Casitas
Municipal Water District (CMWD) service area. The district
manages the reservoir for irrigation and water supply for
approximately 60,000 people (Latousek 1995).
Figure 31
Casitas Dam and catchment (105 km2) on Coyote Creek, a
tributary to the Ventura River, Ventura County

Casitas Dam was included on the list of candidate dams
because its high impounded runoff index and potential effects
on sensitive populations of Southern California steelhead trout
and arroyo chub (although the chub is not native to the
Ventura River) (Table 11).
Aerial view of Casitas Dam on Coyote Creek, Ventura County. Source: US

Bureau of Reclamation.
Table 11
Casitas Dam on Coyote Creek, Ventura County
Casitas Dam
Physical
Characteristics
Dam height: 102 m

Mean annual inflow: 17.9106 m3 (model, 1970-2000), 11.1106 m3 (observed,
1928-1955); 16.1106 m3 is imported from the Ventura River water from
Robles Diversion Dam
Hydrologic
Alteration
IR: 17.5, Cumulative IR: 17.5 (based on modeled Coyote Creek inflow)
Condition of
Downstream Fish
Sensitive species potentially below dam: Southern California steelhead trout,

arroyo chub
Lack of perennial flows, low-flows, and degraded habitat conditions adversely
affect condition of downstream native fish populations.
CASE STUDIES | 83
Casitas Dam has the capacity to capture almost 20 times the
natural inflow from Coyote Creek; natural mean annual inflow
to the 313106 m3 reservoir was predicted to be 17.9106 m3.
Pre-dam flow records (USGS #11118000, 1928-1955) indicate
that annual flow was slightly lower (11.1106 m3) than model
predictions. Flows on Coyote Creek are not currently monitored
by USGS. Historic records, however, show natural flows with
strong seasonality and interannual variability. Annual runoff,
which varied historically between 0.06-63106 m3 per year, was
delivered between January and March, followed by
intermittent flows from June through October (Figure 29).
After Coyote Creek was dammed in the mid-1950s, flows
declined to 2.5106 m3 per year, on average (1969-1982). Postdam monthly flows (1969-1982) were 3-30% of pre-dam flows
(Figure 31). Current water imports from the Robles-Casitas
Canal vary with available runoff, averaging 16.1106 m3
(13,095 acre feet) per year (Cardno ENTRIX 2012). Flows in
the lower Ventura River are about 50% of their natural,
unimpaired levels due to Casitas Dam and associated facilities
(Cardno ENTRIX 2012). Nearly all outflow from the dam is
exported. As a result, Coyote Creek below the dam is usually
dry (California RWQCB 2002).
Figure 32
Mean monthly flows on Coyote Creek before and after
construction of Casitas Dam, assessed at USGS gage
#11118000
C ONDITION
OF
Historically, Coyote Creek was one of the most important

tributaries in the Ventura River watershed for steelhead trout
production (NMFS Service 2003). Construction of Casitas Dam
completely blocked access to spawning and rearing habitat in
Coyote Creek (Becker et al. 2010). The 5-km (3-mi) reach below
the dam does not currently support fish because of low flows
and degraded habitat. Releases from the dam, however, could
allow steelhead to migrate through the lower Ventura River.
Arroyo chub are in the Ventura River near its confluence with
Coyote Creek and could also benefit from improved flows from
Casitas.
M ANAGEMENT
OF
D OWNSTREAM F LOWS
FOR
F ISH
Casitas Dam primarily supplies water for irrigation and

municipal needs. There are no required flow releases from
Casitas for fish. The downstream channel is typically
dewatered. Steelhead in the Coyote Creek basin historically
spawned above Casitas Reservoir. Lower Coyote Creek is in
poor condition because of chronic streambank erosion and
insufficient storm-flushing flows (NMFS 2003). Flow releases
from Casitas could potentially benefit steelhead trout
migrating through the lower Ventura River and improve
habitat for other native fish species, including the arroyo chub.
A biological opinion for Robles Diversion Dam sets conditions
for to minimize impacts on steelhead trout in the Ventura
River, but does not address the potential benefits of improving
downstream flows in Coyote Creek below Casitas Dam (NMFS
2003).
CASE STUDIES | 85
C ASE STUDY 8. B OLES M EADOW D AM

Boles Meadow Dam is on Boles Creek, a major tributary to
Clear Lake Reservoir in the upper Lost River watershed of
northwest Modoc County (Figures 33). The 2.5-m (8-ft) earthen
dam impounds runoff from the Boles Creek watershed [692
km2 (267 mi2)]. The dam is owned by the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS), which manages the 6106 m3 (5,000 acre-foot)
reservoir for irrigation and forage production.
Figure 33
Boles Meadow dam and catchment (692 km2) on Boles Creek,
Modoc County
Boles Meadow Dam was included on the list of candidate dams

because of its large cumulative impounded runoff ratio and the
potential presence of several sensitive species downstream of
the dam: the Lost River sucker (Catostomus luxatus, Status 1),
shortnose sucker (Chasmistes breviostris, Status 1), and

Klamath largescale sucker (Catostomus snyderi, Status 2)
(Table 12).
Aerial view of Boles Meadow dam during spring runoff on Boles Creek, Modoc
County. Source: C. Ellsworth.
Table 12
Boles Creek Dam on Boles Creek, Modoc County.
Boles Creek Dam
Physical
Characteristics
Dam height: 2.5 m

Hydrologic
Alteration
Condition of
Downstream Fish
Sensitive species potentially below dam: Lost River sucker, shortnose

sucker, Klamath largescale sucker, upper Klamath marbled sculpin
Low-flows and habitat degradation may adversely affect condition of fish
downstream. Seasonal impoundment may disrupt migration of sucker.
CASE STUDIES | 87
Boles Creek, a tributary to Clear Lake Reservoir, feeds the
Federal Klamath Irrigation Project (USFS 2012). The creek has
no USGS gages and little published on its hydrology or
potential effects of impoundments. Tate et al. (2007) described
Boles Creekas intermittent during the summer months
creating large, isolated stream reaches or pools characterized
by bedrock-basalt substrate underlying the Modoc Plateau.
Base flows naturally remain low through fall and winter and
peak during spring snowmelt, typically between April and
June, based on reports from other streams in the region.
Estimated total annual inflow at Boles Meadow Dam is
16.9106 m3 (13,700 acre-feet) per year, yielding an IR of 0.4.
The CIR for Boles Meadow is 1.2 when accounting for the total
storage capacity [20.9106 m3 (16,900 acre-feet)] of all
reservoirs in the catchment (Figure 33). Therefore, reservoirs
in the system have the capacity to capture a significant
proportion of the catchments annual runoff, indicating the
potential for significant downstream hydrologic alteration at
Boles Meadow Dam, particularly during spring runoff.
C ONDITION
OF
Clear Lake and the upper Lost Creek watershed historically

supported an assemblage of endemic fishes, including several
species of sucker. Both the Lost River and shortnose sucker
were abundant in the Lost River drainage and were the most
important food fish for Native Americans of the Klamath Lakes
region (Gilbert 1898). The Klamath River sucker is uncommon
to the Lost Creek system but may occasionally be present
(Koch and Contreras 1973). The draining and eutrophication of
lakes in the upper Klamath river system, overfishing and
degradation of tributary habitats from cattle grazing and water
diversions have all contributed to the decline of Lost River
sucker and shortnose sucker populations (Moyle 2002). The
Lost River and shortnose sucker are listed as endangered
under federal and state ESAs. Clear Lake populations of Lost
River and shortnose suckers spawn in Boles Creek and other
tributary streams in the spring (Moyle 2002). Fish surveys
from the 1970s found shortnose sucker in Boles Creek (Koch et
al. 1975). The extent to which sucker populations of Clear Lake

currently use Boles Creek for spawning is unknown. Other
native species previously recorded in the creek include the
upper Klamath marbled sculpin (Status 3), blue chub, tui chub,
and speckled dace (Koch et al. 1975).
M ANAGEMENT
OF
D OWNSTREAM F LOWS
FOR
F ISH
Boles Meadow Dam is operated to create a seasonal reservoir to

irrigate livestock forage (USFS 2005). There is no evidence that
effects on fish are considered in its operation. The dam
impounds spring flows, thereby reducing flows downstream.
However, moderate to high flows likely spillover the 2.5-m
dam. Such impoundments could be expected to delay rewatering of the downstream channel in spring and accelerate
the downstream flow recession in summer, potentially
disrupting out-migration of adults and juvenile species from
tributary streams to Clear Lake (S. Reid, personal
communication). Therefore, seasonal timing of reservoir filling
and drawdown at Boles Meadow Dam could be potentially
modified to benefit the condition of fish downstream.
CASE STUDIES | 89
C ASE STUDY 9. P INE F LAT D AM

Pine Flat Dam on the Kings River in Fresno County stands
134-m (440-feet) high and stores up to 1,233106 m3 (1,000,000
acre feet), making it one of the largest reservoirs in California
(Figure 34). The Army Corps of Engineers built the dam in
1954 for flood protection and secondarily for irrigation,
hydroelectric power, and recreation, including a trout fishery.
Pine Flat Dam was included on the list of candidate dams
because of evidence of monthly flow alteration, a high
impounded runoff ratio, the potential harm Kern brook
lamprey (Lampetra hubbsi, Status 2), and the loss of sensitive
fish species from their historic range, including Central Valley
spring-run Chinook salmon (Status 2), Central Valley fall-run
Chinook salmon (Status 2), and Central Valley steelhead
(Status 2) (Table 13).
Figure 34
Pine Flat Dam and catchment (4,000 km2) on the Kings River
in Fresno County. Flows were evaluated at USGS gage
#11221500
Pine Flat Dam on the Kings River, Fresno County. Source: Wikipedia under
GNU Free Documentation License.
Table 13
Pine Flat Dam on the Kings River, Fresno County.
Pine Flat Dam
Physical
Characteristics
Dam height: 134 m

Reservoir capacity: 1,233106 m3
Mean annual inflow: 1,506106 m3
Hydrologic
Alteration

Observed flows at downstream gage indicate a significant reduction in peak
1-day flows, reduced fall and winter flows, and enhanced summer flows.
Monthly flows follow deviate slightly from expected seasonal patterns ( r =
0.79)
Condition of
Downstream Fish
Sensitive species potentially below dam: Kern brook lamprey

Species lost from HUC12 watershed affected by dam: Central Valley fallrun and spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead
CASE STUDIES | 91
The unimpaired annual inflow of the Kings Rivers at Pine Flat
Dam is about 1,506106 m3 (1,221,000 acre feet) yielding an
impounded runoff ratio of 0.8. There are several other dams in
the 4,000-km2 (1,544-mi2) catchment above Pine Flat, which
have a total storage capacity of about 303106 m3 (246,000 acre
feet), yielding a cumulative runoff ratio of 1.0. Observed flows
at the USGS gage #11221500 below Pine Flat Dam were
compared with modeled, unimpaired hydrologic metrics.
Observed mean monthly flows were generally lower than
expected values in the late fall and winter (November March)
and in the spring (April June) (Figure 35). The most notable
deviation from expected patterns was in the summer and early
fall (July October), when observed monthly flows were
estimated to be 1.5-2 times greater than expected values.
Overall, there was moderate deviation from expected seasonal
flow patterns (r = 0.79). Observed maximum 1-day flows were
about 50% of expected values, reflecting the dams flood-control
operations.
Figure 35
Expected (E, modeled) and observed mean monthly flows below
Pine Flat Dam on the Kings River
C ONDITION
OF
Spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon historically occurred at

least periodically in the Kings River, when floodwaters in the
Tulare Lake Basin spilled into the San Joaquin River system,
providing access for fish to the Kings River. Salmon would
ascend the Kings River and spawn up to the mouth of the
North Fork Kings River (Yoshiyama et al. 2001). Water
diversions for San Joaquin Valley farmers resulted in the
extirpation of salmon runs in the Kings and upper San Joaquin
rivers by the mid-20th century (Yoshiyama et al. 2001). The
Kern brook lamprey (Lampetra hubbsi) is an endemic species
to the San Joaquin River Basin. Relatively little is known
about the life history and historic distribution of the lamprey
(Moyle 2002). Known populations are isolated and include a
Kings River population above and below Pine Flat Dam. The
risk of local extirpation is high because of the lampreys
fragmented distribution and occurrence below dams that are
operated with limited regard to their flow needs. The lower
river also supports Sacramento pikeminnow, Sacramento
sucker, and two species of sculpin, but the population status of
these species in the river is not known.
M ANAGEMENT
OF
D OWNSTREAM F LOWS
FOR
F ISH
The Army Corps operates Pine Flat Dam to reduce flood flows
in the spring, and enhance flows in the summer for agricultural
irrigation. In 1964, CDFW entered an agreement with the Kern
River Water Association (KRWA) and Kern River Conservation
District (KRCD) to secure minimum flow releases below Pine
Flat Dam, primarily to restore a trout fishery. In the 1990s,
modifications to the Pine Flat Dam and downstream power
plant were made to better control the temperature of outflows
to the river. These changes were followed by the development
of the Kings River Fisheries Management Program, which
established new agreements between CDFW and facility
operators at Pine Flat and upstream dams to improve the
quantity and quality (i.e., temperature) of downstream flow
releases for trout (KRCD and KRWA 2003).
CASE STUDIES | 93
C ASE STUDY 10. D WINNELL D AM

Dwinnell Dam is on the Shasta River in Siskiyou County
(Figure 36). The dam impounds the 62106 m3 (50,000 acrefeet) Dwinnell Reservoir, also known as Lake Shastina. The
reservoir was constructed in the late 1920s as a water supply
project for the Montague Water Conservation District (MWCD).
The reservoir is fed by inflows from the Shasta River and a
diversion from Parks Creek, about 2 km (1.2 mi) upstream
from the reservoir. MWCD owns Dwinnell Dam and operates
it primarily to irrigate pasture.
Figure 36
Dwinnell Dam and catchment (142 km2) on the Shasta River,
Siskiyou County

