2015 Steelhead Recovery Plan Vol 4

COASTAL MULTISPECIES PLAN
Photo Courtesy: Morgan Bond, NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center, CCC Steelhead, Scott Creek, CA
VOLUME IV
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST STEELHEAD
PUBLIC DRAFT
OCTOBER 2015
1
DISCLAIMER
Recovery plans delineate such reasonable actions as may be necessary, based upon the best
scientific and commercial data available, for the conservation and survival of listed species.
Plans are published by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), sometimes prepared with
the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies and others. Recovery plans do not
necessarily represent the views, official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies
involved in the plan formulation, other than NMFS. They represent the official position of
NMFS only after they have been signed by the Assistant or Regional Administrator. Recovery
plans are guidance and planning documents only; identification of an action to be implemented
by any public or private party does not create a legal obligation beyond existing legal
requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that
any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in any one fiscal year in excess of appropriations
made by Congress for that fiscal year in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C 1341,
or any other law or regulation. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated
by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions.
LITERATURE CITATION SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS:

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2015. Public Draft Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan.
National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region, Santa Rosa, California.
ADDITIONAL COPIES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM:

Attn: Recovery Team
National Marine Fisheries Service
Protected Resources Division
777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325
Santa Rosa, CA 95467
Or on the web at:

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/salmon_and_stee
lhead.html
i
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft i
Vol. IV, Central California Coast Steelhead
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Disclaimer .................................................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents for Volume IV Populations ..................................................................................iii
Introduction to CCC Steelhead DPS Recovery .................................................................................. 1
CCC Steelhead DPS Listing, Reviews & Recovery Criteria ............................................................. 4
CCC Steelhead Listing....................................................................................................................... 4
CCC Steelhead Section 4(a)(1) Threats............................................................................................ 4
DPS Recovery Goals, Objectives and Criteria .................................................................................. 19
Biological Recovery Criteria ........................................................................................................... 20
ESA 4(a)(1) Factors Recovery Criteria ........................................................................................ 24
Conservation Efforts ........................................................................................................................ 26
DPS and Diversity Strata Results ........................................................................................................... 27
Diversity Strata Attribute and Threat Results ................................................................................. 27
North Coastal Diversity Stratum Results ..................................................................................... 29
Interior Diversity Stratum Results ................................................................................................. 33
Santa Cruz Mountains Diversity Stratum Results ...................................................................... 37
Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum Results ................................................................ 41
Interior San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum Results ................................................................ 44
DPS CAP Viability Results ................................................................................................................. 47
DPS CAP Threat Results ..................................................................................................................... 59
DPS Level Recovery Actions .................................................................................................................. 62
Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 80
2
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR VOLUME IV POPULATIONS
Population-Level Results and Recovery Actions
Russian River Overview
North Coastal Diversity Stratum

Austin Creek
Green Valley Creek
Lagunitas Creek
Salmon Creek
Walker Creek
North Coastal Diversity Strata Rapid Assessment
o Drakes Bay Tributaries
o Estero Americano Creek
o Pine Gulch
o Redwood Creek (Marin Co.)
North Coastal Diversity Strata: Russian River Populations Rapid Assessment
o Dutch Bill Creek
o Freezeout Creek
o Hulbert Creek
o Porter Creek
o Sheephouse Creek
o Willow Creek
Interior Diversity Stratum
Dry Creek
Maacama Creek
Mark West Creek
Upper Russian River
Interior Diversity Stratum Rapid Assessment
o Crocker Creek
iii
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft iii
o Gill Creek
o Miller Creek (Russian)
o Sausal Creek
Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum

Corte Madera Creek
Guadalupe River
Novato Creek
San Francisquito Creek
Stevens Creek
Coastal S.F. Bay Rapid Assessment
o Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio
o Miller Creek (Marin Co.)
o San Mateo Creek
Interior San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum

Alameda Creek
Coyote Creek
Green Valley/Suisun Creek
Napa River
Petaluma River
Sonoma Creek
Interior SF Bay Diversity Stratum Rapid Assessment
o Codornices Creek
o Pinole Creek
o San Leandro Creek
o San Lorenzo Creek
o San Pablo Creek
o Wildcat Creek
iv
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft iv
Santa Cruz Mountains Diversity Stratum
Aptos Creek
Pescadero Creek
Pilarcitos Creek
San Gregorio Creek
San Lorenzo River
Scott Creek
Soquel Creek
Waddell Creek
Santa Cruz Mountains Diversity Stratum Rapid Assessment
o Gazos Creek
o Laguna Creek
o San Pedro Creek
o San Vicente Creek
o Tunitas Creek
v
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft v
INTRODUCTION TO CCC STEELHEAD DPS RECOVERY
The Central California Coast (CCC) steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) historically
consisted of five Diversity Strata with 38 independent populations of winter-run steelhead (12
functionally independent and 26 potentially independent) and 22 dependent populations
(Spence et al. 2008; Spence et al. 2012). The delineation of the CCC steelhead DPS Diversity
Strata was based on environmental and ecological similarities and life history. Five strata were
identified by Bjorkstedt et al. (2005): North Coastal, Interior, Santa Cruz Mountains, Coastal San
Francisco Bay, and Interior San Francisco Bay. From the historical structure, we have selected a
total of 56 populations across the five Diversity Strata to represent the recovery scenario for the
CCC steelhead DPS (Figure 1). To meet the minimum biological viability criteria set forth in
Spence et al. (2012), passage above several man-made dams is recommended for the CCC
steelhead recovery scenario (See Appendix G for more information). The biological recovery
criteria for the 56 populations are (Biological Recovery Criteria):
28 essential independent populations attaining a low extinction risk (i.e., Corte
Madera Creek, Guadalupe River, Novato Creek, San Francisquito Creek, Stevens
Creek, Dry Creek, Maacama Creek, Mark West Creek, Upper Russian River,
Alameda Creek, Coyote Creek, Green Valley/Suisun Creek, Napa River, Petaluma
River, Sonoma Creek, Austin Creek, Green Valley Creek, Lagunitas Creek, Salmon
Creek, Walker Creek, Aptos Creek, Pescadero Creek, Pilarcitos Creek, San Gregorio
Creek, San Lorenzo River, Scott Creek, Soquel Creek and Waddell Creek);
Five supporting independent populations attaining moderate extinction risk criteria
(i.e., San Mateo Creek, San Leandro Creek, San Lorenzo Creek, Americano Creek and
Laguna Creek); and
18 supporting dependent populations contributing to redundancy and occupancy
criteria (i.e., Miller Creek (Marin Co.), Arroyo Corte de Madera Creek; Crocker
Creek, Gill Creek, Miller Creek (Russian), Sausal Creek, San Pablo Creek, Dutch Bill
Creek (Russian), Freezeout Creek (Russian), Hulbert Creek (Russian), Pine Gulch,
Porter Creek (Russian), Redwood Creek (Marin Co.), Sheephouse Creek (Russian),
Willow Creek (Russian), Gazos Creek, San Vicente Creek, and Tunitas Creek).
1
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft 1
Five supporting dependent populations with no IP that contribute to the redundancy
and occupancy criteria; Codornices Creek, Pinole Creek, Wildcat Creek, Drakes Bay
tributaries, and San Pedro Creek.
All populations in the DPS will retain ESA protections and critical habitat designation
regardless of their status or role in the recovery scenario.
2
Figure 1: CCC Steelhead DPS, Diversity Strata, and Essential and Supporting Populations
3
CCC STEELHEAD DPS LISTING, REVIEWS & RECOVERY CRITERIA
The CCC steelhead DPS was listed as a federally threatened species in 2000 (65 FR 36074).
Status reviews conducted in 2005 and 2010 affirmed the threatened status of the species. This
section of Volume IV includes a description of the listing decision for the CCC steelhead DPS,
the ESA section 4(a)(1) threats identified at listing, a summary of findings from the two status
reviews including the status of protective/conservation efforts, and CCC steelhead recovery
criteria.
CCC STEELHEAD LISTING

In response to numerous petitions, and as the result of a comprehensive status review of West
Coast steelhead (Busby et al. 1996), the CCC steelhead ESU was proposed for listing as
endangered under the ESA on August 9, 1996 (61 FR 56138). On August 18, 1997, the CCC
steelhead ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA (62 FR 43937). On January 5, 2006, after
an updated status review on a number of West Coast salmonid ESUs, NMFS reaffirmed the
threatened status of CCC steelhead and applied the DPS policy to the species noting that the
resident and anadromous life forms of O. mykiss remain markedly separated as a consequence
of physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral factors, and may thus warrant delineation
as separate DPSs (71 FR 834). The listed DPS includes all naturally spawned anadromous O.
mykiss (steelhead) populations in California streams from the Russian River (inclusive) to Aptos
Creek (inclusive), and the drainages of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays eastward to
Chipps Island at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. In addition, the
listed DPS includes two artificial propagation programs: the Don Clausen Fish Hatchery, and
the Kingfisher Flat Hatchery/Scott Creek (Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project) steelhead
hatchery programs.
CCC STEELHEAD SECTION 4(A)(1) THREATS