Dwinnell Dam was included on the list of candidate dams
because of its high impounded runoff index and its potential
effects on sensitive species populations, including ESA-listed
Southern Oregon/Northern California coast coho salmon
(Status 1), Upper Klamath-Trinity fall run Chinook salmon
(Status 2) and Klamath Mountain Province winter steelhead
(Status 3) (Table 14).
Dwinnell Dam on the Shasta River, Siskiyou County. Source: S. Harding/Klamath Riverkeeper.
Table 14
Dwinnell Dam on the Shasta River, Siskiyou County.
Pine Flat Dam
Physical
Characteristics
Dam height: 29 m
Reservoir capacity: 61.7106 m3 (50,000 acre feet)
Catchment area: 142 km2 (55 mi2)
Mean annual inflow: 74106 m3 (empirical); 188106 m3 (model)
Hydrologic
Alteration
IR: 0.81, Cumulative IR: 0.81 (based on empirical inflow estimates)
Condition of
Downstream Fish
Sensitive species potentially below dam: Southern Oregon/Northern

California coho salmon and Upper Klamath-Trinity fall run Chinook salmon
CASE STUDIES | 95
Dwinnell dam impounds the 370 km2 (143 mi2) upper Shasta
River watershed. The reservoir receives annual inflows of
about 74106 m3 (60,000 acre feet) per year, including imported
water from an upstream diversion on Parker Creek (Vignola
and Deas 2005). This is significantly lower than model
predictions of 188106 m3 per year. Based on the lower annual
inflow estimate, the dam has an IR value of 0.81. There are no
large dams present in the upstream catchment, so the
cumulative IR is essentially the same as the IR.
Outflows from the reservoir include controlled and uncontrolled
releases to the Shasta River and controlled releases to the
MWCD irrigation canal (Figure 36). Observed monthly flows
were not compared with expected values because of the poor
predictive performance of the model for the Shasta River.
Previous studies, however, have documented significant
reductions in Shasta River flows relative to simulated,
unimpaired conditions. For example, Null et al. (2010) reported
that current flow releases below Dwinnell Dam are limited to
0.05 m3/s because of leakage, with summer releases up to 0.25
m3/s to fulfill downstream water rights, compared with
simulated unimpaired baseflows of 1-4 m3/s. Null et al. (2010)
also reported that the dam captured all inflows from the upper
Shasta River and Parks Creek in most years and, as a result,
downstream flows showed only modest peaks from storm
runoff.
C ONDITION
OF
The Shasta River historically supported healthy populations of

Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead trout. It was one
of the most productive tributaries in the Klamath River Basin.
Dwinnell dam blocked salmon and steelhead passage to
approximately 22 percent of historical spawning and rearing
habitat in the Shasta River Basin (CDFW 2012). Declining
annual returns of salmon to the Shasta have tracked rangewide population declines over the past several decades (Moyle
2002). Below the dam, habitat conditions for salmon and
steelhead have been degraded by low-flows and high water
temperatures (Null et al. 2010), although these conditions are
only partially attributable to Dwinnell Dam. Other native

species potentially present in the Shasta below Dwinnell Dam
include Pacific lamprey, Klamath River lamprey, Klamath
River speckled dace, and Klamath small-scale sucker (Deas et
al. 2004).
M ANAGEMENT
OF
D OWNSTREAM F LOWS
FOR
F ISH
Most of the water impounded by Dwinnell Dam is released to

the MWCD irrigation canal, resulting in year-round flow
impairment to the Shasta River. During the irrigation season,
flows released from the dam into the Shasta River are typically
limited to 0.25 m3/s to fulfill downstream water rights (Null et
al. 2010). However, changes in dam operations are likely to
occur in the future, following recommendations of a recent
instream flow assessment on the Shasta River (McBain and
Trush 2013). The recommendations are intended keep fish in
good condition, as Fish and Game Code 5937 requires. They
include increased summer flows to maintain suitable water
temperatures and high-pulse spring releases to promote
salmon smolt outmigration.
CASE STUDIES | 97
C ASE STUDY FINDINGS

These case studies provide preliminary, site-specific
investigations of dam operations and their potential effects on
downstream fish. Indicators of hydrologic alteration and fish
population impairment used in the systematic evaluation of
dams generally corresponded with site-specific reports of
environmental conditions and downstream effects of the case
study dams.
All of the dams were confirmed to have evidence of downstream
impacts to sensitive fish populations. For dams with reliable
downstream flow gages, there was direct evidence of hydrologic
alteration. For other dams, qualitative descriptions of
hydrologic impacts from technical reports and interviews
indicated that flows below dams also deviated in some way
from expected, unimpaired conditions. The case studies found
some limitations in the hydrologic model used to predict annual
flows, particularly for intermittent streams in arid regions
(e.g., Cuyama Creek and Conn Creek). However, locally derived
estimates of annual flows were generally available in published
reports.
Several of the case study dams are subject to some form of
environmental flow requirements, for example, the biological
opinion for Stony Creek, the Joint Settlement Agreement for
the Mokelumne River, and the state water board order for
Lagunitas Cree. Also, Section 5937 has been considered in
identifying flow needs for fish below Long Valley Dam, Peters
Dam and Dwinnell Dam. For Peters Dam, the summer flow
releases are apparently responsible for maintaining Lagunitas
Creek as an important refuge for threatened coho salmon and
other cold-water species.
Other dams appear to have limited or no protections of
downstream flows for sustaining fish, including Conn Creek,
Boles Meadow, Casitas, Twitchell and Dwinnell. Current
efforts to assess environmental flow needs in the Santa Maria
and Shasta River suggest that the management of flow releases
for fish below Twitchell and Dwinnell may be improved.
Operations of the case study dams were influenced by a diverse
and complex suite of legal and institutional factors, involving

local water districts, multiple state and federal agencies and
private parties. The studies also showed that dam operations
and their consequent effects on downstream flows were often
affected by other dams and diversions located up- and
downstream. Inflows and operations of the Woodbridge
Diversion Dam, for example, are completely dependent on
management of major upstream dams under separate
ownership. The highly integrated nature of water management
projects suggests that modifications to dam operations to
provide Section 5937 flows would require working not only with
the owner/operators of the dam, but also with operators of
other water works in the river basin.
For the case study dams, observed downstream flow alteration
was generally coupled with significant downstream habitat
alteration. The degradation of habitat was associated with
direct effects of the dam (e.g., downstream channel incision
from the loss of sediment inputs) and indirect effects (e.g., land
use development along the stream corridor facilitated by the
reduction in flood risk). The poor habitat conditions below
many dams suggest that improving flows for fish may also
require habitat restoration to maintain fish in good condition.
In addition, the presence of non-native species may preclude
the recovery of native fish populations (Moyle and Mount
2007), although the success of a managed environmental flow
regime to suppress alien fishes is a hopeful sign (Kiernan et al.
2012). Therefore, outcomes of restoring Section 5937 flows are
likely to be influenced by many physical and ecological factors
that warrant careful consideration.
Overall, the case studies showed that each dam has a unique
set of management constraints, jurisdictional issues, and
environmental factors that must be addressed in the context of
Section 5937. This is probably true of all dams. We recommend
that site-specific analyses presented in the case studies be done
for every high-priority dam identified in this study.
99
REFERENCES
Annear, T., I. Chisholm, H. Beecher, A. Locke, P. Aarrestad, C. Coomer, C. Estes, J. Hunt,
R. Jacobson, G. Jobsis, J. Kauffman, J. Marshall, K. Mayes, G. Smith, R. Wentworth & C.
Stalnaker, 2004. Instream Flows for Riverine Resource Stewardship, Revised Edition.
Instream Flow Council, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Arthington, A. H., 2012. Environmental Flows: Saving Rivers in the Third Millenium.
University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Batalla, R. J., C. M. Gmez & G. M. Kondolf, 2004. Reservoir-induced hydrological changes
in the Ebro River basin (NE Spain). Journal of Hydrology 290(1-2):117-136.
Becker, G. S., K. M. Smetak & D. A. Asbury, 2010. Southern Steelhead Resources
Evaluation: Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Watersheds
South of the Golden Gate. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland,
California,
Brk, K. S., J. F. Krovoza, J. V. Katz & P. B. Moyle, 2012. The rebirth of Cal. Fish & Game
Code 5937: water for fish. UC Davis Law Review 45:809-913.
Brown L. R. & T. Ford. 2002. Effects of flow on the fish communities of a regulated
California river: implications for managing native fishes. River Research and Applications
18:331-342.
Brown, L. R. & M. L. Bauer, 2010. Effects of hydrologic infrastructure on flow regimes of
California's Central Valley rivers: Implications for fish populations. River Research and
Applications 26(6):751-765.
Bunn, S. E. & A. H. Arthington, 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of
altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30(4):492-507.
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), 2013. Ventura River Project. Available at
http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Ventura%20River%20Project, accessed
February 9, 2013 2013.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2012. Passage Assessment Database.
Available at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/PAD/Default.aspx, accessed April 20, 2012.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2010. California Jurisdictional Dams.
Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/damlisting/index.cfm, accessed March 2,
2012.
Cardno ENTRIX, 2012. Ventura River Watershed Protection Plan Report Prepared for
Ventura Couty Watershed Protection District. Santa Barbara, California.
100
Carlisle, D., J. Falcone, D. M. Wolock, M. R. Meador & R. H. Norris, 2010a. Predicting the
natural flow regime: Models for assessing hydrological alteration in streams. River
Research and Applications 26(2):118-136.
Carlisle, D., D. M. Wolock & M. R. Meador, 2010b. Alteration of streamflow magnitudes
and potential ecological consequences: A multiregional assessment. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment 9:264-270.
Cayan, D. R., K. T. Redmond & L. G. Riddle, 1999. ENSO and hydrologic extremes in the
Western United States. Journal of Climate 12:2881-2893.
City of Los Angeles, 2010. Initial Study for Owens River Gorge Restoration Project. Los
Angeles, California.
City of Santa Maria, 2010. Santa Maria Valley Management Area 2010 Annual Report of
Hydrologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition. Santa Maria,
California.
Clavero, M., F. Blanco-Garrido & J. Prenda, 2004. Fish fauna in Iberian Mediterranean
river basins: Biodiversity, introduced species and damming impacts. Aquatic Conservation
14:575-585.
Danskin, W. R., 1998. Evaluation of the Hydrologic System and Selected WaterManagement Alternatives in the Owens Valley, California. US Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 2370.
Deas, M., P. B. Moyle, J. Mount, J. R. Lund, C. L. Lowney & S. Tanaka, 2004. Priority
Actions for Restoration of the Shasta River Technical Report. Prepared for the Nature
Conservancy.
Deinstadt, J. & S. Parmenter, 1997. Lower Owens River Wild Trout Management Plan.
California Department of Fish and Game.
Dudgeon, D., A. H. Arthington, M. O. Gessner, Z. I. Kawabata, D. J. Knowler, C. Leveque,
R. J. Naiman, A. H. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M. L. J. Stiassny & C. A. Sullivan, 2006.
Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, status and conservation challenges.
Biological Reviews 81(2):163-182.
East Bay Municipal Utility District, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 2008. Lower Mokelumne River Project Joint Settlement Agreement
Ten-Year Review.
Eng, K., D. M. Carlisle, D. M. Wolock & J. A. Falcone, 2012. Predicting the likelihood of
altered streamflows at ungauged rivers across the coterminuous United States. River
Research and Applications [Early View].
101
Frank, R. M., 2012. The Public Trust Doctrine: assessing its recent past and charting its
future. UC Davis Law Review 45:665-692.
Gasith, A. & V. H. Resh, 1999. Streams in Mediterranean climate regions: abiotic
influences and biotic responses to predictable seasonal events. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 30:51-81.
Gehrke, P. C & J. H. Harris, 2001. Regional-scale effects of flow regulation on lowland
riverine fish communities in New South Wales, Australia. Regulated Rivers: Research &
Management 17: 369391.
Gilbert, G. H., 1898. The fishes of the Klamath Basin. Bulletin US Fish Communication
17:1-13.
Gillilan, D. M. & T. C. Brown, 1997. Instream Flow Protection: Seeking a Balance in
Western Water Use. Island Press, Washington DC.
Goslin, M., 2005. Creating a comprehensive dam dataset for assessing anadromous fish
passage in California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-376.
Santa Cruz, California.
Graf, W. L., 2006. Downstream hydrologic and geomorphic effects of large dams on
American rivers. Geomorphology 79(3-4):336-360.
Grantham, T., R. Figueroa & N. Prat, 2012. Water management in mediterranean river
basins: a comparison of management frameworks, physical impacts, and ecological
responses. Hydrobiologia [Online First]:1-32.
Hickson, T., B. Hecht & E. Larsen, 1992. Changes over time in geomorphic condition,
sediment transport, and riparian cover in the Owens River below Pleasant Valley Dam,
Inyo County, California. Prepared for Jones & Stokes Associates by Balance Hydrologics,
Inc., Berkeley.
H.T. Harvey & Associates, 2007. Stony Creek Watershed Assessment, Vol. 2. Existing
Conditions Report. Prepared for the Glenn County Resource Conservation District.
Horizon Systems, 2012. NHDPlus, version 2.
systems.com/nhdplus/, accessed January 12, 2012.
Available
at:
http://www.horizon-
Katz, J., P. Moyle, R. Quiones, J. Israel & S. Purdy, 2012. Impending extinction of salmon,
steelhead, and trout (Salmonidae) in California. Environmental Biology of Fishes:1-18.
Kern River Conservation District & Kern River Water Assoiation (KRCD & KRWA), 2003.
The Kings River Handbook, 4th edition. Fresno, California.
102
Kiernan, J., P. B. Moyle & P. K. Crain, 2012. Restoring native fish assemblages to a
regulated California stream using the natural flow regime concept. Ecological Applications
22(5):1472-1482.
Koch, D. L. & G. P. Contreras, 1973. Preliminary survey of fishes of the Lost River System
including Lower Klamath Lake and Klamath Strait Drain with special reference to the
shortnose (Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River (Catostomus luxatus) suckers. Center
for Water Resrouces Resarch, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada System,
Reno, Nevada.
Koch, D. L., J. J. Cooper, G. P. Contreras & V. King, 1975. Survey of fishes of the Clear
Lake Reservoir drainage, Project Report No 37. Center for Water Resources Research,
Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada System, Reno, Nevada.
Kondolf, G. M. & R. J. Batalla, 2005. Hydrological effects of dams and water diversions on
rivers of Mediterranean-climate regions: examples from California. In Garcia, C. & R. J.
Batalla (eds) Catchment Dynamics and River Processes: Mediterranean and Other Climate
Regions. Elsevier, 197-211.
Kondolf, G. M., 1997. Hungry water: Effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels.
Environmental Management 21(4):533-551.
Kondolf, G. M., K. Podolak & T. Grantham, 2012. Restoring mediterranean-climate rivers.
Hydrobiologia [Online First].
Latousek, T. A., 1995. The Ventura River Project. Bureau of Reclamation.
Lindley, S. T., R. S. Schick, A. Agrawal, M. Goslin, T. E. Pearson, E. More, J. J. Anderson,
B. May, S. Greene, C. Hanson, A. Low, D. McEwan, R. B. MacFarlane, C. Swanson & J. G.
Williams, 2006. Historical Population Structure of Central Valley Steelhead and its
Alteration by Dams. San Francisco Estuary & Watershed Science 4:1-19.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 2013. Owens River Gorge Watershed, Gorge
Rewatering Project. Available at:
http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/WatershedMgmtWeb/gorge.htm, accessed February 7,
2013.
Lytle, D. A. & N. L. Poff, 2004. Adaptation to natural flow regimes. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution 19(2):94-100.
Magdaleno, F. & A. J. Fernndez, 2011. Hydromorphological alteration of a large
mediterranean river: Relative role of high and low flows on the evolution of riparian forests
and channel morphology. River Research and Applications 27(3):374-387.
Marchetti, M. P. & P. B. Moyle, 2001. Effects of flow regime on fish assemblages in a
regulated California stream. Ecological Applications 11(2):530-539.
103
Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), 2011. Lagunitas Creek Stewardship Plan
Final. June 2011.
McBain and Trush, 2013. Shasta River Big Springs Complex Interim Instream Flow Needs
Assessment.
Prepared by McBain and Trush, Inc., Department of Environmental
Resources Engineering, and Humboldt State University for the Ocean Protection Council
and California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Rinne, J. N., R. M. Hughes, & B. Calamusso (eds), 2005. Historical changes in large river
fish assemblages of the Americas. American Fisheries Society Symposium 45, Bethesda,
Maryland.
Merz, J. E. & J. D. Setka, 2004. Evaluation of a spawning habitat enhancement site for
Chinook salmon in a regulated California river. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 24(2):397-407.
Merz, J. E. & M. S. Saldate, 2004. Lower Mokelumne River Fish Community Survey, 1
January 1997 through 30 June 2004.
Minear, T., 2010. The Downstream Geomorphic Effects of Dams: A Comprehensive and
Comparative Approach. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Montgomery, D. R., E. M. Beamer, G. R. Pess & T. P. Quinn, 1999. Channel type and
salmonid spawning distribution and abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 56(3):377-387.
Moyle, P. B. & J. F. Mount, 2007. Homogenous rivers, homogenous faunas. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 104(14):5711-5712.
Moyle, P. B., 2002. Inland Fishes of California, Rev. and expanded edn. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.
Moyle, P. B., J. D. Kiernan, P. K. Crain & R. Quiones, 2012. Projected effects of future
climates on freshwater fishes of California. California Energy Commission Report, CEC500-2012-028.
Moyle, P. B., J. V. E. Katz & R. M. Quiones, 2011. Rapid decline of California's native
inland fishes: A status assessment. Biological Conservation 144(10):2414-2423.
Moyle, P. B., M. P. Marchetti, J. Baldridge & T. L. Taylor, 1998. Fish health and diversity:
Justifying flows for a California stream. Fisheries 23(7):6-15.
Murphy, G. I. 1949. The 1947 and 1948 Fishery at Conn Valley Reservoir, Napa County.
California Division of Fish and Game, Administrative Report 49-1.
104
Napa County Resource Conservation District, 2005. Central Napa River Watershed Project:
Salmon Habitat Form and Function. Prepared for California Department of Fish and
Game, Napa, California.
City of Napa, 2006. Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update. Public Works
Department, Water Division, Napa, California.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2002. Biological Opinion for the Lower
Mokelumne River Restoration Program: Fish Passage Improvements on the Woodbridge
Dam and WID Diversion Canals.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2003. Biological Opinion for the proposed
Robles Diversion Fish Passage Facility Project.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2008. Final Biological Opinion for lower Stony
Creek.
Nilsson, C., C. A. Reidy, M. Dynesius & C. Revenga, 2005. Fragmentation and flow
regulation of the world's large river systems. Science 308(5720):405-408.
Null, S. E., M. L. Deas & J. R. Lund, 2010. Flow and water temperature simulation for
habitat restoration in the Shasta River, California. River Research and Applications
26(6):663-681.
Null, S.E., J.H. Viers, M.L. Deas, S.K. Tanaka & J.F. Mount, 2013. Stream temperature
sensitivity to climate warming in Californias Sierra Nevada: Impacts to coldwater habitat.
Climatic Change, 116(1):149-170.
Olden, J. D. & N. L. Poff, 2003. Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for
characterizing streamflow regimes. River Research and Applications 19(2):101-121.
Opperman, J. J., R. Luster, B. A. McKenney, M. Roberts & A. W. Meadows, 2010.
Ecologically Functional Floodplains: Connectivity, Flow Regime, and Scale. J Am Water
Resour Assoc 46(2):211-226.
Pasternack, G. B., C. L. Wang & J. E. Merz, 2004. Application of a 2D hydrodynamic model
to design of reach-scale spawning gravel replenishment on the Mokelumne River,
California. River Research and Applications 20(2):205-225.
Poff, N. L. & J. K. H. Zimmerman, 2010. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a
literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows.
Freshwater Biology 55(1):194-205.
Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E.
Sparks & J. C. Stromberg, 1997. The natural flow regime: A paradigm for river
conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47(11):769-784.
105
Richter, B. D., M. M. Davis, C. Apse & C. Konrad, 2011. A presumptive standard for
environmental flow protection. River Research and Applications 28(8):1312-1321.
Singer, M. B., 2007. The influence of major dams on hydrology through the drainage
network of the Sacramento River basin, California. River Research and Applications
23(1):55-72.
Smeltzer, M. W. & G. M. Kondolf, 1999. Historical geomorphic and hydrologic analysis of
the Owens River Gorge. Prepared for the Department of Fish and Game, Bishop, California.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2002. State of the Watershed - report on
surface water quality, the Ventura River watershed. California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Los Angeles Region.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2012. eWRIMS (Electronic Water Rights
Information Management System). Available at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ewrims/,
accessed April 15, 2012.
Stillwater Sciences. 2008. Lagunitas limiting factors analysis: liming factors for coho
salmon and steelhead, Final report. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley, California
for Marin Resource Conservation District, Point Reyes Station, California.
Stillwater Sciences & Kear Groundwater. 2012. Santa Maria River Instream Flow Study:
flow recommendations for steelhead passage, Final Report. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences,
Santa Barbara, California; and Kear Groundwater, Santa Barbara, California for California
Ocean Protection Council, Oakland, California; and California Department of Fish and
Game, Sacramento, California.
Tate, K., D. Lancaster & D. Lile, 2007. Assessment of thermal stratification within stream
pools as a mechanism to provide refugia for native trout in hot, arid rangelands.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 124(1):289-300.
Twitchell Management Authority & MNS Engineers, Inc., 2010. Twitchell Project Manual.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2010. National Inventory of Dams.
Unites States Forest Service (USFS), 1998. Owens Basin Wetland and Aquatic Species
Recovery Plan, Inyo and Mono Counties, California. Portland, Oregon.
Unites States Forest Service (USFS), 2005. Modoc County Resource Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes, 6 June 2005. Available at:
https://fsplaces.fs.fed.us/fsfiles/unit/r4/payments_to_states.nsf/Web_Agendas/A12DD72CEF
FB503B88257018005AF77F?OpenDocument, accessed February 2, 2012.
106
Unites States Forest Service (USFS), 2012. Modoc National Forest, Chapter IV Water.
Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/modoc/learning/history-culture/?cid=
stelprdb5310681, accessed October 22, 2012 2012.
Viers, J. H., J. Katz, R. Peek, N. Santos & P. B. Moyle, 2012. PISCES - fish distribution
tracking, modelling, and analysis. University of California Davis, Center for Watershed
Sciences, Davis, California. Available at http://pisces.ucdavis.edu.
Vignola, E. & M. Deas, 2005. Lake Shastina limnology. Watercourse Engineering, Inc.,
Davis, California.
Yoshiyama, R. M., E. R. Gerstung, F. W. Fisher & P. B. Moyle, 2001. Historic and present
distribution of chinook salmon in the Central Valley drainage of California. In Brown, R. L.
(ed) Fish Bulletin 179 Contributions to the biology of Central Valley salmonids. vol 1.
California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, 71-76.
107
APPENDIX A
S ENSITIVE NATIVE FISH SPECIES LIST
California native fish species with sensitive (at risk, vulnerable, or near-threatened)
population status, per Moyle et al. (2011).
Common Name
Scientific Name
Conservation Status
Goose Lake lamprey
2-Vulnerable
Clear Lake hitch
Entosphenus tridentata
Lampetra hubbsi
Acipenser medirostris
Acipenser medirostris
Acipenser transmontanus
Siphatales crassicauda
Siphatales thalassinus vaccaceps
Siphatales bicolor subspecies
Siphatales bicolor pectinifer
Siphatales bicolor snyderi
Siphatales mohavensis
Gila elegans
Gila orcutti
Lavinia exilicauda chi
Monterey hitch
Lavinia exilicauda harengeus
2-Vulnerable
Red Hills roach
Lavinia symmetricus subspecies

Lavinia mitrulus
Pogonichthys macrolepidotus
Pogonichthys ciscoides
Ptychocheilus lucius
Rhinichthys osculus subspecies
2-Vulnerable
Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis
1-Endangered

Catostomus occidentalis
lacusanserinus
Catostomus microps
Catostomus snyderi
Catostomus luxatus
Catostomus santaanae
Catostomus latipinnis
Chasmistes brevirostris
Xyrauchen texanus
1-Endangered
Kern brook lamprey

Northern green sturgeon
Southern green sturgeon
White sturgeon
Thicktail chub
Cow Head tui chub
High Rock Springs tui chub
Lahontan lake tui chub
Owens tui chub
Mojave tui chub
Bonytail
Arroyo chub
Northern (Pit) roach

Sacramento splittail
Clear Lake splittail
Colorado pikeminnow
Owens speckled dace
Long Valley speckled dace
Amargosa Canyon speckled
dace
Santa Ana speckled dace
Goose Lake sucker
Modoc sucker
Klamath largescale sucker
Lost River sucker
Santa Ana sucker
Flannelmouth sucker
Shortnose sucker
Razorback sucker
2-Vulnerable
2-Vulnerable
1-Endangered
2-Vulnerable
0-Extinct
2-Vulnerable
0-Extinct
2-Vulnerable
1-Endangered
1-Endangered
0-Extinct
2-Vulnerable
1-Endangered
2-Vulnerable
2-Vulnerable
0-Extinct
0-Extinct
1-Endangered
1-Endangered
2-Vulnerable
1-Endangered
2-Vulnerable
1-Endangered
1-Endangered
1-Endangered
2-Vulnerable
1-Endangered
108
Eulachon
Longfin smelt
Delta smelt
Bull trout
Upper Klamath-Trinity fall
Chinook salmon
Upper Klamath-Trinity
spring Chinook salmon
California Coast fall Chinook
salmon
Central Valley winter
Chinook salmon
Central Valley spring
Chinook salmon
Central Valley late fall
Chinook salmon
Central Valley fall Chinook
salmon
Central Coast coho salmon
Southern Oregon Northern
California coast coho salmon
Pink salmon
Chum salmon
Northern California coast
summer steelhead
Klamath Mountains Province
summer steelhead
Central California coast
winter steelhead
Central Valley steelhead
South Central California
coast steelhead
Southern California
steelhead
McCloud River redband trout
Eagle Lake rainbow trout
Kern River rainbow trout
California golden trout
Little Kern golden trout
Paiute cutthroat trout
Lahontan cutthroat trout
Desert pupfish
Owens pupfish
Saratoga Springs pupfish
Amargosa River pupfish
Tecopa pupfish
Shoshone pupfish
Thaleichthys pacificus
Spirinchus thaleichthys
Hypomesus pacificus
Salvelinus confluentus
1-Endangered
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
2-Vulnerable
1-Endangered
2-Vulnerable
2-Vulnerable
2-Vulnerable
1-Endangered
2-Vulnerable
Oncorhynchus kisutch
1-Endangered
Oncorhynchus kisutch
1-Endangered
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Oncorhynchus keta
1-Endangered
Oncorhynchus mykiss
1-Endangered
Oncorhynchus mykiss
1-Endangered
Oncorhynchus mykiss
2-Vulnerable
Oncorhynchus mykiss
2-Vulnerable
Oncorhynchus mykiss
2-Vulnerable
Oncorhynchus mykiss
1-Endangered
Oncorhynchus mykiss stonei

Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum
Oncorhynchus mykiss gilberti
Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita
Oncorhynchus mykiss whitei
Oncorhynchus clarki seleneris
Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi
Cyprinodon macularius
Cyprinodon radiosus
Cyprinodon nevadensis nevadensis
Cyprinodon nevadensis amargosae
Cyprinodon nevadensis calidae
Cyprinodon nevadensis shoshone
1-Endangered
2-Vulnerable
1-Endangered
0-Extinct
1-Endangered
2-Vulnerable
1-Endangered
2-Vulnerable
2-Vulnerable
1-Endangered
2-Vulnerable
1-Endangered
1-Endangered
2-Vulnerable
2-Vulnerable
0-Extinct
1-Endangered
109
Salt Creek pupfish
Cottonball Marsh pupfish
Bigeye marbled sculpin
Unarmored threespine
stickleback
Shay Creek stickleback
Sacramento perch
Tidewater goby
Cyprinodon salinus salinus