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the listing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for
listing species. The Secretary of Commerce must determine through the regulatory process if a
4
species is endangered or threatened based upon any one, or a combination of, the following
ESA section 4(a)(1) factors:
(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Through the regulatory process, the Secretary of Commerce determined the CCC steelhead DPS
was a threatened species based on their status and threats associated with the five section
4(a)(1) factors. The specific threats associated with the section 4(a)(1) factors are summarized
below.
Factor A: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat
or Range
Factor A At Listing:
Habitat degradation identified at the time of listing included reduced habitat complexity,
riparian removal, sedimentation, altered instream flows, degradation of water quality, instream
wood removal, and poor estuarine habitats. At listing both natural conditions and
anthropogenic activities were identified as the source of the habitat degradation. These
anthropogenic and natural conditions included: agriculture, logging, ranching, recreation,
mining, forestry, habitat blockages, water diversions, artificial propagation, estuarine
destructions or modification, flooding, forestry, hydropower development, instream habitat
problems, lack of data, general land use activities, poaching, predation, recreational angling,
urbanization, and water management.
5
Factor A Since Listing:
The restoration of steelhead habitats has been a primary focus of Federal, State and local
entities. The State of California Fisheries Restoration Grant Program alone has invested over
$250 million dollars and supported approximately 3,500 salmonid restoration projects. These
projects include fish passage, water conservation, improving instream habitats, watershed
monitoring, education, and organizational support to watershed groups. Restoration efforts
have improved conditions in some areas; however, the activities that led to habitat degradation
continue, and some populations and strata remain nonviable.
All threats identified at listing continue to impair CCC steelhead and their habitats, and several
threats (urbanization, habitat blockages, water diversions, water management, instream habitat
problems, and certain agriculture [illegal marijuana cultivation operations]), pose particularly
severe threats to the DPS. Specifically, habitat blockages and instream habitat problems
associated with water diversions, water management, and urbanization, impair viability of
populations and, in some areas (e.g., the greater San Francisco Bay Area), multiple strata. In
particular, the combined effects associated with water diversions and management (particularly
dams, reservoirs, and diversions) and urbanization are leading to further destabilization and
impairment of the DPS overall. Combined, these effects contribute significantly to the
imperiled status of these populations, have likely worsened since listing, and, without
significant improvement, may be expected to contribute to the worsening of the ongoing poor
viability of these affected populations. Existing and expanding urban and water system
development1 has the potential to further destabilize already imperiled populations, leading to
destabilization and non-viability of affected strata and further destabilization of the DPS
overall. When considered with the population structure of CCC steelhead, these population-
1 Although more local governments are now attempting to consider the environment in their
management and development decisions, urban-related impacts are likely to worsen in the future as the
Bay Area population grows by a predicted 30% between the years 2010 and 2040 (ABAG 2013). The
recently approved California State Water Bond (the 2014 Proposition 1) includes $2.7 billion for future
reservoir and dam construction. Although potential reservoir sites have not yet been identified, the
possibility remains that new water storage facilities, and associated effects, may be developed within the
CCC steelhead DPS.
6
and strata-level effects result in DPS-level effects; suggesting that these ongoing and worsening
impairments preclude the conservation and recovery of the species.
In addition to the traditional surface water impairments associated with water development
and urbanization, a new, or newly recognized, threat associated with groundwater overuse (an
ongoing water development threat, but recently recognized, specifically, by state legislation) in
California deserves special attention. Groundwater, which is often hydrologically linked to
surface flow in adjacent stream channels, has been recognized as overallocated in California,
and recent state legislation has been developed to address this (Groundwater Sustainability
Management Act [GSMA], signed into state law in October 2014). Importantly, with the GSMA,
environmental beneficial uses, including cold water fisheries, are to be considered when
balancing competing uses for an aquifers safe yield, which suggests that minimizing
groundwater pumping impacts on streamflow will be an integral part of future groundwater
management. These anticipated improvements to groundwater management have the potential
to improve stream habitat impaired by long-term over extraction. However, the resource
benefits may take time to be realized - the GSMA allows 40 years to achieve sustainability
criteria; thus, currently impaired streamflow and habitat conditions will generally persist across
the DPS during at least the next decade or two.
A more recently recognized threat, illicit agriculture (specifically, illicit marijuana cultivation, a
growing new threat within the DPS), falls within the previously recognized threat category of
agriculture, generally, but is distinguished by being an illegal unregulated activity that does not
benefit from the resource management oversight afforded by regulated agricultural operations.
Illegal damming and diversion of rural streams and rivers for the purpose of irrigating illegal
marijuana growing operations is likely now the paramount threat to salmonid survival and
habitat function in many first and second-order streams located in remote, rural areas,
particularly within the northern portions of the DPS. While the threat from legal agriculture is
generally stabilizing, or lessening in its rate of threat, due to regulation and implementation of
voluntary practices (e.g., Fish Friendly Farming and Ranching), illegal marijuana cultivation has
7
grown unchecked since listing and will continue to degrade steelhead habitat and impair
recovery until adequate controls and regulations, such as those that govern legitimate
agriculture, are enacted. Where prevalent, activities associated with illegal marijuana
cultivation have the potential to further destabilize populations and strata; thereby posing a
new and growing threat with the potential to impair or preclude recovery of the DPS.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Factor B At Listing:
Threats identified for Factor B at listing included historical over-fishing, poaching,
unauthorized driftnet fishing on the high seas, scientific utilization and commercial,
recreational and tribal harvest. Over-fishing in the early days of European settlement led to the
depletion of many stocks of steelhead even before extensive habitat degradation. During
periods of decreased habitat availability (i.e., drought or low flow conditions), recreational
fisheries have had greater impact on wild steelhead. Poaching was considered a serious
problem on several tributaries to San Francisco Bay and on coastal rivers south of San Francisco
Bay.
Utilization for scientific research and education programs was identified as having little impact
on CCC steelhead populations since take of this nature is through the issuance and conditioning
of scientific permits. However, no comprehensive total or estimate of steelhead mortalities
related to scientific sampling was available for any watershed or steelhead stock in the state.
Factor B Since Listing:
Legal Harvest: Ocean harvest of steelhead is rare and an insignificant source of mortality for the
DPS, and recreational fishing is limited to hatchery-origin fish (NMFS 2011). To address
8
potential drought-related exacerbation of freshwater recreational fishing impacts2, low-flow
fishing closures will be implemented for the first time on coastal rivers in Sonoma and
Mendocino counties (Sonoma County is located within the range of the CCC steelhead DPS),
which will likely lower angling pressure by banning fishing during low baseflow conditions
when adult fish (predominantly steelhead, Chinook salmon and coho salmon) are most
vulnerable to capture and harassment. In conclusion, overfishing as a threat to CCC steelhead
survival has diminished significantly since the time of initial listing.
Illegal Harvest: Freshwater poaching may occur, and losing several adult fish could
significantly impact population productivity and genetic diversity in watersheds where current
abundance is below the high risk threshold (per Spence et al. 2006). The overall risk of illegal
harvest has remained much the same since the initial listing of the species.
Scientific Collection: Since the listing of this DPS, the take of CCC steelhead for scientific
research and other purposes has been closely controlled by CDFW and NMFS through the
issuance and conditioning of collection permits via a Biological Opinion (NMFS 2012) and
approval the CDFW Research Program under 50 CFR 223.203 (promulgated by NMFS under
ESA section 4(d), this regulation includes an exception to take prohibitions for a state research
program approved by NMFS). Tracking of authorized take began in 2004. Beginning in 2009,
project applications were submitted online at the NMFS online application website
Authorizations and Permits for Protected Species (APPS). APPS has allowed for improved
annual tracking of lethal and non-lethal take requested, approved and reported for natural and
listed hatchery-origin adults, smolts and juveniles. APPS data are analyzed annually to
determine level of take for the DPS. Between 2004 and 2010, the actual reported percent
mortality of CCC steelhead juveniles and smolts for each year was at (or less than) 1 percent.
The conclusion in the Biological Opinion (NMFS 2012) is that take associated with the CDFW
2 The previous 5 year status review for CCC steelhead (NMFS 2011) identifies that periods of drought or
low flow can reduce habitat availability and concentrate fish and that this may result in increased fishing
impacts in localized areas even though overall fishing efforts may be unchanged.
9
Research Program is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of CCC steelhead. This is
consistent with the original listing (71 FR 834; January 5, 2006) which determined that
collection for scientific research and education programs was determined to have little or no
impact on populations in CCC steelhead DPS. Impacts associated with scientific collection are
believed to be unchanged since the last status review (NMFS, 2011) and not expected to be an
important source of mortality for the DPS. Thus, scientific research is not a threat under Factor
B contributing to the decline and threatened status of CCC steelhead.
Factor C: Disease or Predation

Factor C At Listing:
Disease, freshwater predation, and marine predation were identified as threats for Factor C at
listing. Specific diseases that affected steelhead were bacterial kidney disease (BKD),
ceratomyxoxis, columnaris, Furunculosis, infectious hematopoietic necrosis (IHNV), redmouth and
black spot disease, Erythrocytic Inclusion Body Syndrome (EIBS) and whirling disease. In
general, very little information existed to quantify changes in infection levels and mortality
rates attributable to these diseases. Studies showed naturally spawned fish tended to be less
susceptible to pathogens than hatchery-reared fish but could contract disease if they interbred
with infected hatchery fish. Steelhead co-evolved with specific communities of these
organisms, but the widespread use of artificial propagation introduced exotic organisms not
historically present. Juvenile steelhead infected with BKD were found unable to make
appropriate changes in kidney function for a successful transition to saltwater. Habitat
conditions, such as low water flows, high temperatures, and artificial passage routes through
man-made barriers, exacerbated susceptibility to infectious diseases.
Freshwater predation increased as a result of low flow conditions and spillways, water
conveyances or other outfalls from water development which crowded and disoriented
steelhead. Bass, channel catfish, squawfish (e.g., Sacramento pikeminnow) and others were
found to consume significant numbers of juvenile steelhead. Striped bass was of particular
concern for many watersheds including the Russian River. Predation by pinnipeds (e.g., harbor
10
seals and California sea lions, in particular) was a concern due to the increase in their numbers
along the Pacific Coast combined with the dwindling run sizes of CCC steelhead. Steelhead
historically coexisted with pinnipeds and although predation could have potentially suppressed
recovery, it was found unlikely to cause the low numbers of fish existing at the time of listing.
It was reported that predation on anadromous salmonids by harbor seals and California sea
lions at the mouth of the Russian River was minimal (Hanson 1993). Most investigators at the
time of listing considered predation to be an insignificant contribution to the large declines.
Factor C Since Listing:

Many common disease pathogens exist in wild populations of steelhead, but increased
individual resistance and natural ecological dynamics limit disease outbreaks and any resulting
population-level impacts. No new information has emerged since listing that would suggest
disease impacts have elevated in the time since, or that disease impacts are more than a minor
factor in the present depressed state of the CCC steelhead DPS.
Predation was not considered a significant threat to CCC steelhead recovery during the past
status review or at the time of listing (NMFS 2011; 71 FR 834, January 5, 2006), and there is no
information indicating that predation is a significant threat to CCC steelhead or that the risk of
predation has increased. Adult and juvenile steelhead encounter many natural predators, and
the resultant loss in abundance and productivity is likely one (albeit a minor one) of myriad
stressors preventing the species from attaining population viability. Predation by robust (per
historical standards) pinniped populations likely impact adult steelhead escapement in larger
river systems where seals/sea lions tend to aggregate (e.g., Russian River and San Lorenzo
River). However, abundant pinnipeds off the California coast are nothing new; huge
population growth was spurred by passage of the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act in
1972, suggesting that whatever impact pinniped predation may have on steelhead populations
has likely been operating at a similar level for decades. A similar conclusion can likely be
reached regarding other predators, both native and invasive. Habitat conditions, such as low
11
water flows and high temperatures, do continue to exacerbate susceptibility to both disease and
predation, however, through increased physiological stress and physical injury.
Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Factor D At Listing:
At the time of listing, a variety of state and Federal regulatory mechanisms were in place to
protect steelhead and their habitats. However, due to funding and implementation
uncertainties and the voluntary nature of many programs, those regulatory mechanisms did not
provide sufficient certainty that combined Federal and non-federal efforts were successfully
reducing threats to CCC steelhead. The following were identified as having inadequate
regulatory mechanisms at the time of listing:
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
California Fish and Game Commission
o Rearing programs
o Steelhead policy
o Water development and wetlands resources policy
California Forest Practice Rules
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
o Hatchery and Harvest Management
o State Fishing Regulations
o California Fish and Game Code Sections 1602/1603, 2786, 6900-6930
o Keene-Nielsen Fisheries Restoration Act of 1985
o Bosco-Keene Renewable Resources Investment Fund
o Salmon and Steelhead Stock Management Policy
o Steelhead Trout Catch Report-Restoration Card
o Trout and Steelhead Conservation and Management Planning Act of 1979
o Steelhead Restoration and Management Plan
o Fishery Restoration Grant Program (FRGP)
12
o California Coastal Salmonid Monitoring Program
County Planning Efforts
EPA/Water Quality
o Water Quality Programs and TMDLs
o Coastal Waters Program
o Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the San Francisco Bay-
Delta Estuary
o Wetland Protection Grants
Five Counties MOU
Gravel Mining Plans
NMFS
o ESA section 7
o Section 10 and HCPs, including Green Diamond HCP and Pacific Lumber
Company (PALCO) HCP
o Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
o California Coastal Salmonid Monitoring Program
Northcoast Regional Water Quality Control Board
Pacific Fisheries Management Council
Pacific Coast Ocean Salmon Fishery Management Plan and Magnuson-Stevens Act
RCDs, Watershed Organizations and Private Companies
US Army Corp of Engineers
o Dredge, Fill and Inwater Construction Programs
o Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
USDA Forest Service: Northwest Forest Plan and PACFISH
Factor D Since Listing:

Since listing, a number of factors outlined in the Federal Register listing CCC steelhead persist,
have improved or have been identified as not relevant. The primary regulatory mechanisms
that protect CCC steelhead are not comprehensive and are vastly different across the landscape
13
and land use type. For example: timber operations abide by Californias Forest Practice Rules
while other land uses have little to no oversight or salmonid protections rely on State
regulations or county ordinances when those mechanisms are triggered.
Federal and State Land Management: Timber harvest and associated road building was noted as a
limiting factor during listing. Federally, the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) has generally
accomplished the goal of slowing aquatic degradation that had been accelerating under
previous forest management programs (Reeves 2006). However, although the NFP generally
contains effective regulations that minimize timber harvest-related impacts that harm salmonid
habitat, its impact within the CCC steelhead DPS is rather limited given the relatively small
percentage of federal land. Recent changes to the California Forest Practice Rules have
improved riparian habitat protection on private timber lands, which make up the vast majority
of timberland in the CCC DPS. However, many of these riparian-specific rule changes were not
adopted in the forest district that overlies the southern portion of the ESU, meaning riparian
habitats in this area are not protected to the same degree as districts located farther north.
Aside from updates to the California Forest Practice Rules, few changes to state land
management programs have occurred since the last status review in 2011. Sonoma County
adopted their Vineyard Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (VESCO) in 2012 that aims to
reduce sediment discharge into stream resulting from vineyard and orchard development.
While VESCO may minimize potential erosion from these activities (both NMFS and CDFW
formally questioned various ordinance underpinnings), the ordinance nevertheless fails to
analyze the impact a vineyards future water use may have on adjacent streams. San Mateo and
Santa Cruz counties have grading ordinances or regulations less protective of aquatic habitat
than Sonoma County, and Mendocino County has no ordinance or effective regulation
concerning agricultural grading.
Regulating and managing marijuana cultivation, while not specifically a land management
issue, is nevertheless critically important in the effort to minimize environmental damage
resulting from illegal marijuana grows. The issue of marijuana regulation will likely be a
14
contentious topic in the coming few years -- a ballot initiative legalizing recreational use of
marijuana is expected on the state ballot in 2016, and a legislative effort to craft a bill legalizing
recreational use may gain traction in 2015. While these political efforts may dramatically
change the marijuana cultivation landscape in California, the efficacy of any regulatory scheme
to minimize grow-related environmental impacts would depend on specific details unknown at
this time. Having environmental advocates (i.e., resource agencies or environmental NGOs)
included as part of any legislative deliberations on the subject is critical toward crafting strong
legalization laws that adequately and effectively minimize grow-related impacts.
Federal and State Water Management: Groundwater regulation and management should improve
in the coming decades following the 2014 passage of the Groundwater Sustainability
Management Act; however, surface water throughout the state is heavily over-allocated
(Grantham and Viers 2014), and little change to the regulatory status quo concerning surface
water rights and permitting is expected in the near future. As the state adapts to future climate
variability combined with a period of accelerated population growth, the demands placed upon
streams and rivers for surface water supplies will likely grow. Most large rivers and stream in
the CCC steelhead DPS are listed by the Environmental Protection Agency and State Water
Quality Control Board as impaired for temperature and sediment pollution (per Section 303(d)
of the Clean Water Act3). Many of the waterbodies listed will have Total Maximum Daily Loads
identified, and an action plan for achieving that load, by 2019, which when implemented will
improve salmonid habitat in affected streams.
Dredge, fill and instream construction programs: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, through their
authority under the Clean Water Act, regulates dredge and fill within the ordinary high water
mark of streams, rivers, wetlands, and other waterbodies. Likewise, CDFW performs a similar
role for the state through their Streambed Alteration Agreement program (Fish and Game Code
section 1602). Though both these programs analyze potential environmental impacts of the
3Information on the 303(d) list can be found at:

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml
15
instream dredging, fill, and construction project in question, damage from upslope land grading
remains largely under county oversight and is not properly analyzed or considered.
Factor E: Other Natural and Man-made Factors Affecting the Species Continued
Existence
Factor E At Listing:
The manmade factors of artificial propagation and hatchery programs and the natural factors of
drought, floods, El Nino events, climatic conditions, fires, variability in natural environmental
conditions and ocean conditions were identified as threats under Factor E at the time of listing.
Artificial propagation was identified as negatively affecting wild stocks of salmonids through
interactions with non-native fish, introductions of disease, genetic changes, competition for
space and food resources, straying and mating with native populations, loss of local genetic
adaptations, mortality associated with capture for broodstock and palliating the destruction of
habitat and concealing problems facing wild stocks. In conjunction with the status review for
the CCC steelhead DPS (Good et al. 2005), NMFS reviewed all available information on hatchery
stocks and programs within the range of the DPS. This review and analysis concluded that two
artificially propagated hatchery stocks (Don Clausen Fish Hatchery and the Scott
Creek/Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project) were closely related to naturally spawning
populations in the DPS (SSHAG 2003) based on genetic information, the source of the brood
stock, and the hatchery management practices. The hatcheries were managed as conservation
facilities and not for fishing supplementation. In accordance with NMFS 2006 hatchery listing
policy, these two hatchery stocks were found to be part of this DPS and subsequently evaluated
as part of the listing process. Based on this review and evaluation, these two hatchery stocks
(Don Clausen Fish Hatchery and the Scott Creek/Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project) were
ultimately included in the listed DPS in 2006 (71 FR 834).
Persistent drought conditions were found to further reduce already limited spawning, rearing
and migration habitats. Drought conditions combined with agriculture and urban water use
16
was identified as likely to result in substantial reduction or elimination of water flows in
streams needed by all life stages of steelhead. Flooding was found to contribute sediment to
already degraded habitats as northern California has some of the most erodible terrain in the
world. Wildfires were identified as contributing to short-term sediment runoff to streams and
chemical agents used to control fires have degraded water quality conditions.
Decreased ocean productivity and lower ocean survival of steelhead combined with lower
freshwater survival due to degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats were found to
be significant factors for decline.
Factor E Since Listing:

An assessment of the two ongoing hatchery programs, Don Clausen Fish Hatchery and the
Scott Creek/Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project, was conducted and both hatchery
programs continue to be operational and propagate stocks that are part of the DPS. The two
artificial propagation programs discussed above are likely to provide some limited benefits to
the CCC steelhead DPS viability by contributing to local population abundance, however these
programs do not substantially reduce extinction risk to the CCC steelhead DPS. Genetic
diversity risk associated with out-of-basin transfers appears to be minimal, but diversity risk
from domestication selection and low effective population sizes in the remaining hatchery
programs is a concern. Broodstock collection is closely monitored and constrained to minimize
impacts to this DPS. Disease transmission (including BKD) has been substantially reduced due
to strict screening and treatment protocols. CDFW has adopted policies designed to ensure
artificial propagation measures are conducted in a manner consistent with the conservation and
recovery of natural, indigenous steelhead stocks. The careful monitoring and management of
current programs, and the continued scrutiny of proposed programs, are necessary to minimize
impacts on listed salmonid species.
The natural factors of ocean conditions, El Nino events, terrestrial conditions, floods, droughts
and fire remain as threats contributing to the threatened status of CCC steelhead. Many
17
populations have declined in abundance to levels that are well below low-risk extinction risk
abundance targets, and several are, if not extirpated, likely below the high-risk depensation
thresholds specified by Spence et al. (2008). These populations are at risk from natural
stochastic processes, in addition to deterministic threats, that may make recovery of CCC
steelhead more difficult. As natural populations get smaller, stochastic processes may cause
alterations in genetics, breeding structure, and population dynamics that may interfere with the
success of recovery efforts and need to be considered when evaluating how populations
respond to recovery actions.
Protective Efforts for CCC Steelhead

Provided below is a list of the organizations and their protective efforts at, and since, listing.
Table 1: Protective Efforts in 2014

Organization Protective Effort Status in 2015 Notes
Identified at Listing
Association of Conducting restoration Conducting restoration for CCC Benefits CCC
California Water efforts steelhead steelhead
Agencies
Bring Back the Will improve the status of Provides funds for conservation of Not a benefit
Natives: National native aquatic species on fish habitat; No projects for CCC
Fish and Wildlife public land steelhead identified
Foundation
CalTrout Unspecified Voluntary efforts and funding Unknown
Fish Friendly Provides guidance and Currently program has properties Benefiting Russian
Farming certification to grape only in the Russian River River and Napa
growers to manage lands River CCC steelhead
and use practices which populations
decrease soil erosion and
sediment delivery to
streams
FishNet 4C Multicounty effort to Defunded and no longer an active No longer active
enhance and protect program
salmonid habitats
Gravel Mining Plans Unspecified See Factor D discussion N/A
18
National Parks Directs management to The Park conducts restoration, Beneficial to
Service: Redwood restore aquatic and monitoring, and outreach for salmon Redwood Creek
National Park terrestrial ecological and steelhead in Redwood Creek CCC steelhead
functions
Watershed Groups Unspecified Many watershed groups are Benefits to CCC
conducting outreach, securing funds, steelhead
implementing restoration actions
and are contributing to CCC
steelhead recovery in meaningful
ways.
Protective Efforts Since Listing: While many protective efforts are in place to restore and protect
CCC steelhead habitats, NMFS has not analyzed the certainty of their implementation and
effectiveness to support a conclusion whether these efforts ameliorate the threats associated
with the five section 4(a)(1) factors.
DPS RECOVERY GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA

Recovery goals, objectives and criteria provide a means by which the public can measure
progress and are used to link listing with status reviews and reclassification determinations.
We developed eight categories of recovery criteria for the CCC steelhead DPS: biological
viability, criteria for each of the five listing factors, degree recovery actions have been
implemented, and certainty conservation efforts are ameliorating threats.
The goal for this plan is to remove the CCC steelhead DPS from the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11; 50 CFR 223.102) due to their recovery. Our vision is to
have restored freshwater and estuarine habitats that are supporting self-sustaining, well-
distributed and naturally spawning salmonid populations that provide ecological, cultural,
social and economic benefits to the people of California.
Recovery plan objectives are to:
1. Reduce the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or
range;
2. Ameliorate utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
3. Abate disease and predation;
19
4. Establish the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for protecting CCC steelhead
now and into the future (i.e., post-delisting);
5. Address other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of CCC
steelhead; and
6. Ensure CCC steelhead status is at a low risk of extinction based on abundance, growth
rate, spatial structure and diversity.
BIOLOGICAL RECOVERY CRITERIA

Populations selected for recovery scenarios must achieve the following criteria based on their
role in recovery. Populations selected for recovery scenarios in all the diversity strata of the
DPS or ESU must meet these criteria in order for the DPS or ESU to meet biological recovery
criteria.
BR1 Low Extinction Risk Criteria: For the essential independent populations selected
to be viable, the low extinction risk criteria for effective population size,
population decline, catastrophic decline, hatchery influence and density-based
spawner abundances must be met according to Spence et al.(2008) (See Vol. 1
Chapter 3).
AND
BR2 Moderate Extinction Risk Criteria: Spawner density abundance targets have
been achieved for Supporting Independent populations
AND
BR3 Redundancy and Occupancy Criteria: Spawner density and abundance targets
for dependent populations, which are the occupancy goals for each of those
populations, have been achieved (See the discussion of Spence et al. (2008) in Vol.
1 Chapter 3).
AND
BR4 For the Pinole Creek, San Pedro Creek, Drakes Bay, Wildcat Creek, and
Codornices Creek dependent populations, that did not have IP developed for
them by the SWFSC, confirm presence of steelhead juveniles and/or adults for at
least one year class over 4 generations (i.e., a 16 year period).
20
The selected populations and associated recovery criteria for the CCC Steelhead DPS (See also
Table 2):
a. Selected populations in all five Diversity Strata achieving biological recovery criteria;
b. BR-1 28 essential independent populations attaining a low extinction risk (i.e., Corte
Madera Creek, Guadalupe River, Novato Creek, San Francisquito Creek, Stevens
Creek, Dry Creek, Maacama Creek, Mark West Creek, Upper Russian River,
Alameda Creek, Coyote Creek, Green Valley/Suisun Creek, Napa River, Petaluma
River, Sonoma Creek, Austin Creek, Green Valley Creek, Lagunitas Creek, Salmon
Creek, Walker Creek, Aptos Creek, Pescadero Creek, Pilarcitos Creek, San Gregorio
Creek, San Lorenzo River, Scott Creek, Soquel Creek and Waddell Creek);
c. BR-2: Five supporting independent populations attaining moderate extinction risk
criteria (i.e., San Mateo Creek, San Leandro Creek, San Lorenzo Creek, Americano
Creek and Laguna Creek); and
d. BR-3: 18 supporting dependent populations contributing to redundancy and
occupancy criteria (i.e., Miller Creek (Marin Co.), Arroyo Corte de Madera Creek;
Crocker Creek, Gill Creek, Miller Creek (Russian), Sausal Creek, San Pablo Creek,
Dutch Bill Creek (Russian), Freezeout Creek (Russian), Hulbert Creek (Russian), Pine
Gulch, Porter Creek (Russian), Redwood Creek (Marin Co.), Sheephouse Creek
(Russian), Willow Creek (Russian), Gazos Creek, San Vicente Creek, and Tunitas
Creek).
e. BR-4: Five supporting dependent populations that did not have IP developed for
them by the SWFSC, contributing to the redundancy and occupancy criteria;
Codornices Creek, Pinole Creek, Wildcat Creek, Drakes Bay tributaries, and San
Pedro Creek
21
Table 2: CCC steelhead DPS Diversity Strata, Populations, Historical Status, Populations Role
in Recovery, Current IP-km, and Spawner Density and Abundance Targets for Delisting. *IP
was not developed for these populations by the SWFSC.
Historical Populations Current

Diversity CCC Steelhead Population Role In Weighted Spawner Spawner
Strata Population Status Recovery IP-km Density Abundance
North Austin Creek I Essential 95.1 29.0 2,800

Coastal
Drakes Bay Tributaries* D Supporting N/A N/A N/A
Dutch Bill Creek D Supporting 13.2 6-12 77-156
Estero Americano Creek I Supporting 35.4 6-12 210-423
Freezeout Creek D Supporting 1.2 6-12 5-12
Green Valley Creek I Essential 37.1 38.8 1,400
Hulbert Creek D Supporting 10.2 6-12 59-120
Lagunitas Creek I Essential 85.0 30.4 2,600
Pine Gulch D Supporting 9.7 6-12 56-114
Porter Creek D Supporting 10.3 6-12 60-122
Redwood Creek (Marin D Supporting 6.7 6-12 38-78

Co.)
Salmon Creek I Essential 33.6 37.6 1,300
Sheephouse Creek D Supporting 3.7 6-12 20-42
Walker Creek I Essential 73.3 32 2,300
Willow Creek D Supporting 8.2 6-12 47-96
North Coastal Diversity Stratum Recovery Target 10,400
Interior Crocker Creek D Supporting 4.5 6-12 25-52
Dry Creek I Essential 115.9 26.1 3,000
Gill Creek D Supporting 8.1 6-12 47-95
Maacama Creek I Essential 76.2 31.6 2,400
Mark West Creek I Essential 164.2 20 3,300
22
Miller Creek (Russian) D Supporting 3.1 6-12 17-35
Sausal Creek D Supporting 11.1 6-12 65-131
Upper Russian River I Essential 422.9 20 8,500
Interior Diversity Stratum Recovery Target 17,200
Coastal S.F. Arroyo Corte Madera del D Supporting 6.8 6-12 39-80
Bay Presidio
Corte Madera Creek I Essential 19.8 39.5 800
Guadalupe River I Essential 50.8 35.2 1,800
Miller Creek (Marin Co.) D Supporting 9.1 6-12 53-107
Novato Creek I Essential 28.7 38.2 1,100
San Francisquito Creek I Essential 35.6 37.3 1,300
San Mateo Creek I Supporting 6.7 6-12 38-78
Stevens Creek I Essential 22.7 39.1 900
Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum Recovery Target 5,900
Interior S.F. Alameda Creek I Essential 108.3 27.2 2,900

Bay
Codornices Creek* D Supporting N/A N/A N/A
Coyote Creek I Essential 109.3 27.0 3,000
Green Valley/Suisun I Essential 64.3 33.3 2,100