Cyprinodon salinus milleri
Cottus klamathensis macrops
2-Vulnerable
Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni
1-Endangered
Gasterosteus aculeatus subspecies

Archoplites interruptus
Eucyclogobius newberryi
1-Endangered
2-Vulnerable
2-Vulnerable
1-Endangered
2-Vulnerable
110
APPENDIX B
L IST OF DAMS EVALUATED
NID
Dam Name
County
River
CA00002
Mendocino 3 Upper
Mendocino
Mill Creek
CA00004
Marie, Lake
Napa
Trib Tulucay Creek
CA00005
Henderson
Amador
Jackass Creek
CA00011
Rector Creek
Napa
Rector Creek
CA00015
Lower Buck Lake
Tuolumne
Buck Meadow Creek
CA00016
Bigelow Lake
Tuolumne
East Fork Cherry Creek
CA00019
Schmidell Lake
El Dorado
Trib Rubicon River
CA00020
Round Lake
El Dorado
Upper Truckee River
CA00026
McClure Lake
Madera
Trib East Fork Granite Creek
CA00027
Madera Lake
Madera
Fresno River
CA00029
Whale Rock
San Luis Obispo
Old Creek
CA00030
Benbow
Humboldt
South Fork Eel River
CA00031
Eureka
Plumas
Eureka Creek
CA00032
Frenchman
Plumas
Little Last Chance Creek
CA00035
Oroville
Butte
Feather River
CA00036
Thermalito Diversion
Butte
Feather River
CA00037
Antelope
Plumas
Indian Creek
CA00038
Lower Sardine Lake
Sierra
Sardine Creek
CA00039
Grizzly Valley
Plumas
Big Grizzly Creek
CA00043
Del Valle
Alameda
Arroyo Valley
CA00044
Castaic
Los Angeles
Castaic Creek
CA00049
Cedar Springs
San Bernardino
West Fork Mojave River
CA00052
Pyramid
Los Angeles
Piru Creek
CA00067
Chatsworth
Los Angeles
Trib Los Angeles River
CA00068
Dry Canyon
Los Angeles
Dry Canyon Creek
CA00072
Inyo
Big Pine Creek
Los Angeles
San Fernando Creek
CA00084
Big Pine Creek

Lower San Fernando
(Lower Van Norman)
Tinemaha
Inyo
Owens River
CA00088
Bouquet Canyon
Los Angeles
Bouquet Creek
CA00089
Grant Lake
Mono
Rush Creek
CA00090
Long Valley
Mono
Owens River
CA00091
Walker Lake
Mono
Walker Creek
CA00092
Sardine Lake
Mono
Walker Creek
CA00076
111
CA00098
Pleasant Valley
Inyo
Owens River
CA00102
Milliken
Napa
Milliken Creek
CA00104
Conn Creek
Napa
Conn Creek
CA00106
Barrett
San Diego
Cottonwood Creek
CA00108
Hodges, Lake
San Diego
San Dieguito River
CA00109
Savage
San Diego
Otay River
CA00110
Morena
San Diego
Cottonwood Creek
CA00111
El Capitan
San Diego
San Diego River
CA00112
Upper Otay
San Diego
Proctor Val Creek
CA00113
San Vicente
San Diego
San Vicente Creek
CA00114
Sutherland
San Diego
Santa Ysabel Creek
CA00120
Early Intake
Tuolumne
Tuolumne River
CA00121
Lake Eleanor
Tuolumne
Eleanor Creek
CA00122
Tuolumne
Moccasin Creek
Tuolumne
Tuolumne River
CA00124
Moccasin Lower
O'Shaughnessy (Hetch
Hetchy Reservoir)
Priest
Tuolumne
Rattlesnake Creek
CA00125
Cherry Valley
Tuolumne
Cherry Creek
CA00126
Calaveras
Alameda
Calaveras Creek
CA00127
San Mateo
San Mateo Creek
CA00128
Pilarcitos
San Mateo
Pilarcitos Creek
CA00129
San Mateo
Trib San Mateo Creek
Alameda
San Antonio Creek
CA00138
San Andreas
James H Turner (San
Antonio Reservoir)
Gibraltar
Santa Barbara
Santa Ynez River
CA00140
Lake Curry
Napa
Gordon Valley Creek
CA00142
Lake Frey
Solano
Wild Horse Creek
CA00149
Bell Canyon
Napa
Bell Creek
CA00155
Municipal
Solano
Trib Suisun Creek
CA00156
Newell
Santa Cruz
San Lorenzo River
CA00158
Santa Clara
Penitencia Creek
Contra Costa
Wildcat Creek
Amador
Mokelumne River
CA00165
Cherry Flat
Lake Anza (C L Tilden
Park)
Jackson Creek Spillway
(Pardee)
Chabot
Alameda
San Leandro Creek
CA00166
San Pablo
Contra Costa
San Pablo Creek
CA00173
Camanche Main
San Joaquin
Mokelumne River
CA00187
Big Dalton
Los Angeles
Big Dalton Wash
CA00188
Big Santa Anita
Los Angeles
Trib Rio Hondo
CA00189
Devils Gate
Los Angeles
Arroyo Seco
CA00190
Cogswell
Los Angeles
West Fork San Gabriel River
CA00191
Big Tujunga No. 1
Los Angeles
Big Tujunga Creek
CA00192
Live Oak
Los Angeles
Live Oak Creek
CA00123
CA00132
CA00161
CA00164
112
CA00193
Pacoima
Los Angeles
Pacoima Creek
CA00194
Puddingstone
Los Angeles
Walnut Creek
CA00195
San Dimas
Los Angeles
San Dimas Creek
CA00196
Sawpit
Los Angeles
Sawpit Creek
CA00198
Thompson Creek
Los Angeles
Thompson Creek
CA00199
Puddingstone Diversion
Los Angeles
San Dimas Creek
CA00200
San Gabriel
Los Angeles
San Gabriel River
CA00204
Alpine
Marin
Lagunitas Creek
CA00205
Lagunitas
Marin
Lagunitas Creek
CA00206
Phoenix Lake
Marin
Ross Creek
CA00207
Bon Tempe
Marin
Lagunitas Creek
CA00208
Peters
Marin
Lagunitas Creek
CA00209
Seeger
Marin
Nicasio Creek
CA00211
Juncal
Santa Barbara
Santa Ynez River
CA00212
Mathews
Riverside
Trib Cajalco Creek
CA00214
Copper Basin
San Bernardino
Copper Basin
CA00216
Morris
Los Angeles
San Gabriel River
CA00223
Robert A Skinner
Riverside
Tucalota Creek
CA00224
Lake Gregory
San Bernardino
Houston Creek
CA00226
Anderson Cottonwood
Shasta
Sacramento River
CA00227
Camp Far West
Yuba
Bear River
CA00228
Weber
El Dorado
North Fork Webber Creek
CA00232
Jacobs Creek
El Dorado
Jacobs Creek
CA00233
Big Sage
Modoc
Rattlesnake Creek
CA00234
Cuyamaca
San Diego
Boulder Creek
CA00237
Littlerock
Crocker Diversion
(Snelling Diversion)
New Exchequer (Lake
McClure)
McSwain
Los Angeles
Littlerock Creek
Merced
Merced River
Mariposa
Merced River
Mariposa
Merced River
Stanislaus
Trib Tuolumne River
Siskiyou
Shasta River
Nevada
Canyon Creek
Nevada
Deer Creek
CA00247
Modesto Res
Dwinnell Dam (Shasta
River Dam)
Bowman
Deer Creek Diversion
(Lower Scotts Flat)
French Lake
Nevada
Canyon Creek
CA00248
Milton
Nevada/Sierra
Middle Yuba River
CA00249
Lake Combie
Nevada
Bear River
CA00250
Sawmill Main
Nevada
Canyon Creek
CA00252
Jackson Lake
Nevada
Jackson Creek
CA00253
Scotts Flat
Nevada
Deer Creek
CA00239
CA00240
CA00242
CA00243
CA00244
CA00245
CA00246
113
CA00254
Jackson Meadows
Nevada
Middle Fork Yuba River
CA00255
Rollins
Nevada
Bear River
CA00256
Faucherie Lake Main
Nevada
Canyon Creek
CA00257
Dutch Flat Afterbay
Nevada/Placer
Bear River
CA00260
Goodwin
Calaveras
Stanislaus River
CA00262
Rodden Lake
Stanislaus
Lesnini Creek
CA00263
Beardsley
Tuolumne
Middle Fork Stanislaus River
CA00264
Donnells
Tuolumne
CA00265
Tulloch
Calaveras
Stanislaus River
CA00266
Beardsley Afterbay
Tuolumne
CA00267
Wyandotte, Lake
Butte
North Honcut Creek
CA00268
Lost Creek
Butte
Lost Creek
CA00269
Little Grass Valley
Plumas
South Fork Feather River
CA00270
South Fork Diversion
Plumas
CA00271
Slate Creek
Plumas
Slate Creek
CA00272
Sly Creek
Butte
Lost Creek
CA00273
Forbestown Diversion
Butte
CA00274
Ponderosa
Butte
CA00276
Woodward
Stanislaus
Simmons Creek
CA00277
Concow
Butte
Concow Creek
CA00278
La Grange
Stanislaus
Tuolumne River
CA00281
Don Pedro Main
Tuolumne
Tuolumne River
CA00283
Henshaw
San Diego
San Luis Rey River
CA00284
Bridgeport
Mono
East Walker Rv
CA00285
Woodbridge Div
San Joaquin
Mokelumne River
CA00287
Coyote
Santa Clara
Coyote Creek
CA00288
Calero
Santa Clara
Calero Creek
CA00289
Almaden
Santa Clara
Almitos Creek
CA00290
Guadalupe
Santa Clara
Guadalupe Creek
CA00291
Vasona Percolating
Santa Clara
Los Gatos Creek
CA00292
Santa Clara
Stevens Creek
Santa Clara
Los Gatos Creek
CA00294
Stevens Creek
James J. Lenihan
(Lexington)
Anderson
Santa Clara
Coyote River
CA00296
Magalia
Butte
Little Butte Creek
CA00297
Paradise
Butte
Little Butte Creek
CA00298
Santiago Creek
Orange
Santiago Creek
CA00299
North Fork (Pacheco Dam)
Santa Clara
Pacheco Creek
CA00300
West Valley
Modoc
West Valley Creek
CA00301
Peoples Weir
Kings
Kings River
CA00303
Island Weir
Kings
North Fork Kings River
CA00304
Fairmount Park
Riverside
Trib Santa Ana River
CA00305
Mockingbird Canyon
Riverside
Mockingbird Canyon
CA00293
114
CA00306
Redhawk Lake
Calaveras
Rich Gulch
CA00307
Middle Fork Diversion
Tulare
Middle Fork Kaweah River
CA00310
Kimball Creek
Napa
Kimball Creek
CA00312
Matilija
Ventura
Matilija Creek
CA00313
Runkle
Ventura
Runkle Canyon
CA00321
Novato Creek
Marin
Novato Creek
CA00323
Copco No 1
Siskiyou
Klamath River
CA00325
Iron Gate
Siskiyou
Klamath River
CA00326
Butt Valley
Plumas
Butt Creek
CA00327
Lake Almanor
Plumas
North Fork Feather River
CA00328
Poe
Butte
CA00329
Cresta
Plumas
CA00330
Plumas
Plumas
Bucks Creek
Plumas
Bucks Creek
CA00333
Rock Creek
Lower Bucks Lake (Bucks
Diversion)
Bucks Lake (Bucks
Storage)
Grizzly Forebay
Plumas
Grizzly Creek
CA00334
Three Lakes
Plumas
Milk Ranch Creek
CA00335
Balch Diversion
Fresno
CA00336
Balch Afterbay
Fresno
CA00337
Crane Valley (Bass Lake)
Madera
North Fork Willow Creek
CA00340
Kerckhoff
Madera
San Joaquin River
CA00341
Merced Falls
Manzanita Lake
(Manzanita Diversion)
Merced
Merced River
Madera
North Fork Willow Creek
CA00344
Kunkle
Butte
CA00345
Philbrook
Butte
Trib West Branch Feather

River
Philbrook Creek
CA00346
Round Valley
Butte
West Branch Feather River
CA00351
Fuller Lake
Nevada
Jordan Creek
CA00356
Lake Arthur
Placer
South Fork Dry Creek
CA00357
Lake Fordyce
Nevada
Fordyce Creek
CA00358
Lake Spaulding
Nevada
South Fork Yuba River
CA00359
Lake Sterling
Nevada
CA00361
Lake Valley Main
Placer
CA00363
Lower Feeley (Carr Lake)
Nevada
Trib Fordyce Creek

Trib North Fork American
River
Trib Fall Creek
CA00364
Nevada
Trib Texas Creek
Placer
Trib South Fork Tuba River
CA00366
Lower Lindsey
Lower Peak Lake
(Cascade Lakes)
Meadow Lake
Nevada
Trib Fordyce Creek
CA00367
Middle Lindsey
Nevada
Trib Texas Creek
CA00368
Rock Creek Main
Placer
Rock Creek
CA00331
CA00332
CA00342
CA00365
115
CA00369
Rucker Lake
Nevada
Rucker Creek
CA00370
Upper Feeley Lake

Upper Peak Lake
(Cascade Lakes)
White Rock Lake
Nevada
Trib Fall Creek
Placer
Trib South Fork Yuba River
Nevada
Trib North Creek
El Dorado
CA00377
Echo Lake
Medley Lakes Main (Lake
Aloha)
Silver Lake
Amador
Echo Creek
Trib South Fork American
River
Silver Fork
CA00378
Caples Lake (Twin Lake)
Alpine
Trib Silver Fork
CA00379
Upper Bear
Amador
Bear River
CA00380
Lower Blue Lake
Alpine
Blue Creek
CA00381
Meadow Lake
Alpine
Trib North Fork Mokelumne
CA00382
Salt Springs
Amador
North Fork Mokelumne River
CA00384
Twin Lakes
Alpine
Trib North Fork Mokelumne
CA00385
Upper Blue Lake
Alpine
Blue Creek
CA00387
Lyons
Tuolumne
South Fork Stanislaus River
CA00388
Strawberry (Pinecrest)
Tuolumne
South Fork Stanislaus River
CA00389
Phoenix
Tuolumne
Sullivan Creek
CA00390
Relief
Tuolumne
Summit Creek
CA00393
Macumber
Shasta
North Fork Battle Creek
CA00394
North Battle Creek