Creek
Napa River I Essential 233.2 20 4,700
Petaluma River I Essential 64.9 33.2 2,200
Pinole Creek* D Supporting N/A N/A N/A
San Leandro Creek I Supporting 5.4 6-12 30-63
San Lorenzo Creek I Supporting 18.6 6-12 110-221
San Pablo Creek I Supporting 8.6 6-12 50-101
Sonoma Creek I Essential 128.7 24.3 3,100
Wildcat Creek* D Supporting N/A N/A N/A
23
Interior San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum Recovery Target 18,000
Santa Cruz Aptos Creek I Essential 25.1 38.7 1,000

Mountains
Gazos Creek D Supporting 12.5 6-12 73-148
Laguna Creek I Supporting 4.5 6-12 25-52
Pescadero Creek I Essential 66.1 33.0 2,200
Pilarcitos Creek I Essential 28.5 38.3 1,100
San Gregorio Creek I Essential 46.6 35.7 1,700
San Lorenzo River I Essential 146.2 21.9 3,200
San Pedro Creek* D Supporting N/A N/A N/A
San Vicente Creek D Supporting 5.7 6-12 32-66
Scott Creek I Essential 16.4 39.9 700
Soquel Creek I Essential 52.0 35 1,800
Tunitas Creek D Supporting 10.7 6-12 62-126
Waddell Creek I Essential 10.8 40 500
Santa Cruz Mountains Diversity Stratum Recovery Target 12,200
CCC Steelhead DPS Recovery Target 63,600
ESA 4(A)(1) FACTORS RECOVERY CRITERIA

The following are the recovery criteria for the section ESA 4(a)(1) listing factors. The primary
metrics for assessing whether each of the listing factor criteria have been achieved will be to
utilize the CAP analyses to reassess habitat attribute and threat conditions in the future, and
track the implementation of identified recovery actions unless otherwise found unnecessary.
All recovery actions were assigned to a specific section 4(a)(1) listing factor in order to track
progress of implementation of actions for each factor. Recovery Action Priorities are assigned
to each action step in the implementation table in accordance with NMFS Interim Recovery
24
Planning Guidance (NMFS 2010a) and the NMFS Endangered and Threatened Species Listing
and Recovery Priority Guidelines (55 FR 24296) (See Chapter 4 for more information).
Factor A: Present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of habitat or

range
A1 CAP/Rapid Assessment attribute ratings for:
a. Essential Populations found Good or better for all attributes in each Stratum.
b. Supporting Populations found Good or better for 50 percent4 and the
remaining rated Fair throughout the DPS/ESU.
A2 All recovery actions have been implemented under Listing Factor A, or the
actions are deemed no longer necessary for recovery.
Listing Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or

Educational Purposes
B1 CAP/Rapid Assessment threat ratings for Fishing and Collecting:

a. Essential and Supporting Populations found Medium or Low.
B2 All recovery actions have been implemented under Listing Factor B, or the
Listing Factor C: Disease, Predation and Competition
C1 CAP/Rapid Assessment threat ratings for Disease, Predation and Competition:

C2 All recovery actions have been implemented under Listing Factor C, or the
4 The role of supporting populations within the recovery scenario is to provide for redundancy and
occupancy across Diversity Stratum. Because of their role, we use lower criteria for Factor A (i.e., 50
percent as Good or better and the remaining as Fair). A Fair CAP/rapid assessment rating means that
habitat conditions, while impaired to some degree, are functioning. Therefore, at least all habitat
conditions are expected to function within these populations, and at least half are expected to be in
proper condition (i.e., Good), which NMFS expects will be sufficient for these populations to fulfill their
role within the recovery scenario.
25
Listing Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
D1 CAP/Rapid Assessment threat ratings related to Listing Factor D (see list below):
Listing Factor D Threats

Agriculture
Channel Modification
Fire, Fuel Management and Fire Suppression
Livestock Farming and Ranching
Logging and Wood Harvesting
Mining
Residential and Commercial Development
Roads and Railroads
Water Diversions and Impoundments
D2 All recovery actions have been implemented under Listing Factor D, or the
Listing Factor E: Other Natural and Manmade Factors Affecting the Species
Continued Decline
E1 CAP/Rapid Assessment threat ratings for Hatcheries and Aquaculture,
Recreational Areas and Activities, and Severe Weather Patterns:
E2 All recovery actions have been implemented under Listing Factor E, or the
CONSERVATION EFFORTS
CE1 Formalized conservation efforts applicable to the ESU or DPS have been
implemented and are effective in ameliorating any remaining threats associated
with the five section 4(a)(1) factors.
26
DPS AND DIVERSITY STRATA
RESULTS
All CAP viability and threat tables were assembled for the CCC steelhead DPS to evaluate
patterns in the DPS across Diversity Strata and populations. Attribute and threat results are
discussed first for Diversity Strata followed by results across life stages for the DPS. A subset of
CAP indicators and threat results were evaluated under a climate change scenario and are
provided in Appendix B.
DIVERSITY STRATA ATTRIBUTE AND THREAT RESULTS

The delineation of the CCC steelhead DPS Diversity Strata was based on environmental and
ecological similarities and life history differences. Five strata were identified by Bjorkstedt et al.
(2005): North Coastal, Interior, Santa Cruz Mountains, Coastal San Francisco Bay and Interior
San Francisco Bay.
Attribute Results
Across strata, the Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Strata had the highest percentage of Poor
or Fair attribute indicator ratings (92%, of which 53% were Poor), followed by the Interior San
Francisco Bay (86%) and Interior strata (81%) (Figure 2). Current conditions in the North
Coastal and Santa Cruz Mountains strata were rated similarly with 65% and 67% of attribute
indicators rated Poor or Fair respectively. Figure 2 shows the percentage of ratings for Very
Good, Good, Fair and Poor for each Stratum in the DPS.
27
Figure 2: Attribute Indicator ratings for the CCC steelhead DPS by Diversity Strata.
Threat Results
The Interior San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum received the highest percentage of Very High
and High threat ratings (43%) followed by the Santa Cruz Mountains (41%) and Coastal San
Francisco Bay strata (36%) (Figure 3). The North Coastal Diversity Strata had the fewest
combined Very High and High threat ratings (27%) followed by the Interior Diversity Stratum
(29%), which was the only strata that did not receive a Very High threat rating (Figure 3).
28
Figure 3: CCC steelhead DPS Diversity Strata Threat ratings.
NORTH COASTAL DIVERSITY STRATUM RESULTS

The North Coastal Diversity Stratum is influenced by the coastal climate conditions of Marin
and southern Sonoma counties (Figure 1). CAP populations in the North Coastal stratum
include: Austin Creek, Green Valley Creek, Salmon Creek, Walker Creek, and Lagunitas Creek.
These coastal watersheds have little urban development with ranching, logging, agriculture and
parklands as the dominant land uses.
Attribute Results
Although the North Coastal Diversity Stratum received the fewest combined indicators rated as
Poor or Fair (65%) and Poor alone (35%) of any strata in the DPS (Figure 2, Figure 4 and Table
3), habitat conditions throughout much of these populations are degraded. In general, attribute
indicators of greatest concern for all life stages included estuary/lagoon (quality and extent),
indicators related to in-stream habitat complexity, riparian vegetation (tree diameter), sediment
29
transport (road density, particularly streamside road density), velocity refuge (floodplain
connectivity), and in Walker Creek, water quality (turbidity and toxicity). Indicators of least
concern across the DPS included those associated with hydrology, landscape patterns,
passage/migration (except Green Valley Creek), and water toxicity with the exception of Walker
Creek (Table 3).
Life Stage Results

In the North Coastal stratum, more than 50% of indicator ratings for each life stage were rated
as Poor or Fair and more than 60% for 4 of the 5 life stages (Figure 4). Winter rearing juveniles
are the most impaired life stage with 76% of indicators rated as Poor or Fair followed closely by
summer rearing juveniles with 69%. Nearly half (49%) of the indicators for watershed process
were rated either Poor or Fair, of which 29% were rated Poor. Across the stratum, indicators of
concern for the adult life stage were those associated with a lack of habitat complexity,
diminished floodplain connectivity, small riparian tree diameter, degraded substrate quality,
and in Green Valley and Walker creeks, reduced viability (abundance, smolts and density,
adults) (Table 4). Impaired gravel quantity and quality necessary for successful spawning and
egg incubation were the indicators identified as most limiting for the egg life stage, particularly
in the Green Valley Creek and Walker Creek populations. For summer rearing juveniles, winter
rearing juveniles, and smolts, degraded estuary/lagoon quality and extent (summer rearing
juveniles and smolts only), and reduced in-stream habitat complexity were common
impairments. For summer and winter rearing jueniles, all populations were rated Poor for
riparian vegetation (tree diameter). Reduced viability (abundance) is a concern for smolts in
Green Valley and Walker creeks. Streamside road density was rated Poor in all populations.
30
Figure 4: Attribute Indicator Ratings for the North Coastal Diversity Stratum Conservation
Targets.
Threat Results
Throughout the stratum, the percentage of threats rated Very High or High was 26% (Figure 5).
Threats of greatest concern were roads and railroads and residential and commercial
development, followed by agriculture and channel modification (Figure 5 and Table 5). With
the exception of Walker Creek (Medium), all populations were rated High for roads and
railroads (Table 5).
31
Figure 5: Threat ratings for the North Coastal Diversity Stratum.
32
INTERIOR DIVERSITY STRATUM RESULTS
The Interior Diversity Stratum consists of four CAP steelhead populations all within the interior
of the Russian River Watershed: Mark West Creek, Dry Creek, Maacama Creek, and the Upper
Russian River (Figure 1). Agriculture (primarily vineyards), livestock farming and ranching,
mining (primarily instream gravel mining), rural residential, and minor timber harvest are the
primary land uses. The City of Santa Rosa, located adjacent to Mark West Creek, is the largest
urban center in the DPS and there are several smaller suburban communities throughout the
Russian River valley floor.
Attribute Results
Based on the CAP viability results, the Interior Diversity Stratum is highly impacted with more
than 80% of attribute indicator ratings as Poor or Fair (Figure 2). Steelhead from each of the
four populations in the stratum utilize the same estuary which was rated Poor for summer
rearing juveniles and Fair for smolts. Other attribute indicators that were largely rated Poor or
Fair throughout the stratum and across life stages were habitat complexity (large wood
frequency, percent primary pools, shelter rating), hydrology (baseflow conditions), riparian
vegetation (tree diameter), sediment quality (embeddedness), sediment transport (streamside
road density), velocity refuge (floodplain connectivity), and water quality (water temperature
and toxicity). Indicators that were less impaired included hydrology (impervious surfaces),
landscape patterns (agriculture, timber, and urbanization), passage/migration (physical
barriers), and water temperatures for smoltification (Table 3).
Life Stage Results

Across the stratum, each of the target life stages are impaired with more than 80% of all
attribute indicators rated as Poor or Fair for each life stage (Figure 6 and Table 4). Eggs were
the most impacted life stage with 94% of attribute indicators rated as Poor or Fair, followed by
winter rearing juveniles (90%) and summer rearing juveniles (88%) (Figure 6). Watershed
processes overall had 39% of attribute indicators rated as Poor or Fair and sediment transport
33
(streamside road density) was rated Poor in all but one population in the stratum (Upper
Russian River). Like other strata, attribute indicators of greatest concern for the adult life stage
are habitat complexity (large wood frequency, percent staging pools, pool/riffle/flatwater ratio),
riparian vegetation (tree diameter), and velocity refuge (floodplain connectivity). For eggs,
gravel quality (embeddedness) was rated Poor for all populations except Maacama Creek (Fair)
and both redd scour and gravel quantity were rated Poor or Fair in all populations. In addition
to the indicators for adult and egg life stages, estuary/lagoon (quality and extent), riparian
vegetation (canopy cover), water temperature, and viability (low density) were also mostly
rated Poor or Fair for summer rearing juveniles. Meanwhile, habitat complexity (large wood
frequency, shelter), riparian tree diameter, substrate (embeddedness), and velocity refuge
(floodplain connectivity) are the most limiting for winter rearing juveniles. For smolts, habitat
complexity (shelter rating) was rated Poor for all populations, while estuary/lagoon, hydrology,
toxicity, and low viability (low abundance) were rated Fair in all populations.
Figure 6: Attribute Indicator Ratings for the Interior Diversity Stratum Conservation Targets.
34
Threat Results
Despite the degraded habitat conditions reported for all life stages throughout the stratum (see
Figure 6), the threat ratings for the Interior Diversity Stratum were fairly positive with 70% of
the threats rated as Low (33%) or Medium (Figure 7 and Table 5). No threats were rated Very
High. Those that received a High rating (28%) were agriculture (all populations), channel
modification, residential and commercial development, roads and railroads, and water
diversions and impoundments.
35
Figure 7: Threat ratings for the Interior Diversity Stratum.
36
SANTA CRUZ MOUNTAINS DIVERSITY STRATUM RESULTS
The Santa Cruz Mountains Diversity Stratum includes eight populations of coastal San Mateo
and Santa Cruz counties (Figure 1). These include (from north to south) the Pilarcitos Creek,
San Gregorio Creek, Pescadero Creek, Waddell Creek, Scott Creek, San Lorenzo River, Soquel
Creek, and Aptos Creek populations. Primary land uses in this region include agriculture,
livestock farming and ranching, parklands, and minor timber harvest. Urban and suburban
development is largely concentrated along the coast within the cities of Half Moon Bay and
Santa Cruz, with smaller and more isolated communities scattered throughout the DPS.
Attribute Results
Across strata, the Santa Cruz Mountains had the second lowest percentage of Poor or Fair
indicator ratings (67%), of which 36% were rated Poor (Figure 2). Estuary/lagoon was rated
Poor or Fair for all applicable life stages and populations with the exception of Pescadero Creek
which was rated Good for the smolt life stage (Table 3). Other attributes with a large
percentage of Poor or Fair ratings across the stratum were habitat complexity, riparian
vegetation (canopy cover and tree diameter), gravel quality, streamside road density, viability
(low abundance and density), and water quality (toxicity, turbidity). Pilarcitos Creek is the
most impacted of the populations with 86% of its attribute indicators rated Poor or Fair and 63%
rated Poor alone. Most populations and life stages in the Santa Cruz Mountains Diversity
Stratum were rated Good or better for attribute indicators related to hydrology (impervious
surfaces, passage flows), landscape patterns, and passage/migration (Table 3). Exceptions for
landscape patterns were urbanization (Pilarcitos Creek, San Lorenzo River, Soquel Creek and
Aptos Creek) and agriculture (Pilarcitos Creek). Water temperature conditions for
smoltification were rated Good or better for all populations in the stratum.
Life Stage Results