Pit No. 3 Diversion
(Britton Lake)
Pit No. 4 Diversion
Shasta
North Fork Battle Creek
Shasta
Pit River
Shasta
Pit River
Lake
Eel River
Mendocino
South Eel River
CA00400
Scott
Cape Horn Dam (Van
Arsdale Reservoir)
Tiger Creek Regulator
Amador
Tiger Creek
CA00401
Tiger Creek Afterbay
Amador
North Fork Mokelumne River
CA00402
Shasta
Pit River
Shasta
Hat Creek
CA00405
Pit No. 5 Diversion

Hat Creek No. 2 Diversion
(Baum Lake)
Pit No. 1 Forebay
Shasta
Fall River
CA00406
Morris
Mendocino
James Creek
CA00407
Indian Ole
Lassen
Hamilton Creek
CA00409
Lower Bear
Amador
Bear River
CA00411
Wishon Main
Fresno
CA00412
Fresno
Helms Creek
Plumas
CA00414
Courtright
Belden Forebay (Caribou
Afterbay)
Pit No. 6 Diversion
Shasta
Pit River
CA00415
Pit No. 7 Diversion
Shasta
Pit River
CA00416
McCloud Diversion
Shasta
McCloud River
CA00417
Iron Canyon
Shasta
Iron Canyon Creek
CA00371
CA00373
CA00374
CA00376
CA00395
CA00397
CA00398
CA00399
CA00404
CA00413
El Dorado
116
CA00418
Chili Bar
El Dorado
South Fork American River
CA00421
New Drum Afterbay
Nevada
Bear River
CA00422
Alpine Main
Alpine
Silver Creek
CA00423
Hunters
Calaveras
Mill Creek
CA00424
Ross
Calaveras
French Gulch Creek
CA00426
Union Main
Alpine
North Fork Stanislaus River
CA00427
Utica Main
Alpine
CA00432
Big Creek Dam No. 6
Fresno
San Joaquin River
CA00433
Florence Lake
Big Creek Dam No. 3a
(Huntington)
Lady Franklin Lake
Fresno
South Fork San Joaquin River
Fresno
Big Creek
Tulare
East Fork Kaweah River
Fresno
Stevenson Creek
Fresno
San Joaquin River
CA00441
Shaver Lake
Big Creek Dam No. 7
(Redinger Lake)
Vermilion (Edison)
Fresno
Mono Creek
CA00442
Portal Forebay Main
Fresno
Trib South Fork San Joaquin
CA00443
Mammoth Pool
Fresno
San Joaquin River
CA00446
Hillside
Inyo
South Fork Bishop Creek
CA00447
Longley
Inyo
McGee Creek
CA00448
Sabrina
Inyo
Middle Fork Bishop Creek
CA00450
Rush Creek Meadows
Mono
Rush Creek
CA00451
Lundy Lake
Mono
Mill Creek
CA00454
Agnew Lake
Mono
Rush Creek
CA00455
Saddlebag
Mono
Lee Vining Creek
CA00456
Tioga Lake
Mono
Glacier Creek
CA00457
Rhinedollar (Ellery Lake)
Mono
Lee Vining Creek
CA00459
McBrien
Modoc
Pit River
CA00461
SX (Essex)
Modoc
Trib Pit River
CA00462
Modoc
Clover Swale
Modoc
Taylor Creek
CA00464
Huffman Antelope
Taylor (Taylor Creek No.
1)
Janes Flat
Modoc
Mosquito Creek
CA00465
Davis Creek Orchard
Modoc
Roberts Creek
CA00466
Modoc
Trib North Fork Pit River
Modoc
Trib Rattlesnake Creek
Modoc
CA00471
Capik
Big Dobe North (Baker
and Thomas Reservoir)
Big Dobe South (Baker
Little Juniper
Modoc
Little Juniper Creek
CA00472
Graven
Modoc
Trib Canyon Creek
CA00473
Plum Canyon
Ingals Swamp (Dorris
Brothers Reservoir)
Modoc
Plum Creek
Modoc
Ingals Swamp
CA00434
CA00435
CA00437
CA00440
CA00463
CA00467
CA00468
CA00474
117
CA00475
Payne
Modoc
Trib South Fork Pit River
CA00480
Duncan Creek Diversion
Modoc
Trib Pit River
CA00481
Rye Grass Swale
Modoc
Trib Canyon Creek
CA00482
White
Modoc
Trib Pit River
CA00483
Toreson
Modoc
Toms Creek
CA00484
Kramer
Modoc
Widow Valley Creek
CA00485
Roberts
Modoc
Trib Pit River
CA00486
Enquist
Modoc
Trib Olivers Can
CA00487
Danhauser
Modoc
CA00488
Upper Pasture
Modoc
Yankee Jim Slough
CA00489
Lookout
Modoc
Pit River
CA00491
Carpenter Wilson
Modoc
Cooley Gulch
CA00492
Leonard Johnson
Modoc
Dry Creek
CA00494
Donovan
Modoc
Rye Grass Swale
CA00495
Campbell Lake
Siskiyou
Shackleford Creek
CA00496
Ray Soule Reservoir
Siskiyou
Trib Little Shasta River
CA00509
Round Valley
Lassen
Round Val Cr
CA00510
Red Rock No 1
Lassen
Red Rock Creek
CA00512
Silva Flat
Lassen
Juniper Creek
CA00513
Coyote Flat
Lassen
Coyote Creek
CA00514
Caribou Lake
Lassen
Susan River
CA00515
Hog Flat
Lassen
Tr Susan River
CA00516
Leavitt, Lake
Lassen
Tr Susan River
CA00517
McCoy Flat
Lassen
Susan River
CA00519
Buckhorn
Lassen
Buckhorn Creek
CA00522
Coon Camp
Lassen
Tr Horse Lake
CA00524
Branham Flat
Lassen
Branham Creek
CA00525
Heath Reservoir
Lassen
Slate Creek
CA00528
Rye
Tehama
Kendrick Creek
CA00530
Bidwell Lake
Plumas
North Canyon Creek
CA00531
Silver Lake
Plumas
Silver Creek
CA00532
Grizzly Creek
Plumas
Big Grizzly Creek
CA00533
Taylor Lake
Plumas
Trib Indian Creek
CA00534
Long Lake
Plumas
Gray Eagle Creek
CA00535
Palen
Sierra
Antelope Creek
CA00537
Donner Lake
Nevada
Donner Creek
CA00538
Lake Vera
Nevada
Rock Creek
CA00541
Pine Grove
Nevada
Little Shady Creek
CA00542
Bellett
Nevada
Trib Shady Creek
CA00546
Morning Star Res
Placer
North Forbes Creek
CA00548
Los Verjels
Yuba
Dry Creek
CA00551
Cannon Ranch
Butte
Trib Oregon Gulch
CA00554
York Hill
Colusa
Trib Bear Creek
118
CA00555
Rancho Rubini
Colusa
Trib Bear Creek
CA00556
E A Wright
Glenn
Small Creek
CA00558
Hamilton
Glenn
Trib Watson Creek
CA00560
Ridgewood
Mendocino
Forsythe Creek
CA00561
McNab
Mendocino
McNab Creek
CA00562
Bevans Creek
Mendocino
Bevans Creek
CA00563
Mendocino
Trib Berry Creek
Lake
Bucksnort Creek
CA00565
Scout Lake
Geunoc Lake (Detert
Lake)
McCreary
Lake
Bucksnort Creek
CA00566
Bordeaux, Lake
Lake
Trib Bucksnort Creek
CA00571
Spring Valley
Lake
Wolf Creek
CA00572
Coyote Creek
Lake
Coyote Creek
CA00574
Catacoula
Napa
Maxwell Creek
CA00578
Henne
Napa
Angwin Branch
CA00581
Duvall
Napa
Trib Pope Creek
CA00583
Moskowite
Napa
Trib Capell Creek
CA00585
Dick Week
Napa
Trib Pope Creek
CA00586
William, Lake
Napa
Trib Milliken Creek
CA00591
Mallacomes
Sonoma
Foote Creek
CA00597
Green Valley Lake
Solano
Dug Road Gulch
CA00601
Blodgett
Sacramento
Laguna Creek
CA00602
Van Vleck
Sacramento
Trib Arkansas Creek
CA00605
Hamel
Sacramento
Trib Dry Creek
CA00607
Mark Edson
El Dorado
Pilot Creek
CA00608
Williamson No 1
El Dorado
Trib Weber Creek
CA00610
D Agostini
El Dorado
Spanish Creek
CA00611
Big Canyon Creek
El Dorado
Big Canyon Creek
CA00612
Goffinet
Amador
Jackass Creek
CA00615
John Orr
Amador
Trib Jackson Creek
CA00617
Shenandoah Lake
Amador
Pigeon Creek
CA00618
Emery
Calaveras
McKinney Creek
CA00619
Bevanda
Calaveras
Trib Calaveras River
CA00620
Salt Springs Valley
Calaveras
Rock Creek
CA00621
McCarty
Calaveras
Trib Johnny Creek
CA00622
Mountain King
Calaveras
Clover Creek
CA00624
FlyInAcres
Calaveras
Moran Creek
CA00627
Flowers
Calaveras
Little Johns Creek
CA00628
Cherokee
Calaveras
Cherokee Creek
CA00629
Scott Lake
Alpine
Tr Wfk Carson R
CA00630
Crater Lake
Alpine
Crater Lake Creek
CA00631
Red Lake
Alpine
Red Lake Creek
CA00564
119
CA00634
Kinney Meadows
Alpine
Tr Silver Creek
CA00635
Lower Kinney Lake
Alpine
Tr Silver Creek
CA00641
Heenan Lake
Alpine
Tr Efk Carson R
CA00643
Upper Twin Lake
Mono
Robinson Creek
CA00644
Lower Twin Lake
Mono
Robinson Creek
CA00646
Black Reservoir
Mono
Black Creek
CA00648
Poore Lake Reservoir
Mono
Poore Creek
CA00649
Twain Harte
Tuolumne
Trib Sullivan Creek
CA00652
Big Creek
Tuolumne
Big Creek
CA00653
Tuolumne Log Pond
Tuolumne
Turn Back Creek
CA00654
Orvis
Stanislaus
Buckham Gulch
CA00655
Gilmore
San Joaquin
Trib Mormon Slough
CA00656
Davis No 2
San Joaquin
CA00657
Foothill Ranch
San Joaquin
CA00664
San Mateo
Arroyo De Los Frijoles
San Mateo
San Mateo
CA00669
Lucerne, Lake
Bean Hollow #2 (De Los
Frijoles)
Frijoles)
Searsville
San Mateo
Corte Madera Creek
CA00674
Notre Dame
San Mateo
Belmont Creek
CA00675
Grant Company 2
Santa Clara
Arroyo Aguague
CA00676
Lake Ranch
Santa Clara
Beardsley Creek
CA00679
Williams
Santa Clara
Los Gatos Creek
CA00680
Austrian
Santa Clara
Los Gatos Creek
CA00688
Mill Creek
Santa Cruz
Mill Creek
CA00689
San Clemente
Monterey
Carmel River
CA00692
Los Padres
Monterey
Carmel River
CA00694
Hawkins
San Benito
Trib Arroyo De Las Viboras
CA00698
Kelsey
Merced
Trib South Fork Dry Creek
CA00699
Stockton Creek
Mariposa
Stockton Creek
CA00700
Green Valley
Mariposa
Smith Creek
CA00701
McMahon
Mariposa
Maxwell Creek
CA00702
Hendricks Head Diversion
Butte
Trib Horse Creek
CA00705
Sierra Vista
Madera
Chowchilla River
CA00706
Jane, Lake
Madera
Trib Hildreth Creek
CA00707
Black Hawk
Madera
Coarse Gold Creek
CA00708
Spring
Madera
Longhollow Creek
CA00709
Sequoia Lake
Fresno
Mill Flat Creek
CA00713
Empire Weir No 2
Kings
South Fork Kings River
CA00719
Rancho Del Ciervo
Santa Barbara
Trib San Jose Creek
CA00724
Los Tablas Creek
San Luis Obispo
Las Tablas Creek
CA00725
Righetti
San Luis Obispo
West Corral De Pie
CA00665
CA00666
120
CA00726
San Marcos
San Luis Obispo
San Marcos Creek
CA00727
Hartzell
San Luis Obispo
Santa Rita Creek
CA00729
Tejon Storage 2
Kern
Trib Tejon Creek
CA00731
Alisal Creek
Santa Barbara
Alisal Creek
CA00736
Lake Sherwood
Ventura
Potrero Valley Creek
CA00737
Eleanor, Lake
Ventura
Eleanor Creek
CA00739
Malibu Lake Club
Los Angeles
Malibu Creek
CA00742
Lindero
Los Angeles
Lindero Creek
CA00743
Potrero
Los Angeles
Potrero Valley
CA00745
Lambert
Orange
Trib Newport Bay
CA00746
Peters Canyon
Orange
Peters Canyon
CA00747
Bonita Canyon
Orange
Bonita Creek
CA00748
Laguna
Orange
Trib San Diego Creek
CA00750
Veeh
Orange
CA00755
Chino Ranch #1
San Bernardino
Tonner Canyon Creek
CA00757
Bear Valley
San Bernardino
Bear Creek
CA00758
Green Val Lake
San Bernardino
Green Valley Creek
CA00759
Lake Arrowhead
San Bernardino
Little Bear Creek
CA00760
Grass Valley
San Bernardino
Grass Valley Creek
CA00761
Rancho Cielito
San Bernardino
Trib Chino Creek
CA00763
Lake Hemet
Riverside
Trib San Jacinto River
CA00764
Little Lake
Riverside
Trib San Jacinto
CA00765
Railroad Canyon
Riverside
San Jacinto River
CA00766
Lee Lake
Riverside
Temescal Creek
CA00770
Vail
Riverside
Temecula Creek
CA00771
Quail Valley
Riverside
Trib San Jancinto River
CA00772
Wohlford Lake
San Diego
Escondido Creek
CA00774
Corte Madera
San Diego
Trib Pine Valley
CA00775
Sweetwater Main
San Diego
Sweetwater River
CA00776
Lake Loveland
San Diego
Sweetwater River
CA00777
Henry Jr
San Diego
Skye Valley
CA00780
Wuest
San Diego
Mc Cain Creek
CA00781
Calavera
San Diego
Calavera Creek
CA00782
San Marcos
San Diego
San Marcos Creek
CA00786
Thing Valley
San Diego
La Posta Creek
CA00789
Palo Verde
San Diego
Sweetwater River
CA00791
Healdsburg Recreation
Sonoma
Russian River
CA00794
Matanzas Creek
Sonoma
Matanzas Creek
CA00796
Woodcrest
Riverside
Woodcrest Creek
CA00797
Harrison Street
Riverside
Harrison Creek
CA00798
Alessandro
Riverside
Alessandro Creek
CA00799
Prenda
Riverside
Prenda Creek
121
CA00800
Sycamore
Riverside
Sycamore Canyon
CA00801
Pigeon Pass
Riverside
Pigeon Pass
CA00802
Boxsprings
Riverside
Box Springs Creek
CA00804
Lake Madrone
Butte
Berry Creek
CA00805
Santa Felicia
Ventura
Piru Creek
CA00806
Elmer J Chesbro
Santa Clara
Llagas Creek
CA00807
Uvas
Santa Clara
Uvas Creek
CA00808
Pine Creek
Contra Costa
Pine Creek
CA00809
Marsh Creek
Contra Costa
Marsh Creek
CA00810
Deer Creek
Contra Costa
Deer Creek
CA00811
Dry Creek
Contra Costa
Dry Creek
CA00812
Nacimiento
San Luis Obispo
Nacimiento River
CA00813
San Antonio
Monterey
San Antonio River
CA00814
Ice House Main
El Dorado
South Fork Silver Creek
CA00815
Junction
El Dorado
Silver Creek
CA00816
Union Valley
El Dorado
Silver Creek
CA00817
Camino
El Dorado
Silver Creek
CA00818
Gerle Creek
El Dorado
Gerle Creek
CA00820
Loon Lake Main
El Dorado
Gerle Creek
CA00821
Buck Island Main
El Dorado
Little Rubicon
CA00822
Rubicon Main
El Dorado
Rubicon River
CA00823
Slab Creek
El Dorado
South Fork American River
CA00824
Brush Creek
El Dorado
Brush Creek
CA00825
Rancho Seco
Sacramento
Trib Hadselville Creek
CA00827
Adobe Creek
Lake
Adobe Creek
CA00828
Highland Creek
Lake
Highland Creek
CA00829
Orange
Santiago Creek
Trinity
Mad River
CA00835
Villa Park
Ruth Lake (R. W.
Matthews)
Berenda Slough
Madera
Berenda Slough
CA00837
Redbank
Fresno
Redbank Creek
CA00839
Ward Creek
Alameda
Ward Creek
CA00840
Alameda
Cull Creek
Alameda
San Lorenzo Creek
CA00842
Cull Creek
San Lorenzo Creek (Don
Castro)
Virginia Ranch
Yuba
Dry Creek
CA00845
Copperopolis
Calaveras
Penney Creek
CA00847
Paicines
San Benito
Trib Tres Pinos Creek
CA00848
Hernandez
San Benito
San Benito River
CA00849
Russian River No 1
Sonoma
Russian River
CA00850
Wood Ranch
Ventura
Trib Arroyo Simi
CA00851
Herman, Lake
Solano
Sulphur Springs Creek
CA00854
Sand Canyon
Orange
Sand Canyon
CA00833
CA00841
122
CA00857
L. L. Anderson (French
Meadows)
Hell Hole
CA00858
Middle Fork Interbay
Placer
Middle Fork American River
CA00859
Ralston Afterbay
Placer
CA00863
New Bullards Bar
Yuba
North Yuba River
CA00864
Our House
Sierra
Middle Fork Yuba River
CA00865
Log Cabin
Yuba
Oregon Creek
CA00866
Francis, Lake
Yuba
Dobbins Creek
CA00867
Jackson Creek
Amador
Jackson Creek
CA00871
Mendocino
Trib Willets Creek
Mendocino
Willits Creek
CA00873
Ada Rose, Lake