In the Santa Cruz Mountain Diversity Stratum, all life stages are impaired with 61% or more of
attribute indicators rated as Poor or Fair for each life stage (Figure 8). Eggs (84%) were rated the
37
most impaired life stage, followed by winter rearing juveniles (78%). Streamside road density
was rated Poor for all populations and is the most concerning of the watershed processes in the
stratum. Results on indicators limiting individual life stages were similar for other strata.
Adults are most limited by habitat complexity, turbidity, and to a lesser extent, low viability,
and eggs are most limited by gravel quantity and quality as well as a high potential for redd
scour (Table 4). Estuary/lagoon quality and extent, habitat complexity, sediment (gravel
embeddedness), water temperature, and low densities of fish are of greatest concern for
summer rearing juveniles, while winter rearing juveniles are most limited by reduced habitat
complexity, high gravel embeddedness, and turbidity. The smolt life stage is most impacted by
poor estuarine habitat, degraded in-stream shelter conditions, elevated turbidity, and reduced
abundance. All populations in the stratum were rated Poor for streamside road densities and
half of the populations were rated Poor for urbanization.
Figure 8: Attribute Indicator Ratings for the Santa Cruz Mountains Diversity Stratum
Conservation Targets.
38
Threat Results
The percentage of threats in the Santa Cruz Mountains Diversity Stratum rated Very High or
High (41%), which is substantially greater than the North Coastal Diversity Strata (26%) (Figure
9). Roads and railroads was rated Very High or High for all populations. With the exception of
Waddell and Scott creeks, residential and commercial development was rated Very High or
High. Also, severe weather patterns and water diversions and impoundments were rated Very
High or High in nearly all populations (Table 5). In Pilarcitos Creek, channel modification and
agriculture were rated Very High. Threats of minimal concern throughout the stratum were
disease, predation and competition, fishing and collecting, hatcheries and aquaculture, livestock
and farming and ranching, and mining.
39
Figure 9: Threat ratings for the Santa Cruz Mountains Diversity Stratum.
40
COASTAL SAN FRANCISCO BAY DIVERSITY STRATUM RESULTS
CAP steelhead populations in the Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum are located along
the eastern slopes of the coastal mountain ranges of San Francisco Bay (Figure 1). These include
Novato and Corte Madera creeks in Marin County and San Francisquito Creek, Stevens Creek
and the Guadalupe River in Santa Clara County. The stratum is heavily urbanized, particularly
within the foothill and lowland areas near the Bay.
Attribute Results
The Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum is the most impaired stratum in the DPS with
92% of its attribute indicators rated Poor or Fair and 53% rated Poor alone (Figure 2). A lack of
large wood, the vast extent of urbanization, high road density (including streamside road
density), and low density and abundance for multiple life stages were all rated Poor throughout
the stratum (Table 3). Estuary ratings were Poor for all populations and life stages with the
only exception being Novato Creek for smolts. Within the stratum, much of the historic tidal
marshes and mudflats along the edges of San Francisco Bay have been lost to urban
development and the streams entering the Bay have been channelized and isolated from the
remaining marshlands. Only landscape patterns (extent of agriculture and timber harvest) were
rated favorably throughout the stratum.
Life Stage Results

Throughout the stratum, all life stages are severely impacted by the current habitat conditions.
Adults and winter rearing juveniles are the most impacted with 98% of attribute indicators
rated Poor or Fair, of which more than half were rated Poor alone (Figure 10 and Table 3).
Watershed processes are also severely impacted with most (74%) rated Poor or Fair of which
60% were rated Poor.
41
Figure 10: Attribute Indicator Ratings for the Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum
conservation targets.
Threat Results
Throughout the Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum, channel modification, residential
and commercial development, roads and railroads, and water diversions and impoundments
were identified as the most significant threats based on the frequency of Very High and High
ratings (Figure 11 and Table 5). These ratings stem from the wide extent of urbanization across
the landscape. While most of the urban development occurred several decades ago, it will
continue to limit the quality and extent of stream habitats in the future.
42
Figure 11: Threat ratings for the Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum.
43
INTERIOR SAN FRANCISCO BAY DIVERSITY STRATUM RESULTS
The Interior San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum includes the following CAP steelhead
populations: Petaluma River and Sonoma Creek (southern Sonoma County), Napa River (Napa
County), Green Valley/Suisun Creek (Solano County), Alameda Creek (Alameda County), and
Coyote Creek (Santa Clara County) (Figure 1). Agriculture, livestock farming and ranching,
parklands, along with urban development are the common land uses in the stratum.
Attribute Results
Similar to the coast side of the Bay, the Interior San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum is heavily
impacted with 86% of attribute indicators rated Poor or Fair and nearly half (47%) rated Poor
(Figure 2 and Table 3). Overall, attribute ratings were similar to those for the Coastal San
Francisco Bay stratum with notable differences for hydrology (impervious surfaces) and
passage/migration (Table 3). Estuary ratings for summer rearing juveniles were Poor for all
populations. Based on the number of Poor ratings alone, Coyote Creek (62%) is the most
impacted population in the stratum.
Life Stage Results

All life stages in the Interior San Francisco Bay stratum are severely impacted with 88% or more
attribute indicator ratings reported as Poor or Fair (Figure 12 and Table 4). Adults are the most
impacted life stage with 92% of indicators rated Poor or Fair followed closely by smolts (91%)
and winter rearing juveniles (90%). The high percentages of Poor and Fair ratings are attributed
to the overall degraded quality of multiple habitat attributes and watershed processes
impacting each life stage throughout the stratum.
44
Figure 12: Attribute Indicator Ratings for the Interior San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum
Conservation Targets.
Threat Results
According to the CAP analysis 44% of the threats are considered Very High or High to
steelhead populations in the Interior San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum (Figure 13). Water
diversions and impoundments, residential and commercial development, roads and railroads,
and channel modification were rated the most severe threats. Urban development in the
Interior San Francisco Bay stratum is less extensive and concentrated than in the Coastal San
Francisco Bay stratum. As a result, land uses such as agriculture, livestock farming and
ranching, and mining remain with some populations rated Very High or High for these threats
(Figure 13 and Table 5).
45
Figure 13: Threat ratings for the Interior San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum.
46
DPS CAP VIABILITY RESULTS
Attributes
Throughout the DPS and across life stages, indicators most impacted are those associated
estuary/lagoon quality and extent, habitat complexity, sediment quality and quantity, and
sediment transport (road density, streamside road density) (Table 3). Overall, timber harvest
was rated Fair or better in all populations throughout the DPS with most rated Good or Very
Good, and indicators associated with hydrology, passage/migration, viability, and water quality
are more impacted in strata draining to San Francisco Bay (Table 3). Riparian tree diameter was
rated Poor in all populations north of San Francisco Bay and Fair or better in most populations
south of San Francisco Bay (exceptions being San Francisquito and Coyote creeks). Substrate
quality in relation to food productivity is a concern for multiple life stages in many populations
throughout the DPS, particularly in the Santa Cruz Mountains Diversity Stratum. Water
temperatures for smoltification were rated Fair or better in all populations except for Walker
and Corte Madera creeks.

Table 3: CCC steelhead DPS CAP Viability Summary by Attribute.
CCC Steelhead by Diversity Strata and Population North Coastal Interior Santa Cruz Mountains Coastal S. F. Bay Interior S. F. Bay

Upper Russian River
San Gregorio Creek
Corte Madera Creek

Green Valley Creek
San Lorenzo River
Guadalupe River
Pescadero Creek
Mark West Creek
Lagunitas Creek
Maacama Creek
Pilarcitos Creek
Petaluma River
Alameda Creek
Sonoma Creek
Waddell Creek
Stevens Creek
Salmon Creek
Novato Creek
Coyote Creek
Soquel Creek
Walker Creek
Austin Creek
Aptos Creek
Scott Creek
Napa River
Dry Creek
Target Attribute Indicator
Summer Rearing Juveniles Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent P P P F F P P P P P F F F F F F F P P P P P P P P P P P
Smolts Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent F F P P F F F F F P F G F P F F F P F P P P F F F F P P
Adults Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 0-10 meters) P P P P P P P F P P P P F F P P F P P F F P P P F P P F

Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 0-10 meters) P P P P P P P F P P P P F F P P F P P F F P P P F P F F
Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 0-10 meters) P P P P P P P F P P P F F F P P F P P F F P P P F P F F
Adults Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 10-100 meters) F P P P F P F P P P P P F P P P G P P P P P P P P P P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 10-100 meters) F P P P F P F P P P P P F P P P G P P P P P P P F P F P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 10-100 meters) F P P P F P F P P P P P F P P P G P P P P P P P P P F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Percent Primary Pools F F G P G P P F P P P P G G F F P P P F F G P P P G F P
Adults Habitat Complexity Pool/Riffle/Flatw ater Ratio G P F P F P F F P P F G G P F P P P P F F F P F F P F P

Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Pool/Riffle/Flatw ater Ratio G P F P F P F F P P F G G P F P P P P P F G P F F P F P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Pool/Riffle/Flatw ater Ratio G P F P F P F F P P F G G P F P P P P F F F P F F P F P
Adults Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F P P P F P P P P P P P P P P P P P P F F F P P P P F F

Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P F F P P P P F F
Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F F P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P F P P P P P F F

Smolts Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F P P P F P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P F F P P P P P F
Summer Rearing Juveniles Hydrology Flow Conditions (Baseflow ) F P F F F F F P F P P F G F P P G P P F F F P F P P P P
Eggs Hydrology Flow Conditions (Instantaneous Condition) V F G G G G F P F F F G V V F F F F F F G F G F F F P G

Summer Rearing Juveniles Hydrology Flow Conditions (Instantaneous Condition) F P G G G F F F F P F G G V F P V P F P P F G F F F P P
Watershed Processes Hydrology Impervious Surfaces V V V V V F V V V V V V V V G G V P P P P F F G G V G P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Hydrology Number, Condition and/or Magnitude of Diversions F F F G F G F F F P P F G F P P G F F P F F G F F F P P

Smolts Hydrology Number, Condition and/or Magnitude of Diversions F F F G F F F F F P P F G F F P G P F P F F G F F F P P
Adults Hydrology Passage Flow s V G F G F F F F F P F G V G G V V F P F F F F F F F P F

Smolts Hydrology Passage Flow s G F V F V F F F F P F F V V F V V F P F F G G F F F P F
Eggs Hydrology Redd Scour G P F F F F F F F P G F F P P P F P F F G F P F F F F F
Watershed Processes Landscape Patterns Agriculture V F V P V G P V V P V V V V V V V V F V V V G G G G V V

Watershed Processes Landscape Patterns Timber Harvest F G G V V G V G V V V V V G V V V V V V V V V G V V V V
Watershed Processes Landscape Patterns Urbanization V P P V G P V V G P V V V V P P P P P P P P P P P G F P

Adults Passage/Migration Passage at Mouth or Confluence G G G V G F F F G G F G V G F G G P P F G F F P F G F G
Summer Rearing Juveniles Passage/Migration Passage at Mouth or Confluence G P G F G G P F F P F G V G F G G P F F G G P P F G F G
Smolts Passage/Migration Passage at Mouth or Confluence G P G V G V V F G G F G V G G V G P F F G G F P F G F G

Adults Passage/Migration Physical Barriers G F G V V G V V V F G G V V G V F P F P P P F G V G P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Passage/Migration Physical Barriers G P V G V V V F V F G G V G G V G P F P P F G G V G P P

Winter Rearing Juveniles Passage/Migration Physical Barriers G G V V V G G F G F G G V G G V F P G P P F G G V G P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Canopy Cover F V G F V P F P P F F F G V V V G P P F G P F P G P F F
Watershed Processes Riparian Vegetation Species Composition G F F P F P G F P F G G V G G G G F P F F P F F P F F F