Emily (Brooktrails 3
North)
Sulphur Creek
Orange
Sulphur Creek
CA00874
Maine Prairie 3
Solano
Ulatis Creek
CA00878
San Diego
Trib Escondido Creek
Fresno
San Joaquin River
CA00887
Dixon
Mendota Diversion
(Mendota Pool)
Lopez
San Luis Obispo
Arroyo Grande Creek
CA00888
Terminal
San Luis Obispo
Trib Arroyo Grande
CA00889
Box Canyon
Siskiyou
Sacramento River
CA00904
Westlake Reservoir
Los Angeles
Tree Springs Creek
CA00905
Turner
San Diego
Moosa Canyon
CA00906
San Dieguito
San Diego
CA00909
Poway
San Diego
Warren Canyon
CA00910
Holiday Lake
El Dorado
Sawmill Creek
CA00911
Cache Creek (Clear Lake)
Lake
Cache Creek
CA00914
Lindauer Concrete
Modoc
Pit River
CA00915
A And C (Avenzino Res)
Modoc
South Fork Willow Creek
CA00916
Poison Springs
Modoc
Rock Creek
CA00920
Bayley Res
Modoc
Crooks Canyon
CA00921
Renner Sibley Cr
Modoc
Sibley Creek
CA00922
Boggs And Warren
Modoc
East Sand Creek
CA00925
James Porter
Modoc
Trib Parker Creek
CA00926
Shelley
Siskiyou
Webb Gulch
CA00929
Dwight Hammond
Siskiyou
Trib Shasta River
CA00933
Null
Shasta
Rock Creek
CA00934
Ross No 1
Shasta
Trib Stillwater Creek
CA00938
Peconom
Lassen
Antelope Val
CA00940
Cramer
Lassen
Tr Horse Lake
CA00941
Gerig
Lassen
Pit River
CA00942
Mendiboure
Lassen
Tr Van Loan Cr
CA00944
Smoke Creek (W)
Lassen
Smoke Creek
CA00856
CA00872
CA00886
Placer
Placer
Rubicon River
123
CA00945
Holbrook
Lassen
Ash Creek
CA00946
Iverson
Lassen
Trib Juniper Creek
CA00947
Elkins And Lane
Lassen
Trib Ash Creek
CA00948
Albaugh No 1
Lassen
Trib Pit River
CA00949
Albaugh No 2
Lassen
Trib Willow Creek
CA00952
Spaulding
Lassen
Tr Madelin Plains
CA00953
Myers
Lassen
Trib Ash Creek
CA00954
Madeline
Lassen
Tr Madeline Plains
CA00956
Tule Lake (Moon Lake)
Lassen
Cedar Creek
CA00957
Spooner
Lassen
Trib Ash Creek
CA00960
Leonard No 2
Lassen
Trib Ash Creek
CA00961
Petes Valley
Lassen
Petes Creek
CA00964
Anthony House
Nevada
Deer Creek
CA00965
Swan
Nevada
Dry Creek
CA00966
Magnolia
Nevada
Magnolia Creek
CA00969
Lakewood
Placer
Dry Creek
CA00971
Ice Lakes
Placer
Serena Creek
CA00973
Williams Valley
Mendocino
Trib Short Creek
CA00974
Round Mountain
Mendocino
Trib York Creek
CA00976
McGuire
Mendocino
South Fork Noyo River
CA00979
Olsen
Shasta
Ledgewood Creek
CA00997
Indian Creek
El Dorado
Indian Creek
CA00998
Barnett
El Dorado
Barnett Creek
CA01001
Volo Mining Company
El Dorado
Indian Creek
CA01002
Tanner
Calaveras
Cowell Creek
CA01005
White Pines
Calaveras
San Antonio Creek
CA01008
Pomponio Ranch
San Mateo
Pomponio Creek
CA01010
Green Oaks #1
San Mateo
Green Oaks Creek
CA01011
Coit
Santa Clara
Trib North Fork Pacheco Creek
CA01013
Murry
Santa Clara
Mississippi Creek
CA01015
R Simoni Irrigation
Santa Clara
Hay Canyon
CA01016
Laurel Springs Club
Santa Clara
Middle Fork Coyote Creek
CA01027
Misselbeck
Shasta
North Fork Cottonwood
CA01028
Truett
Shasta
Ash Creek
CA01029
Nash
Shasta
CA01030
Haynes Res
Shasta
Goose Creek
CA01045
Schubin
El Dorado
Trib Webber Creek
CA01046
Manhattan Creek
El Dorado
Manhattan Creek
CA01048
Aeree
El Dorado
Trib Pilot Creek
CA01050
Patterson
Thurman (Hawkeye
Ranch)
Eaton H. Magoon Lake
El Dorado
Deadman Creek
Shasta
Slaughter Pole
Napa
Routan Creek
CA01052
CA01055
124
(Upper Bohn Lake)
CA01059
Budge
Sonoma
Trib Russian River
CA01062
Pinheiro
Sonoma
Trib Petaluma River
CA01064
Straza
El Dorado
Black Rock Creek
CA01065
Abrams
El Dorado
Hastings Creek
CA01067
Hillside Ranch
Sonoma
Trib House Creek
CA01075
Big Dry Creek
Fresno
Big Dry Cr & Do
CA01076
Chorro Creek
San Luis Obispo
Chorro Creek
CA01082
New U San Leandro
Alameda
San Leandro Creek
CA01083
Soulajule
Marin
Arroyo Sausal
CA01086
Camp Far West Diversion
Yuba
Bear River
CA01088
Cloverswale
Modoc
Trib Witcher Creek
CA01097
Mustang Creek
Merced
Mustang Creek
CA01098
Bravo Lake Reservoir
Tulare
Wutchumna Ditch
CA01101
Eagle Ranch
San Luis Obispo
Hale Creek
CA01107
Indian Valley
Lake
North Fork Cache Creek
CA01115
Top Cat
Tehama
Trib Brannin Creek
CA01116
Sunflower
Tehama
Sunflower Gulch
CA01119
Clementia
Sacramento
Trib Cosumnes River
CA01122
Mission Viejo, Lake
Orange
Oso Creek
CA01123
Trampas Canyon
Orange
Trampas Canyon
CA01131
Yucaipa No 1
San Bernardino
Trib Yucaipa Creek
CA01132
Yucaipa No 2
San Bernardino
Trib Yucaipa Creek
CA01145
Upper Oso
Orange
Oso Creek
CA01158
Sierra Madre Villa
Los Angeles
Sierra Madre Canyon
CA01179
Oak Street
Riverside
Oak Street Creek
CA01180
Sand Creek
Tulare
Sand Creek
CA01199
Cameron Park
El Dorado
Deer Creek
CA01205
Homestake Tailings
Lake
Trib Hunting Creek
CA01208
Halls Meadows
Modoc
Couch Creek
CA01211
Mary Street
Riverside
Alessandro Wash
CA01213
Antelope
Kern
Antelope Creek
CA01215
Ramona
San Diego
Green Val Road Creek
CA01216
Steidlmayer #3
Sutter
Unnamed
CA01217
Las Llajas
Ventura
Las Llajas Can
CA01223
Davis Creek
Yolo
Davis Creek
CA01224
New Spicer Meadow
Tuolumne
Highland Creek
CA01225
Galt
Sacramento
Trib Laguna Creek
CA01230
Lakeport
Lake
Trib Manning Creek
CA01234
North Fork Diversion
Alpine
CA01238
Isabel Lake No 1
Santa Clara
Trib Isabel Creek
CA01240
Edwards Reservoir
Santa Barbara
Trib Gato Creek
125
CA01246
Centennial
Mendocino
Davis Creek
CA01248
Dove Canyon
Orange
Dove Creek
CA01250
Smiths Reservoir
Merced
Trib Burns Creek
CA01251
Rubber Dam 3
Alameda
Alameda Creek
CA01252
Pine Creek Detention
Contra Costa
Pine Creek
CA01255
Isabel Lake No 2
Santa Clara
Trib Isabel Creek
CA01257
McKays Point Diversion
Calaveras
CA01262
Jayne s Lake
Mendocino
Toney Creek
CA01263
Bradford
Mendocino
Trib Russian River
CA01265
Bottoms
Lake
Trib Helena Creek
CA01266
Sycamore Canyon
Ventura
Sycamore Can
CA01270
California Park
Butte
Dead Horse Slough
CA01289
Metcalf
Napa
Trib Maxwell Creek
CA01303
Flotation Tails
Calaveras
Trib Littlejohns Creek
CA01306
Middle Cooperstown
Tuolumne
Trib Dry Creek
CA01307
Kilmer
Tuolumne
Trib Dry Creek
CA01309
Shaffer
El Dorado
Indian Creek
CA01313
Merlo
Sonoma
Fall Creek
CA01314
Calaveras
Trib Bear Creek
Solano
Trib Laguna Creek
CA01327
Wallace
Lagoon Valley County
Park
Fancher Creek
Fresno
Fancher Cr & Hog Creek
CA01335
Golden Rule
Mendocino
Trib Walker Creek
CA01351
Rubber Dam 1
Alameda
Alameda Creek
CA01355
Castle
Merced
Canal Creek
CA01361
Agua Chinon
Orange
Agua Chinon Wash
CA01380
Rubber Dam 2
Alameda
Alameda Creek
CA01406
Los Angeles
Amargosa Creek
Mendocino
Trib Mcdowell Creek
CA01412
Amargosa Creek
SVCSD Reclamation Pond
2 (Hooper No. 2)
Arundell Barranca
Ventura
Arundell Barranca
CA01423
Lolonis Vineyards
Mendocino
Trib West Fork Russian River
CA01425
Jack s Swamp Dam No 2
Modoc
Trib Pit River
CA01428
Skyrocket
Calaveras
CA01450
Upper Wilcox
Madera
CA10019
Hansen
Los Angeles
Littlejohn Creek
Unnamed Tributary To
Picayunne Creek
Tujunga Wash
CA10020
Lopez
Los Angeles
Pacoima Wash
CA10021
Mojave Dam
San Bernardino
W Fk Mojave River
CA10023
San Antonio Dam
San Bernardino
San Antonio Creek
CA10024
Santa Fe
Los Angeles
San Gabriel River
CA10025
Sepulveda
Los Angeles
Los Angeles River
CA10027
Whittier Narrows Dam
Los Angeles
San Gabriel River
CA10101
Bear
Mariposa
Bear Creek
CA01315
CA01408
126
CA10102
Black Butte
Tehama
Stony Creek
CA10103
Burns
Merced
Burns Creek
CA10104
Farmington Dam
San Joaquin
Rock And Littlejohn Creeks
CA10105
Englebright
Yuba
Yuba River
CA10106
Isabella
Kern
Kern River
CA10107
Mariposa Dam
Mariposa
Mariposa Creek
CA10108
Martis Creek
Nevada
Martis Creek
CA10109
New Hogan Dam
Calaveras
Calaveras River
CA10110
North Fork
Placer
North Fork American River
CA10111
Owens Dam
Mariposa
Owens Creek
CA10112
Pine Flat
Fresno
Kings River
CA10113
Success
Tulare
Tule River
CA10114
Terminus (Lake Kaweah)
Tulare
Kaweah River
CA10123
Hughes (Dam #36)
Monterey
CA10131
Lake Oneill
San Diego
CA10134
Antelope
Shasta
Aqua Fria Creek