Adults Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (North of SF Bay) P P P P P P P P P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA P P NA NA NA P P P P NA NA
Summer Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (North of SF Bay) P P P P P P P P P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA P P NA NA NA P P P P NA NA

Winter Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (North of SF Bay) P P P P P P P P P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA P P NA NA NA P P P P NA NA
Adults Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (South of SF Bay) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA P G G F F G G F NA NA F F P NA NA NA NA F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (South of SF Bay) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA F G G F F G G F NA NA F F P NA NA NA NA F P

Winter Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (South of SF Bay) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA F G G F F G G F NA NA F F P NA NA NA NA F P
Eggs Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) G F G P G P F F F P P F F F P P P F P P F F F P F P F P
Eggs Sediment Gravel Quality (Embeddedness) G P G P F P P F P P P V P F P P P F P P F F P G F P F P

Adults Sediment Quantity & Distribution of Spaw ning Gravels V P G P G P G G G P G F V V V F P P P P F F F P F P F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Sediment (Food Productivity) Gravel Quality (Embeddedness) G P G P F P P F P P P V P F P P P F P F F F P G F P F P

Winter Rearing Juveniles Sediment (Food Productivity) Gravel Quality (Embeddedness) G P G F F P P F P P P V P F P P P F P F F F P G F P F P
Watershed Processes Sediment Transport Road Density G P F V F P G V F G F F G V P P P P P P P P P P P G F P
Watershed Processes Sediment Transport Streamside Road Density (100 m) P P P P P P P P G P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

Smolts Smoltification Temperature F G F P G F G G V G V G G G G G G P F G V G F G F F F F
Adults Velocity Refuge Floodplain Connectivity G P F P P P G F P P F G G G F F P P P P F F F F P P P F

Winter Rearing Juveniles Velocity Refuge Floodplain Connectivity G P F P P P F F F F F F G G F P P P P F F F P F P P P P
Smolts Viability Abundance F P F P G F F F F P P P F F P P P P P P P P P F F P P P
Adults Viability Density F P F P G P F F F P F F F F F F F P P P P P P F F P P F

Summer Rearing Juveniles Viability Density F F F F F F F F F F F F P F F G P P P P P P P F F P P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Viability Spatial Structure G G G F G G P G F F G V F V V G G F F P P G G F F G P P

Summer Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Temperature (MWMT) G F F P F P F F P G P P F F F F F P P F F G F F P P P F
Adults Water Quality Toxicity G F G P G P F F F F F G F G F F F P F P P P F F F F F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Toxicity F P G P G F F F F F F F P G F F F P F P P P F F F F F P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Toxicity F F G P G F F F F F F G F G F F F P F P P P F F F F F P
Smolts Water Quality Toxicity G F G P G F F F F F F G F G F F F P F P P P F F F F F P
Adults Water Quality Turbidity G F P F G F F F F P P P F F P F P F F F F F G F P F P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Turbidity V F G F V G G F F P G G F F P F P F F F F F G F F F F P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Turbidity F F P P G G F F F P P P F F P F P F F F F F P G P F F P

Smolts Water Quality Turbidity G F F P G G F F F P P P F F P F P F F F F P F F P P F P

Table 4: CCC steelhead DPS CAP Viability Summary by Conservation Target.
CCC Steelhead by Diversity Strata and Population North Coastal Interior Santa Cruz Mountains Coastal S. F. Bay Interior S. F. Bay

Upper Russian River
San Gregorio Creek
Corte Madera Creek

Green Valley Creek
San Lorenzo River
Guadalupe River
Pescadero Creek
Mark West Creek
Lagunitas Creek
Maacama Creek
Pilarcitos Creek
Petaluma River
Alameda Creek
Sonoma Creek
Waddell Creek
Stevens Creek
Salmon Creek
Novato Creek
Coyote Creek
Soquel Creek
Walker Creek
Austin Creek
Aptos Creek
Scott Creek
Napa River
Dry Creek
Adults Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 0-10 meters) P P P P P P P F P P P P F F P P F P P F F P P P F P P F
Adults Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 10-100 meters) F P P P F P F P P P P P F P P P G P P P P P P P P P P P
Adults Habitat Complexity Pool/Riffle/Flatw ater Ratio G P F P F P F F P P F G G P F P P P P F F F P F F P F P

Adults Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F P P P F P P P P P P P P P P P P P P F F F P P P P F F
Adults Hydrology Passage Flow s V G F G F F F F F P F G V G G V V F P F F F F F F F P F

Adults Passage/Migration Passage at Mouth or Confluence G G G V G F F F G G F G V G F G G P P F G F F P F G F G
Adults Passage/Migration Physical Barriers G F G V V G V V V F G G V V G V F P F P P P F G V G P P
Adults Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (North of SF Bay) P P P P P P P P P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA P P NA NA NA P P P P NA NA
Adults Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (South of SF Bay) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA P G G F F G G F NA NA F F P NA NA NA NA F P
Adults Sediment Quantity & Distribution of Spaw ning Gravels V P G P G P G G G P G F V V V F P P P P F F F P F P F P
Adults Velocity Refuge Floodplain Connectivity G P F P P P G F P P F G G G F F P P P P F F F F P P P F

Adults Water Quality Toxicity G F G P G P F F F F F G F G F F F P F P P P F F F F F P
Adults Water Quality Turbidity G F P F G F F F F P P P F F P F P F F F F F G F P F P P
Adults Viability Density F P F P G P F F F P F F F F F F F P P P P P P F F P P F
Eggs Hydrology Flow Conditions (Instantaneous Condition) V F G G G G F P F F F G V V F F F F F F G F G F F F P G
Eggs Hydrology Redd Scour G P F F F F F F F P G F F P P P F P F F G F P F F F F F
Eggs Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) G F G P G P F F F P P F F F P P P F P P F F F P F P F P
Eggs Sediment Gravel Quality (Embeddedness) G P G P F P P F P P P V P F P P P F P P F F P G F P F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent P P P F F P P P P P F F F F F F F P P P P P P P P P P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 0-10 meters) P P P P P P P F P P P P F F P P F P P F F P P P F P F F
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 10-100 meters) F P P P F P F P P P P P F P P P G P P P P P P P F P F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Percent Primary Pools F F G P G P P F P P P P G G F F P P P F F G P P P G F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Pool/Riffle/Flatw ater Ratio G P F P F P F F P P F G G P F P P P P P F G P F F P F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P F F P P P P F F

Summer Rearing Juveniles Hydrology Flow Conditions (Baseflow ) F P F F F F F P F P P F G F P P G P P F F F P F P P P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Hydrology Flow Conditions (Instantaneous Condition) F P G G G F F F F P F G G V F P V P F P P F G F F F P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Hydrology Number, Condition and/or Magnitude of Diversions F F F G F G F F F P P F G F P P G F F P F F G F F F P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Passage/Migration Passage at Mouth or Confluence G P G F G G P F F P F G V G F G G P F F G G P P F G F G
Summer Rearing Juveniles Passage/Migration Physical Barriers G P V G V V V F V F G G V G G V G P F P P F G G V G P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Canopy Cover F V G F V P F P P F F F G V V V G P P F G P F P G P F F

Summer Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (North of SF Bay) P P P P P P P P P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA P P NA NA NA P P P P NA NA
Summer Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (South of SF Bay) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA F G G F F G G F NA NA F F P NA NA NA NA F P

Summer Rearing Juveniles Sediment (Food Productivity) Gravel Quality (Embeddedness) G P G P F P P F P P P V P F P P P F P F F F P G F P F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Temperature (MWMT) G F F P F P F F P G P P F F F F F P P F F G F F P P P F

Summer Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Toxicity F P G P G F F F F F F F P G F F F P F P P P F F F F F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Turbidity V F G F V G G F F P G G F F P F P F F F F F G F F F F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Viability Density F F F F F F F F F F F F P F F G P P P P P P P F F P P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Viability Spatial Structure G G G F G G P G F F G V F V V G G F F P P G G F F G P P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 0-10 meters) P P P P P P P F P P P F F F P P F P P F F P P P F P F F
Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 10-100 meters) F P P P F P F P P P P P F P P P G P P P P P P P P P F P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Pool/Riffle/Flatw ater Ratio G P F P F P F F P P F G G P F P P P P F F F P F F P F P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F F P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P F P P P P P F F
Winter Rearing Juveniles Passage/Migration Physical Barriers G G V V V G G F G F G G V G G V F P G P P F G G V G P P

Winter Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (North of SF Bay) P P P P P P P P P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA P P NA NA NA P P P P NA NA
Winter Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (South of SF Bay) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA F G G F F G G F NA NA F F P NA NA NA NA F P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Sediment (Food Productivity) Gravel Quality (Embeddedness) G P G F F P P F P P P V P F P P P F P F F F P G F P F P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Velocity Refuge Floodplain Connectivity G P F P P P F F F F F F G G F P P P P F F F P F P P P P

Winter Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Toxicity F F G P G F F F F F F G F G F F F P F P P P F F F F F P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Turbidity F F P P G G F F F P P P F F P F P F F F F F P G P F F P
Smolts Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent F F P P F F F F F P F G F P F F F P F P P P F F F F P P
Smolts Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F P P P F P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P F F P P P P P F
Smolts Hydrology Number, Condition and/or Magnitude of Diversions F F F G F F F F F P P F G F F P G P F P F F G F F F P P
Smolts Hydrology Passage Flow s G F V F V F F F F P F F V V F V V F P F F G G F F F P F

Smolts Passage/Migration Passage at Mouth or Confluence G P G V G V V F G G F G V G G V G P F F G G F P F G F G
Smolts Smoltification Temperature F G F P G F G G V G V G G G G G G P F G V G F G F F F F

Smolts Water Quality Toxicity G F G P G F F F F F F G F G F F F P F P P P F F F F F P
Smolts Water Quality Turbidity G F F P G G F F F P P P F F P F P F F F F P F F P P F P
Smolts Viability Abundance F P F P G F F F F P P P F F P P P P P P P P P F F P P P

Watershed Processes Hydrology Impervious Surfaces V V V V V F V V V V V V V V G G V P P P P F F G G V G P
Watershed Processes Landscape Patterns Agriculture V F V P V G P V V P V V V V V V V V F V V V G G G G V V
Watershed Processes Landscape Patterns Timber Harvest F G G V V G V G V V V V V G V V V V V V V V V G V V V V

Watershed Processes Landscape Patterns Urbanization V P P V G P V V G P V V V V P P P P P P P P P P P G F P
Watershed Processes Riparian Vegetation Species Composition G F F P F P G F P F G G V G G G G F P F F P F F P F F F
Watershed Processes Sediment Transport Road Density G P F V F P G V F G F F G V P P P P P P P P P P P G F P

Watershed Processes Sediment Transport Streamside Road Density (100 m) P P P P P P P P G P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

Life Stages
Based on the CAP viability results, all CCC steelhead life stages are impaired (Table 4 and
Figure 14). Winter rearing juveniles were the most impaired life stage across the DPS with 85%
of all indicator ratings reported as Poor or Fair (50% Poor), followed by eggs (81%) and summer
rearing juvenile (80%) (Figure 14). Watershed processes, on a DPS level, had a combined 49% of
attribute indicators reported as Poor or Fair (Figure 14), of which 36% were rated as Poor.
Figure 14: Attribute Indicator ratings for the CCC steelhead DPS by life stage.
Adult Attribute Results: Across the DPS, adults had a high percentage (80%) of Poor or Fair
ratings with the most notable exceptions being passage flows, passage at mouth or confluence,
physical barriers, and the quality and distribution of spawning gravels in some populations
(Figure 15 and Table 4). The four indicators of greatest concern, based on the percentage of
Poor ratings alone were large wood frequency, shelter rating, floodplain connectivity, and
pool/riffle/flatwater ratio (Table 4). Riparian tree diameter was rated Poor for all populations
north of San Francisco Bay and viability (density) was rated Poor in 43% of populations overall.

Eggs Attribute Results: Of the four indicators assessed for the egg life stage, the most
concerning based on the percentage of Poor ratings was gravel embeddedness followed by
gravel quantity (Figure 16). However, redd scour and gravel quantity received the highest
percentage of Poor and Fair ratings combined (89%).
Summer Rearing Juvenile Attribute Results: Across the DPS, 80% of attribute indicators were
rated Poor or Fair (Figure 17). The most impaired indicators across the DPS were
estuary/lagoon (quality and extent), habitat complexity (large wood frequency, percent primary
pools, and shelter rating), riparian vegetation (tree diameter north of San Francisco Bay), and
gravel embeddedness (Figure 17 and Table 4). Indicators associated with hydrology
(instantaneous conditions, number and magnitude of diversions), passage/migration (passage
at mouth or confluence, physical barriers), and viability (spatial structure) were rated more
favorably throughout the DPS (Table 4).
Winter Rearing Juvenile Viability Results: Winter rearing juveniles, the most impaired life stage
in the DPS, are largely impacted by poor over-wintering habitat quality (i.e., lack of habitat
complexity) (Figure 18). As with summer rearing juveniles, shelter rating was the most
impacted attribute indicator with all populations rated Poor or Fair, of which 82% were rated
Poor. Riparian tree diameter was rated Poor for all populations north of San Francisco Bay and
63% of populations overall (Figure 18 and Table 4). The decline of large diameter trees within
the riparian zone has, in part, contributed to the impaired quality of in-stream habitat
complexity throughout the DPS, particularly north of San Francisco Bay.
Smolt Attribute Results: As with winter and summer rearing juveniles, shelter rating was rated
Poor or Fair for the smolt life stage in all populations of which 82% were rated Poor (Figure 19
and Table 4). The quality and extent of estuary/lagoon habitat was also identified as a serious
impairment for the smolt life stage with all populations rated Poor or Fair except for San
Gregorio Creek (Good). Other impaired indicators for the smolt life stage included viability

(low abundance), water quality (toxicity, turbidity), and hydrology (the number and magnitude
of diversions).
Watershed Processes: Across the DPS, 49% of watershed processes were rated Poor or Fair, of
which 36% were rated Poor. The most impacted was streamside road density which was rated
Poor for all but one population (Upper Russian River, Good) (Figure 20). Roads density and
urbanization were rated Poor or Fair in many populations throughout the DPS particularly in
the diversity strata surrounding San Francisco Bay. The only watershed process that did not
receive a Poor rating was timber harvest and only one population was rated Fair, Austin Creek
(Table 4).

Figure 15: Attribute Indicator ratings for the Adult life stage.

Figure 16: Attribute Indicator ratings for the Egg life stage.

Figure 17: Attribute Indicator ratings for the Summer Rearing Juvenile life stage.

Figure 18: Attribute Indicator ratings for the Winter Rearing Juvenile life stage.

Figure 19: Attribute Indicator ratings for Smolt life stage.

Figure 20: Attribute Indicator ratings for Watershed Processes.

DPS CAP THREAT RESULTS
Table 5 summarizes the CAP threat results across the DPS. Based on the combined percentage
of Very High or High ratings the most significant threats to steelhead populations in the CCC
DPS are channel modification, residential and commercial development, roads and railroads,
and water diversions and impoundments (Figure 21). Of these, water diversions and
impoundments received the greatest number of Very High ratings, all of which were in
populations south of the Golden Gate where annual precipitation is generally less (Table 5).
Threats of low concern throughout the DPS were fishing and collecting as well as hatcheries
and aquaculture, which were consistently rated Low, Medium, or Not Applicable.

Table 5: CCC steelhead DPS Threat Summary Table, where L=low, M=medium, H=high, and VH=very high threat. Cells with [-]
were not rated or not applicable.
Diversity Strata Northern Coastal Interior Santa Cruz Mountains Coastal S.F. Bay Interior S.F. Bay

Upper Russian River
Corte Madera Creek

San Gregorio Creek
Green Valley Creek
San Lorenzo River

Mark West Creek
Guadalupe River
Pescadero Creek
Lagunitas Creek
Maacama Creek
Pilarcitos Creek
Alameda Creek
Petaluma River
Waddell Creek
Sonoma Creek
Stevens Creek
Salmon Creek
Novato Creek
Walker Creek
Coyote Creek
Austin Creek
Soquel Creek
Aptos Creek
Napa River
Scott Creek
Dry Creek
CCC Steelhead Threat/Population
Agriculture M H M H M H H H H VH M M M M M M M M H L L L M VH VH VH M L
Channel Modification M H M H M H H M H VH M H M M H M H VH VH VH VH VH H VH VH M VH VH
Disease, Predation and Competition L L L L L M L M M M M M M L M M L M M L L M L M M VH M M
Fire, Fuel Management and Fire Suppression M L L L L L L M M M H H H M H M H M M - - L L M M L M L
Fishing and Collecting L L M M L L L L L L L M L L M L M M L L L L L M M M M M
Hatcheries and Aquaculture L L L L L L L L L - - - - L L - - M L - - - L - - M L M
Livestock Farming and Ranching L M M H M L L M M M L M L L M L L M M L L L H M M H VH L
Logging and Wood Harvesting H M M L M M L M M L M M M M H M M M M - - - L L M L - -
Mining M M L L L L L L M M - L - - M M - M M H M - L L M L H VH
Recreational Areas and Activities L - L L L M L L L H H M M L H M M M M M H M L L M L L H
Residential and Commercial Development M H H M H H M M H VH VH H L M VH VH H VH VH VH VH H H H H M VH VH
Roads and Railroads H H H M H H M H H H VH H H H VH H VH VH VH VH VH H H H H M H VH
Severe Weather Patterns L H M M M M M M M VH H H H M VH H H H M M M L M H VH M H M
Water Diversion and Impoundments M H M M M M H M H VH VH H M M VH H H M VH VH VH M M VH VH VH VH VH
Threat Status for Targets and Project H VH H H H VH H H H VH VH VH H H VH VH VH VH VH VH VH H H VH VH VH VH VH

Figure 21: Threat ratings for the CCC steelhead DPS

DPS LEVEL RECOVERY ACTIONS
The following recovery actions are DPSwide recovery actions. DPSwide recovery actions are
recommendations that are designed to address widespread and often multiple threat sources
across the range, such as the inadequate implementation and enforcement of local, state, and
federal regulations.

LITERATURE CITED
55 FR 24296. 1990. Endangered and threatened species; listing and recovery priority guidelines.
Federal Register 55:24296-24298.
61 FR 56138. 1996. Endangered and threatened species: threatened status for central California
coho salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU). Federal Register 61:56138-56149.
62 FR 43937. 1997. Endangered and threatened species: listing of several evolutionarily

significant units (ESUs) of west coast steelhead. Federal Register 62:43937-43954.
65 FR 36074. 2000. Endangered and threatened species: threatened status for one steelhead
evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) in California. Federal Register 65:36074-36094.
71 FR 834. 2006. Endangered and threatened species: final listing determinations for 10 distinct
population segments of West coast steelhead. Federal Register 71:834-862.
Bjorkstedt, E. P., B. C. Spence, J. C. Garza, D. G. Hankin, D. Fuller, W. E. Jones, J. J. Smith, and R.

Macedo. 2005. An analysis of historical population structure for evolutionarily
significant units of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead in the north-central
California coast recovery domain. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical
Memorandum. NMFS-SWFSC-382.
Busby, P. J., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, L. J. Lierheimer, R. S. Waples, F. W. Waknitz, and I.

V. Largomarsino. 1996. Status review of West Coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho,
Oregon, and California. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Sceince
Center and Southwest Region Protected Resources Division, NOAA Technical
Memorandum, NMFS-NWFSC-27.
Good, T. P., R. S. Waples, and P. B. Adams. 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of
West Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical
Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-66.
Grantham, T. E., and J. H. Viers. 2014. 100 years of Californias water rights system: patterns,
trends and uncertainty. Environmental Research Letters 9: 084012, 10pp.
Hanson, L. C. 1993. The foraging ecology of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina, and California sea lions,
Zalophus californianus, at the mouth of the Russian River, California. Sonoma State
University, Sonoma, CA.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2012. National Marine Fisheries Services annual
approval of a 4(d) research limit (salmonids) and 4(d) research exemption (green
sturgeon) to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) take prohibitions for California

Department of Fish and Games Research Program for the next five years (2012-2016),
under the authority of section 4(d) of the ESA. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southwest Region, Santa Rosa, CA.
SSHG (Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Assessment Group). 2003. Hatchery Broodstock
Summaries and Assessments for Chum, Coho, and Chinook Salmon and Steelhead
stocks within Evolutionarily Significant Units listed under the Endangered Species Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.
Spence, B., E. P. Bjorkstedt, J. C. Garza, D. Hankin, D. Fuller, W. Jones, J. Smith, and R. Macedo.
2006. Preliminary biological viability criteria for salmonid ESUs in the North-Central
California Coast recovery domain. North-Central California Coast Recovery Team.
Spence, B. C., E. P. Bjorkstedt, J. C. Garza, J. J. Smith, D. G. Hankin, D. Fuller, W. E. Jones, R.

Macedo, T. H. Williams, and E. Mora. 2008. A Framework for Assessing the Viability of
Threatened and Endangered Salmon and Steelhead in the North-Central California
Coast Recovery Domain. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical
Memorandum. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-423.
Spence, B. C., E. P. Bjorkstedt, S. Paddock, and L. Nanus. 2012. Updates to biological viability
criteria for threatened steelhead populations in the North-Central California Coast
Recovery Domain. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science
Center, Fisheries Ecology Division, Santa Cruz, CA.

POPULATIONLEVEL RESULTS AND
RECOVERY ACTIONS
AsdescribedindetailinVolumeI,Chapter4(Methods)ofthePlan,NOAAsNationalMarine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) completed the following steps to develop this recovery plan: (1)
selectedpopulationsforrecoveryscenariosusingtheframeworkprovidedbyBjorkstedtetal.
(2005)andSpenceetal.(2008and2012);(2)assessedcurrentwatershedhabitatconditions;(3)
identifiedongoingandfuturestressesandthreatstothesepopulationsandtheirhabitats;and
(4)developedsitespecificandrangewiderecoveryactions.Foreachpopulationidentifiedas
essentialorsupporting,wesummarizedthebestavailableinformationfromavarietyofsources
intoanarrativethatdescribesthespeciesabundanceanddistribution,thehistoryoflanduse,
land management and current resources, and descriptions of the results of our analyses of
currentconditionsandfuturethreats.
Populations were selected using a variety of criteria defined primarily by the Technical
RecoveryTeam(Spenceetal.2008and2012),includingextinctionrisk,populationsize,unique
life history traits, connectivity between populations, habitat suitability, etc. Essential
populationsarethoseexpectedtoachieveahighprobabilityofpersistingoverlongperiodsof
time (low risk of extinction), while additional supporting populations are expected to either
achieve a moderate probability of persisting (moderate risk of extinction) or to provide
ESU/DPSstabilitybyprovidingconnectivityandredundancy.
For each population, we estimated the amount of accessible habitat area (in kilometers).
Estimates are based on a model that uses stream gradient, channel width, and discharge to
define the area with the intrinsic potential (IPkm) to support salmonids (Bjorkstaedt et al.
2005). Where natural barriers, steep gradient changes, or stream flow dynamics were

undetectedbythemodelorwhereregionalexpertsdeemedareasunlikelytosupportspawning
(e.g.,ephemeralreaches,reachesinundatedbyreservoirsorestuaries,orhighlymodifiedand
irretrievable reaches), we made appropriate changes to modeled IP. Using the Spence et al.
(2008 and 2012) criteria and any revisions to IP habitat, spawner targets for each population
werecalculatedusingformulasforviablepopulations.
Current watershed conditions and threats for essential and supporting populations were
assessedusingamethodcalledConservationActionPlanning(CAP)(TNC2007).Conditions
andthreatswereanalyzedusingadetailedsetofspatialandecologicalparametersdescribedin
AppendixD.
The essential populations were analyzed using the full CAP protocol and individual CAP
workbooks. These detailed analyses identified an array of watershed habitat conditions, and
ranked them using specific indicators developed from literature review. Similarly, future
threatswererankedbased onavailable dataandknowledge ofthe watersheds (Appendix D).
The supporting populations were analyzed using an abbreviated rapid assessment protocol
basedontheCAPprotocol.Thesepopulationswereanalyzedingroupsofecologicallysimilar
Diversity Strata as defined by Spence etal. (2008and2012).The rapid assessmentsutilizeda
subsetofthefactorsanalyzedinthefullCAPprotocol.
Where we identified poor watershed conditions or high or very high threats, we identified
recoveryactionstoimproveconditionsandabate/reduceathreats.Weorganizedactionsinto
threelevels:Objective,RecoveryActionandActionStep.ObjectiveslinktheRecoveryActions
and Action Steps to the five listing factors. Organizing actions and actions steps to a specific
listing factor allows improved and more direct tracking of the listing factors overtime.
Recovery Actions were designed in general terms to improve conditions or abate specific
threats.Ifactionswerebroadinscope(e.g.,workwithStateWaterResourcesControlBoard),
they were incorporated into the Stratum or ESU/DPS level actions. Action steps are the most
sitespecificrestorationorthreatabatementactionneededandarewrittentoaddressaspecific

recoveryaction.Actionstepsincludeadditionalrequiredinformationsuchascost,priority,etc.
For each action step, additional information was included such as the estimated time to
implement the action, estimated costs, and likely recovery partners who could contribute to
implementingtheaction.
Wepresentrecoveryactionsindetailedimplementationtablesforeachpopulationandassign
eachactionstepaspriority1,2,or3.Priority1actionsmustbetakentopreventextinction,orto
identify actions needed to prevent extinction (55 FR 24296, June 15, 1990). Priority 2 actions
must be taken to prevent significant decline in population numbers, habitat quality, or other
significant negative impacts short of extinction. Priority 3 actions include all other actions
necessarytoprovideforfullrecoveryofthespecies.
Populations are organized by Diversity Strata and then alphabetical within the Diversity
Stratum(SeeTableofContents)