Santa Margarita River
Offstream
Pit River
CA10135
Boca
Nevada
Little Truckee River
CA10136
Bradbury
Santa Barbara
Santa Ynez River
CA10139
Casitas
Ventura
Coyote Creek
CA10141
Clear Lake
Modoc
Lost River
CA10144
Dorris
Modoc
Stockdill Slough
CA10145
East Park Dike No. 1 (N)
Colusa
Little Stony Creek
CA10148
Folsom
Sacramento
American River
CA10154
Friant
Fresno
San Joaquin River
CA10156
Glen Anne
Santa Barbara
West Fork Glen Annie Canyon
CA10159
Imperial Diversion
Imperial
Colorado River
CA10160
Keswick
Shasta
Sacramento River
CA10162
Lake Tahoe
Placer
Truckee River
CA10163
Lauer
Modoc
Trib Pit River
CA10164
Lauro
Santa Barbara
Diablo Creek
CA10165
Lewiston
Trinity
Trinity River
CA10166
Fresno
Little Panoche Creek
Merced
Los Banos Creek
CA10169
Little Panoche Detention

Los Banos Creek
Detention Dam
McGinty
Modoc
Mud Creek
CA10170
Monticello
Yolo
Putah Creek
CA10174
Nimbus
Sacramento
American River
CA10179
Prosser Creek
Nevada
Prosser Creek
CA10180
Putah Diversion
Yolo, Solano
Putah Creek
CA10181
Red Bluff Diversion
Tehama
Sacramento River
CA10186
Shasta
Shasta
Sacramento River
CA10187
Sly Park (Jenkinson)
El Dorado
Sly Park Creek
CA10167
127
CA10192
Stampede
Sierra
CA10194
Stony Gorge
Glenn
Stony Creek
CA10196
Trinity
Trinity
Trinity River
CA10197
Twitchell
San Luis Obispo
Cuyama River
CA10201
Coyote Valley Dam
Mendocino
East Fork Russian River
CA10202
Salinas
San Luis Obispo
Salinas River
CA10204
Whiskeytown
Shasta
Clear Creek
CA10207
Emigrant Lake
Tuolumne
North Fork Cherry Creek
CA10210
Telephone Flat
Modoc
Trib Boles Creek
CA10212
Y Meadow
Tuolumne
Rock Creek
CA10213
Walker Mine Tails
Plumas
Dolly Creek
CA10216
Fallen Leaf
El Dorado
Taylor Creek
CA10219
Snow Lake
Tuolumne
Trib East Fork Cherry Creek
CA10220
Middle Emigrant
Tuolumne
North Fork Cherry Creek
CA10221
Upper Buck Lake
Tuolumne
Buck Meadow Creek
CA10222
Long Lake
Tuolumne
West Fork Cherry Creek
CA10224
Herring Creek
Tuolumne
Herring Creek
CA10225
Bear Lake
Tuolumne
Lily Creek
CA10226
Leighton Lake
Tuolumne
Yellow Hammer Creek
CA10227
Swains Hole
Lassen
Butte Creek
CA10228
Lower Salmon Lake
Sierra
Trib Salmon Creek
CA10229
U Salmon Lake
Sierra
Trib Salmon Creek
CA10232
Weaver
Nevada
Eastfork
CA10233
Blue Lake
Lassen
Outlet Creek
CA10239
Smith Lake
Plumas
Wapaunsie Creek
CA10243
Buchanan
Madera
Chowchilla River
CA10244
Hidden Dam
Madera
Fresno River
CA10245
Funks
Colusa
Funks Creek
CA10246
New Melones
Calaveras
Stanislaus River
CA10266
Manzanita Lake
Shasta
Manzanita Creek
CA10301
Laguna
Imperial
Colorado River
CA10302
Upper Letts
Colusa
Letts Creek
CA10303
Warm Springs
Sonoma
Dry Creek
CA10305
Parker
San Bernardino
Colorado River
CA10306
Sugar Pine
Placer
North Shirttail Creek
CA10307
Hume Lake
Fresno
Ten Mile Creek
CA10308
Twin Lakes
Mono
Mammoth Creek
CA10313
Everly
Modoc
Long Branch Cyn
CA10318
South Mountain
Modoc
Trib Fletcher Creek
CA10320
Green Tank
Modoc
Trib Fletcher Creek
CA10321
Crowder Mountain
Modoc
Trib Telephone Flat
CA10323
San Justo
San Benito
Offstream
CA10324
Seven Oaks
San Bernardino
Santa Ana River
128
CA10325
Miners Ravine Detention
Modoc
Trib Clover Swale Creek
CA10326
Boles Meadow
Modoc
Boles Creek
CA10327
Cummings Res No 2
Modoc
Pit River Trib
CA10329
Grass Lake
Plumas
Little Jamison Creek
CA10330
Jamison Lake
Plumas
Little Jamison Creek
CA10331
Upper Sardine Lake
Sierra
Trib Sardine Creek
CA10336
Bear Valley
Lassen
Little Davis Creek
CA10337
Four Mile Valley No 4
Modoc
Fountain Creek
CA10339
Emigrant Springs
Modoc
Null
CA10340
East Boulder
Siskiyou
East Boulder Creek
CA10342
Brown Mtn Barrier
Los Angeles
Arroyo Seco
CA10351
Lower Biscar
Lassen
Snowstorm Creek
CA10352
Upper Biscar
Lassen
Snowstorm Creek
CA10354
Nelson Corral
Lassen
Dry Creek
CA20042
Salton Sea Dike
Imperial
None
CA82402
Bayley
Modoc
Trib Fletcher Creek
CA82412
El Dorado
Trib Rubicon River
Modoc
North Fork Pit River
CA82501
Highland Lake
Pretty Tree (Emigrant
Flat Res)
Wood Flat
Modoc
North Fork Pit River
CA82504
Deer Hill
Modoc
Trib Fletcher Creek
CA82531
Kern No 3
Tulare
Kern River
CA82904
Rainbow Diversion
Colusa
Stoney Creek
CA82938
Buckhorn
Trinity
Grass Valley Creek
CA83069
Chilkoot
Madera
Chilkoot Creek
CA83151
Pit No. 7 Afterbay
Shasta
Pit River
CA83281
Pit River Weir
Shasta
Pit River
CA83283
Bear Creek Div
Fresno
Bear Creek
CA83288
Schaads Reservoir (CPUD

Middle Fork)
Calaveras
Middle Fork Mokelumne River
CA82491
129
APPENDIX C
M ODEL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Model performance was evaluated by comparing model predictions of mean monthly,
maximum 1-day and annual flows at unimpaired, reference gages (Carlisle et al. 2010a) in
California with observed flow records. The reference gages used to assess model
performance were excluded from the model calibration dataset.
Mean monthly flows, California Inland Mountain Region

January
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
February
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
March
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
April
r-squared
rmse
RSR
0.947
119.232
0.241
-2.437
0.941
0.947
105.658
0.234
-2.526
0.945
0.947
92.315
0.231
-1.219
0.946
0.950
92.742
0.227
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
May
r-squared
rmse
RSR
-2.051
0.948
0.951
142.362
0.236
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
-5.568
0.944
130
June
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
July
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
August
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
September
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
October
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
November
r-squared
rmse
0.971
115.087
0.195
-5.164
0.962
0.926
102.356
0.335
-2.381
0.886
0.863
57.209
0.371
2.647
0.861
0.896
38.840
0.323
-2.892
0.895
0.876
46.340
0.361
-4.408
0.868
0.908
118.055
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
December
r-squared
rmse
0.322
-3.183
0.895
0.942
123.399
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
0.248
-1.575
0.938
131
Annual Maximum 1-day Flow, California Inland Mountain Region
r-squared
0.907
rmse
955.224
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
Annual Mean , California Inland Mountain Region
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
0.334
-6.282
0.887
0.956
71.925
0.230
-3.042
0.947
Mean monthly flows, California Coastal Mountain Region

January
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
0.967
368.921
0.187
-0.368
0.964
February
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
0.978
292.530
0.163
-3.628
0.973
March
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
0.973
270.338
0.179
-2.595
0.967
April
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
0.974
162.876
0.161
-1.274
0.974
May
r-squared
rmse
RSR
0.916
209.934
0.295
132
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
June
4.033
0.911
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
July
0.902
162.796
0.318
3.877
0.897
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
August
0.901
110.874
0.335
10.173
0.886
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
September
0.847
94.363
0.416
7.247
0.824
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
October
0.924
70.302
0.284
4.018
0.918
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
November
0.979
93.191
0.167
2.898
0.972
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
December
0.960
321.465
0.212
-6.312
0.954
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
0.971
349.730
0.181
-3.657
133
Nash-Sutcliff
Maximum 1-day Flow, California Coastal Mountain Region
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
Annual Mean , California Coastal Mountain Region
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
Mean monthly flows, California Xeric Regions
January
0.967
0.894
3889.397
0.327
-4.099
0.891
0.971
163.390
0.170
-0.729
0.971
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
February
0.701
4.550
0.541
3.511
0.701
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
March
0.781
3.355
0.466
3.689
0.778
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
April
0.779
3.613
0.465
2.911
0.779
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
May
0.783
3.689
0.461
2.570
0.783
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
0.736
4.618
0.512
4.946
134
Nash-Sutcliff
June
r-squared
0.732
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
July
r-squared
5.779
0.593
1.502
0.641
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
August
r-squared
8.155
0.718
-0.339
0.474
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
September
r-squared
8.946
0.743
-0.612
0.437
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
October
r-squared
0.775
-0.496
0.386
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
November
r-squared
0.764
0.010
0.404
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
December
r-squared
7.340
0.688
-0.062
0.516
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
6.210
0.660
0.686
0.556
0.642
0.474
0.438
9.398
0.410
9.419
0.519
0.556
135
Annual Mean , California Xeric Regions
r-squared
rmse
RSR
Percent bias
Nash-Sutcliff
0.504
29.219
0.699
-1.097
0.500
136
APPENDIX D
L IST OF CANDIDATE DAMS
NID
Dam Name
County
River
CA01361
Agua Chinon
Orange
Agua Chinon Wash
CA00949
Albaugh No 2
Lassen
Trib Willow Creek
CA00798
Alessandro
Riverside
Alessandro Creek
CA00731
Alisal Creek
Santa Barbara
Alisal Creek
CA00289
Almaden
Santa Clara
Almitos Creek
CA00204
Alpine
Marin
Lagunitas Creek
CA00294
Anderson
Santa Clara
Coyote River
CA00226
Anderson Cottonwood
Shasta
Sacramento River
CA00964
Anthony House
Nevada
Deer Creek
CA00106
Barrett
Frijoles)
Bear Valley
San Diego
Cottonwood Creek
San Mateo
San Bernardino
Bear Creek
Madera
Berenda Slough
Modoc
Modoc
CA01075
Berenda Slough
Big Dobe North (Baker
Big Dobe South (Baker
Big Dry Creek
Fresno
Big Dry Cr & Do
CA00233
Big Sage
Modoc
Rattlesnake Creek
CA10102
Black Butte
Tehama
Stony Creek
CA10135
Boca
Nevada
CA00922
Boggs And Warren
Modoc
East Sand Creek
CA00207
Bon Tempe
Marin
Lagunitas Creek
CA00747
Bonita Canyon
Orange
Bonita Creek
CA00088
Bouquet Canyon
Los Angeles
Bouquet Creek
CA00802
Boxsprings
Riverside
Box Springs Creek
CA10136
Bradbury
Santa Barbara
Santa Ynez River
CA00284
Bridgeport
Mono
East Walker Rv
CA10342
Brown Mtn Barrier
Los Angeles
Arroyo Seco
CA00781
Calavera
San Diego
Calavera Creek
CA00126
Calaveras
Alameda
Calaveras Creek
CA00288
Calero
Santa Clara
Calero Creek
CA10139
Casitas
Ventura
Coyote Creek
CA00665
CA00757
CA00835
CA00467
CA00468
137
CA00044
Castaic
Los Angeles
Castaic Creek
CA01355
Castle
Merced
Canal Creek
CA00165
Chabot
Alameda
San Leandro Creek
CA00067
Chatsworth
Los Angeles
Trib Los Angeles River
CA00158
Cherry Flat
Santa Clara
Penitencia Creek
CA01119
Clementia
Sacramento
Trib Cosumnes River
CA01088
Cloverswale
Modoc
Trib Witcher Creek
CA01011
Coit
Santa Clara
Trib North Fork Pacheco Creek
CA00104
Conn Creek
Napa
Conn Creek
CA00214
Copper Basin
San Bernardino
Copper Basin
CA10201
Mendocino
East Fork Russian River
Merced
Merced River
CA00840
Coyote Valley Dam

Crocker Diversion
(Snelling Diversion)
Cull Creek
Alameda
Cull Creek
CA00487
Danhauser
Modoc
CA00656
San Joaquin
Nevada
Deer Creek
CA00043
Davis No 2
Deer Creek Diversion
(Lower Scotts Flat)
Del Valle
Alameda
Arroyo Valley
CA00537
Donner Lake
Nevada
Donner Creek
CA01248
Dove Canyon
Orange
Dove Creek
CA00068
Dry Canyon
Los Angeles
Dry Canyon Creek
CA00811
Contra Costa
Dry Creek
Siskiyou
Shasta River
CA01240
Dry Creek
Dwinnell Dam (Shasta
River Dam)
Edwards Reservoir
Santa Barbara
Trib Gato Creek
CA00111
El Capitan
San Diego
San Diego River
CA00806
Elmer J Chesbro
Santa Clara
Llagas Creek
CA10105
Englebright
Yuba
Yuba River
CA00486
Enquist
Modoc
Trib Olivers Can
CA10313
Everly
Modoc
Long Branch Cyn
CA10216
Fallen Leaf
El Dorado
Taylor Creek
CA01327
Fancher Creek
Fresno
Fancher Cr & Hog Creek
CA10104
Farmington Dam
San Joaquin
Rock And Littlejohn Creeks
CA10148
Folsom
Sacramento
American River
CA00657
Foothill Ranch
San Joaquin
CA00138
Gibraltar
Santa Barbara
Santa Ynez River
CA00655
Gilmore
San Joaquin
Trib Mormon Slough
CA10156
Glen Anne
Santa Barbara
West Fork Glen Annie Canyon
CA00260
Goodwin
Calaveras
Stanislaus River
CA00239
CA00246
CA00244
138
CA00675
Grant Company 2
Santa Clara
Arroyo Aguague
CA00089
Grant Lake
Mono
Rush Creek
CA00472
Graven
Modoc
Trib Canyon Creek
CA00290
Guadalupe
Santa Clara
Guadalupe Creek
CA00605
Hamel
Sacramento
Trib Dry Creek
CA10019
Hansen
Los Angeles
Tujunga Wash
CA00797
Harrison Street
Riverside
Harrison Creek
CA00694
Hawkins
San Benito
Trib Arroyo De Las Viboras
CA01030
Haynes Res
Shasta
Goose Creek
CA00525
Heath Reservoir
Lassen
Slate Creek
CA00641
Heenan Lake
Alpine
Tr Efk Carson R
CA00848
Hernandez
San Benito
San Benito River
CA00108
Hodges, Lake
San Diego
San Dieguito River
CA10123
Monterey
Aqua Fria Creek
Modoc
Ingals Swamp
CA01255
Hughes (Dam #36)

Ingals Swamp (Dorris
Brothers Reservoir)
Isabel Lake No 2
Santa Clara
Trib Isabel Creek
CA00946
Iverson
Lassen
Trib Juniper Creek
CA01425
Modoc
Trib Pit River
Alameda
San Antonio Creek
CA00706
Jack s Swamp Dam No 2

James H Turner (San
Antonio Reservoir)
Jane, Lake
Madera
Trib Hildreth Creek
CA00211
Juncal
Santa Barbara
Santa Ynez River
CA82531
Kern No 3
Tulare
Kern River
CA10160
Keswick
Shasta
Sacramento River
CA00278
La Grange
Stanislaus
Tuolumne River
CA00748
Orange
Contra Costa
Wildcat Creek
CA00759
Laguna
Lake Anza (C L Tilden
Park)
Lake Arrowhead
San Bernardino
Little Bear Creek
CA00140
Lake Curry
Napa
Gordon Valley Creek
CA00142
Lake Frey
Solano
Wild Horse Creek
CA00224
Lake Gregory
San Bernardino
Houston Creek
CA00763
Lake Hemet
Riverside
CA10131
Lake Oneill
San Diego
CA01230
Lakeport
Lake
Trib San Jacinto River

Santa Margarita River
Offstream
Trib Manning Creek
CA00745
Lambert
Orange
Trib Newport Bay
CA01217
Las Llajas
Ventura
Las Llajas Can
CA10164
Lauro
Santa Barbara
Diablo Creek
CA00474
CA00132
CA00161
139
CA10165
Lewiston
Trinity
Trinity River
CA00090
Long Valley
Mono
Owens River
CA00887
Lopez
Los Banos Creek
Detention Dam
San Luis Obispo
Arroyo Grande Creek
Merced
Los Banos Creek
San Mateo
San Mateo Creek
Alpine
Tr Silver Creek
Los Angeles
San Fernando Creek
CA00644
Lower Kinney Lake

Lower San Fernando
(Lower Van Norman)
Lower Twin Lake
Mono
Robinson Creek
CA00027
Madera Lake
Madera
Fresno River
CA00739
Malibu Lake Club
Los Angeles
Malibu Creek
CA10108
Martis Creek
Nevada
Martis Creek
CA00212
Mathews
Riverside
Trib Cajalco Creek
CA00312
Matilija
Ventura
Matilija Creek
CA00459
McBrien
Modoc
Pit River
CA10169
Modoc
Mud Creek
Fresno
San Joaquin River
CA10325
McGinty
Mendota Diversion
(Mendota Pool)
Miners Ravine Detention
Modoc
Trib Clover Swale Creek
CA01122
Mission Viejo, Lake
Orange
Oso Creek
CA00305
Mockingbird Canyon
Riverside
Mockingbird Canyon
CA00243
Modesto Res
Stanislaus
Trib Tuolumne River
CA10021
Mojave Dam
San Bernardino
W Fk Mojave River
CA00110
Morena
San Diego
Cottonwood Creek
CA00216
Morris
Los Angeles
San Gabriel River
CA00155
Municipal
Solano
Trib Suisun Creek
CA01013
Murry
Santa Clara
Mississippi Creek
CA00812
Nacimiento
San Luis Obispo
Nacimiento River
CA01029
Nash
Shasta
CA10109
New Hogan Dam
Calaveras
Calaveras River
CA10246
New Melones
Calaveras
Stanislaus River
CA01082
New U San Leandro
Alameda
San Leandro Creek
CA00156
Newell
Santa Cruz
San Lorenzo River
CA10174
Nimbus
Sacramento
American River
CA00321
Novato Creek
Marin
Novato Creek
CA00847
Paicines
San Benito
Trib Tres Pinos Creek
CA00475
Payne
Modoc
CA00301
Peoples Weir
Kings
Kings River
CA00208
Peters
Marin
Lagunitas Creek
CA10167
CA00127
CA00635
CA00076
CA00886
140
CA00746
Peters Canyon
Orange
Peters Canyon
CA00206
Phoenix Lake
Marin
Ross Creek
CA00801
Pigeon Pass
Riverside
Pigeon Pass
CA00128
Pilarcitos
San Mateo
Pilarcitos Creek
CA10112
Pine Flat
Fresno
Kings River
CA00098
Pleasant Valley
Inyo
Owens River
CA00916
Poison Springs
Modoc
Rock Creek
CA00743
Potrero
Los Angeles
Potrero Valley
CA00909
Poway
San Diego
Warren Canyon
CA00799
Prenda
Riverside
Prenda Creek
CA10179
Prosser Creek
Nevada
Prosser Creek
CA00194
Puddingstone
Los Angeles
Walnut Creek
CA10180
Putah Diversion
Yolo, Solano
Putah Creek
CA00771
Quail Valley
Riverside
Trib San Jancinto River
CA00765
Railroad Canyon
Riverside
San Jacinto River
CA01215
Ramona
San Diego
Green Val Road Creek
CA00761
Rancho Cielito
San Bernardino
Trib Chino Creek
CA00825
Rancho Seco
Sacramento
Trib Hadselville Creek
CA00011
Rector Creek
Napa
Rector Creek
CA00837
Redbank
Fresno
Redbank Creek
CA00223
Robert A Skinner
Riverside
Tucalota Creek
CA00485
Roberts
Modoc
Trib Pit River
CA00262
Rodden Lake
Stanislaus
Lesnini Creek
CA01351
Rubber Dam 1
Alameda
Alameda Creek
CA01380
Rubber Dam 2
Alameda
Alameda Creek
CA01251
Rubber Dam 3
Alameda
Alameda Creek
CA10202
Salinas
San Luis Obispo
Salinas River
CA00620
Salt Springs Valley
Calaveras
Rock Creek
CA00129
San Andreas
San Mateo
Trib San Mateo Creek
CA00813
San Antonio
Monterey
San Antonio River
CA00906
San Dieguito
San Diego
CA00200
San Gabriel
Los Angeles
San Gabriel River
CA10323
San Benito
Offstream
Alameda
San Lorenzo Creek
CA00166
San Justo
San Lorenzo Creek (Don
Castro)
San Pablo
Contra Costa
San Pablo Creek
CA00113
San Vicente
San Diego
San Vicente Creek
CA00854
Sand Canyon
Orange
Sand Canyon
CA10024
Santa Fe
Los Angeles
San Gabriel River
CA00841
141
CA00298
Santiago Creek
Orange
Santiago Creek
CA00563
Scout Lake
Mendocino
Trib Berry Creek
CA00669
Searsville
San Mateo
Corte Madera Creek
CA10025
Sepulveda
Los Angeles
Los Angeles River
CA10324
Seven Oaks
San Bernardino
Santa Ana River
CA00705
Sierra Vista
Madera
Chowchilla River
CA01083
Soulajule
Marin
Arroyo Sausal
CA00957
Spooner
Lassen
Trib Ash Creek
CA10192
Stampede
Sierra
CA10113
Success
Tulare
Tule River
CA00873
Sulphur Creek
Orange
Sulphur Creek
CA00800
Sycamore
Riverside
Sycamore Canyon
CA01266
Sycamore Canyon
Ventura
Sycamore Can
CA00729
Tejon Storage 2
Kern
Trib Tejon Creek
CA00888
Terminal
San Luis Obispo
Trib Arroyo Grande
CA10114
Terminus (Lake Kaweah)
Tulare
Kaweah River
CA00084
Tinemaha
Inyo
Owens River
CA01115
Top Cat
Tehama
Trib Brannin Creek
CA01123
Trampas Canyon
Orange
Trampas Canyon
CA10196
Trinity
Trinity
Trinity River
CA00956
Tule Lake (Moon Lake)
Lassen
Cedar Creek
CA00905
Turner
San Diego
Moosa Canyon
CA10308
Twin Lakes
Mono
Mammoth Creek
CA10197
Twitchell
San Luis Obispo
Cuyama River
CA01145
Upper Oso
Orange
Oso Creek
CA00770
Vail
Riverside
Temecula Creek
CA0029
Vasona Percolating
Santa Clara
Los Gatos Creek
CA00750
Veeh
Orange
CA00829
Villa Park
Orange
Santiago Creek
CA01314
Wallace
Calaveras
Trib Bear Creek
CA10303
Warm Springs
Sonoma
Dry Creek
CA00300
West Valley
Modoc
West Valley Creek
CA00904
Westlake Reservoir
Los Angeles
Tree Springs Creek
CA00029
Whale Rock
San Luis Obispo
Old Creek
CA10027
Whittier Narrows Dam
Los Angeles
San Gabriel River
CA00586
William, Lake
Napa
Trib Milliken Creek
CA00850
Wood Ranch
Ventura
Trib Arroyo Simi
CA00285
Woodbridge Div
San Joaquin
Mokelumne River
142
CA00796
Woodcrest
Riverside
Woodcrest Creek
CA00276
Woodward
Stanislaus
Simmons Creek

5937 Report

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

5937 Report

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ASSESSING FLOWS FOR FISH

OCTOBER 22, 2014

This report was prepared by:

Theodore (Ted) Grantham

Copyright 2014 The Regents of the University of California

All rights reserved

Please cite this report as:

Keywords: environmental flows, water management, regulated rivers, freshwater fishes,

2 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

E FFECTS OF DAMS ON C ALIFORNIA S

Flow alteration by dams often leads to downstream changes in

4 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

E FFECTS OF DAMS ON C ALIFORNIA S FISH

6 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

S ECTION 5937 AND FISH IN GOOD

8 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

A PPLYING S ECTION 5937 TO RESTORE

The requirements of Section 5937 are also not static in time. In

10 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH FOR

This investigation is a first attempt at developing a

12 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

14 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

S TEP 2. A SSESSING FLOW REGIME

16 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

S TEP 3. A SSESSING CONDITION OF

18 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

S TEP 4. I DENTIFYING REGULATORY

S TEP 5. I DENTIFYING AND RANKING

20 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

S TEP 6. P RELIMINARY CASE STUDY

22 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

F LOW REGIME ALTERATION BELOW DAMS

24 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

Changes in seasonal flow patterns were assessed by examining

26 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

28 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

30 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

I NDICATORS OF FISH CONDITION

32 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

R ELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HYDROLOGIC

34 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

36 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

D AMS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL

I DENTIFICATION AND RANKING OF

38 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

Storage capacity (106 m3)

Monthly flow deviation (r)a

40 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

Native species richness

Sensitive species richness

Alameda Creek Rubber Dams

New San Leandro

Lower Crystal Springs

New San Leandro

San Lorenzo Creek (Don Castro)

Dams were also identified within the range of ESA-listed

42 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

New Hogan Dam

Top 20 largest (by storage capacity) of 48 candidate dams that occur

44 | RESTORING FLOWS FOR FISH BELOW DAMS

In summary, 220 dams were identified as sites where improved