Russian River Watershed Overview for CCC Steelhead
The following functionally independent and potentially independent populations of the

Russian River (Spence et al. 2012), selected to achieve a low extinction risk for recovery
scenarios, were assessed using the CAP protocols:
Essential Populations
Austin Creek (Potentially Independent)
Green Valley Creek (Potentially Independent)
Mark West Creek (Potentially Independent)
Maacama Creek (Potentially Independent)
Dry Creek (Potentially Independent)
Upper Russian River (Functionally Independent)
In addition, a number of dependent populations of the Russian River selected to meet

redundancy and occupancy criteria, were assessed using the Rapid Assessment protocols:
Supporting Populations
North Coastal Diversity Stratum: Russian River Populations Rapid Assessment

o Willow Creek
o Sheephouse Creek
o Freezeout Creek
o Dutchbill Creek
o Porter Creek
o Hulbert Creek

o Crocker Creek
o Gill Creek
o Miller Creek
o Sausal Creek
The following sections provide a general overview of the abundance and distribution of CCC
steelhead, history of land use, current resources and land management, and a brief summary of
the CAP viability, current conditions, and threats results for the Russian River Watershed.
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Russian River 85

Vol. IV, Central California Coast Steelhead Overview
Steelhead Abundance and Distribution
Information on the historic abundance and distribution of adult steelhead in the Russian River
watershed are limited and poorly understood. Historically, winter-run (winter) steelhead are
thought to have spawned and reared in the 6 independent populations, 10 dependent
populations, the mainstem and all 240 named tributaries in the Russian River Watershed
(Figure 1). Like other coastal populations throughout California, steelhead use of the Russian
River estuary was undoubtedly extensive with multiple life stages utilizing the estuary
throughout the year. The Potter Valley Project was completed in 1922, where regulated flow
between Scott and Cape Horn dams via Lake Pillsbury has since provided year-round diversion
of Eel River water into the East Fork Russian River. The construction of Coyote Dam forming
Lake Mendocino (1959) eliminated significant portions of historic spawning habitat for
steelhead in the east fork of the Upper Russian River population, while the construction of
Warm Springs Dam forming Lake Sonoma (1982) eliminated all but the lower 14 miles of the
Dry Creek population. Augmentation from the Eel River diversion, together with regulated
flows from the two large reservoirs have altered river discharge characteristics significantly,
increasing the average summer base flows to exceeding 125 cfs (USCOE 1982). Summer flows,
once extremely low to intermittent, are greatly augmented and peak winter flows are artificially
low under all but the highest flows. Aside from the loss of habitat upstream of the Coyote and
Warm Springs Dams, which is estimated to be 143 and 159 miles respectively, steelhead remain
widely distributed throughout the Russian River Watershed (Coey et al. 2002).
Statistically robust estimates of past adult steelhead abundance within the Russian River
watershed do not exist; instead, most estimates are either a best professional judgement by a
state or local field biologist, or an imprecise analysis of partial or incomplete data sets. That
being said, a general trend of decreasing population abundance is apparent. In fact, the
estimated number of returning adult steelhead within the Russian River watershed has likely
dropped precipitously during the past several decades, from 65,000 in the 1960s (CACSS 1988,
as referenced in Busby et al. 1996) to 1,750-7,000 in the 1990s (Cox 1996, as referenced in Good et
al. 2005). Based on amount of historic habitat available in the watershed, Spence et al., (2012)
estimates the historic run size approximated 40,000 adults per year. There are three long-term
data series of adult returns to the Russian River Watershed counts of hatchery fish at Warm
Springs Hatchery (WSH) (Figure 2) and Coyote Valley Fish Facility (CVFF) (Figure 3), the two
hatcheries operated by CDFW below the two reservoirs, and ladder counts at the rubber
inflatable Mirabel Dam, operated by Sonoma County Water Agency since 2000 (Figure 4).

Figure 1: Russian River watershed overview map

Based on these records, and assuming the historic run size estimates above, steelhead runs in
the Russian River Watershed have declined substantially with a precipitous decline since the
1960s. Annual adult returns to WSH have ranged from 423 in 1991 to 6,873 in 2004, and to
CVFF from 371 in 2009 to 4,964 in 2004 (Figures 1 and 2). Overall, the trend of adult returns to
the Russian has improved since the 1980s with recent peak counts in the mid-1990s and mid-
2000s, and lowest counts in early 1990s and late 2000s. More recently, counts at SCWA
Mirabel Dam which includes a video camera (which allow a partial counting of the run until
turbidity and high flows prohibit counting), have incorporated wild fish into the picture,
allowing an estimate of hatchery to wild fish to be made (4:1 in 2013, Shawn Chase, personal
communication). Presumably, as a larger proportion of hatchery fish are released into Dry
Creek, and the bulk of steelhead habitat resides in the upper river, the upper river may have a
comparably larger wild component. Overall the Russian River population remains at a
moderate risk of extinction (Spence et al. 2012).
Figure 2: Adult steelhead returns counted at the Warm Spring Fish Hatchery 1980-81 on Dry
Creek, 1980-81 through 2012-2014.

Figure 3: Adult steelhead returns counted at the Coyote Valley Fish Facility on the East Branch
of the Russian River, 1992-93 through 2012-14.
Figure 4: Adult steelhead observed at the Mirabel Dam Fish ladder on the middle reach of the
Russian River, 2000-2012 (years without data indicate video counter was pulled prior to
steelhead run).

History of Land Use
The Russian River Watershed is centrally located in California and the largest watershed within
the CCC Steelhead ESU, with a drainage area of approximately 1,485 square miles
(approximating almost 1 million acres) covering 12 major subbasins populations spanning two
counties (Figure 3). The basins fog-influenced coastal region, which extends 10 miles inland,
typically has cool summers and abundant summer fog moisture. The drier interior region, on
the other hand, experiences hot, dry summers with temperatures increasing to upwards of 100
F in the northeastern valleys most isolated from coastal influence (Coey et al. 2002). Winter
temperatures can reach the low 20s F, though snowfall is uncommon, and rainfall in the basin
ranges from 22-80 inches, with a basin-wide average of 41 inches (SEC 1996). The Franciscan
lithology is very unstable and landslides are common throughout most mountain regions
within the basin.
The history of resource use in the Russian River area began with the Pomo Indians, who
occupied the river basin for as long as 5,000 years prior to European settlement, living in
numerous settlements of up to 1,000 people (Wilson 1990). These tribes altered their
environment with the regular burning of oak woodlands and grasslands as a means of
promoting new growth of their food sources and increasing wildlife habitat. In the late 1700's,
the Spanish landed at Bodega Bay to find the river basin a virtual paradise, followed by the
Russians who established colonies at Fort Ross and Bodega Bay in the 1800s (Ferguson 1931).
The arrival of many land-hungry American settlers soon decimated the Native Americans
living in villages throughout the river valley (Wilson 1990), and at that time, the sheer size and
density of the old growth redwood forests were almost unfathomable. In 1865 intensive logging
in the lower watershed began with the outside markets, dramatically boosting the production of
the timber industry (Stindt 1974). Salmon (chinook, coho and pink) and steelhead were once so
prevalent in the Russian River that they supported a commercial fishery (United States Bureau
of Fish and Fisheries 1888). Cannery records give no mention of species, but fish weighed
between eight and 20 pounds, suggesting steelhead were a large part of the catch. In 1888,
183,597 pounds of fish were caught near Duncan Mills for cannery and personal use (United
States Bureau of Fish and Fisheries 1888). Assuming an average fish weight of 12 pounds,
15,300 fish were taken (Coey et al 2002).
Prolific Russian River steelhead runs once ranked as the third largest in California behind the
Klamath and Sacramento rivers (USCOE 1982). During the 1930s and on through the 1950s, the
Russian River was renowned as one of the worlds finest steelhead rivers, and a healthy
economy thrived on the sport fishing activity. Estimates of the sport catch of steelhead ranged

from 15,000 in 1937 (Burghduff), to 25,000 in 1957 (Christensen). A population estimate of 57,000
steelhead in the Russian River was given in 1957 by Prolysts (1984).
Although logging and fishing continued through the early 20th Century, three of the more
significant anthropogenic changes to the watershed during this period were the construction of
the two dams as discussed previously, which were constructed without fish ladders, and the
advent of gravel mining in the 1940s to supply a burgeoning population and hunger for
aggregate in the SF Bay Area.
Most of the land along the Russian River was already under cultivation by 1900 (SEC 1996) and
this early agriculture focused mainly on the production of grapes, apples, hops and prunes.
Farmers removed riparian vegetation and filled in sloughs and side channels in order to
maximize their usable agricultural lands. These practices continued until the late 1940s when
very few wetlands remained (SEC 1996). At that time, the river valley was leveled, creeks were
channelized and, in an attempt at flood control, agricultural operations began removing small
in-channel islands and gravel bars. In the 1940's in-channel gravel extraction began and, in the
years to follow, the production of sand and gravel was the principal industry from Healdsburg
through Ukiah. The removal of Russian River gravels from in-channel was used for concrete
construction and roads from Santa Rosa to Ukiah and throughout the entire Bay Area. In the
1950s, bank stabilization measures began in response to headcutting, with the river bottom
dropping as much as 22 in the middle reach (Martin Griffin, personal communication).
Ultimately, these practices resulted in mass channelization of the mainstem.
In the 1970's, in-channel gravel mining slowed and operations moved to the adjacent terraces
where floodplain pits are constructed amidst agricultural operations. Agriculture is still the
dominant land use within the basin, with the recent trend being conversion of historic crop
lands, livestock, dairy lands, and forest lands to vineyards. Today, the upper reaches of the
Russian River flow south through southern Mendocino County and the towns of Redwood
Valley, Calpella, Ukiah, and Hopland south to Sonoma County, and the towns of Healdsburg,
Windsor and Santa Rosa, which support a highly productive and successful wine growing
region which is supported by a healthy and economically valuable tourism industry.
Throughout the 20th Century, both coho and chinook salmon and steelhead were propagated
and released into the Russian River. In 2001 NMFS recommended ceasing chinook spawning
at WSH and CVFF due to concerns over genetic bottlenecking from too few returning adult fish
(NMFS 2008). Today, both steelhead and coho salmon are reared and released at the facilities
according to a Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan.

Current Resources and Land Management
Approximately 92% of the Russian River Watershed is privately owned, with the remaining
managed as federal, state and county lands. A majority of the federally managed lands are
within the jurisdiction of BLM and USCOE dam recreation areas.
Nearly 38% of the watershed is forested with montane hardwoods, annual grasslands (18%),
shrub (9%) and Douglas fir (7%) being the most common forest communities. Urban areas
represent less than 7% of the watershed area with the largest developments located inland in
developed floodplain areas of the Santa Rosa plain. Agriculture, which comprises 13 percent of
the land acreage within the Russian River watershed, is predominantly located in low-lying, flat
landscapes adjacent to and within the historic floodplain of the Russian River mainstem.
The Russian River Estuary

The Russian River estuary is utilized by every steelhead in the Russian River Watershed at
some point in its lifecycle. Some use the lagoon extensively (over one year) while other use it
for brief transition periods coming or going to the sea. Thus the Russian River estuary is
especially important in the recovery of multiple populations. Past management activities
within the Russian River estuary have likely degraded parr and smolt steelhead rearing habitat.
The altered flow regimes caused by regulated flows out of Coyote Dam and Lake Sonoma has
changed the natural hydrology of the Russian River mainstem and estuary, and artificial
breaching of the barrier beach at the mouth of the river is often required to prevent flooding
adjacent to the estuary. Prior to these projects, the rivers estuary likely closed during summer
months with a barrier beach that formed a large freshwater lagoon, providing high-quality
rearing habitat for steelhead and coho salmon (NMFS 2008). The elevated Dry Creek flows
present a challenge to managing water levels in the lagoon, requiring a balance between
flooding adjacent low lying properties in Jenner and providing highly productive summer
rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids, including steelhead. Recent monitoring conducted by
SCWA indicate that a large number of juvenile steelhead originating in Austin Creek utilize the
Russian River estuary for extended juvenile rearing at a much greater rate than the six other
Russian River steelhead populations. This heavy reliance on estuarine rearing may be due to
Austin Creeks' proximity to the estuary.
Estuarine residency has been shown to improve juvenile salmonid growth rates, which can, in
turn, increase ocean survival and return rates of adult salmonids. The NMFS 2008 Russian
River Biological Opinion calls for implementation of a suite of measures by the Sonoma County
Water Agency to improve conditions for rearing juvenile steelhead including modification of its
approach to managing water levels and flood protection in the Russian River estuary. These

activities should be implemented to improve estuarine habitat. Monitoring of estuarine water
quality, fisheries, aquatic biota, and physical conditions in the estuary (depth, beach contours,
etc.), continued public education, and full implementation of recommended alternatives in the
Biological Opinion are all important elements to estuarine health and are critical elements to the
recovery of Austin Creek steelhead, as well as all other populations of steelhead and chinook in
the Russian River basin.
Salmonid Viability and Habitat Conditions

A summary of attributes and indicator ratings for Russian River populations of CCC steelhead
are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. Across the Russian River Watershed, attribute indicators
frequently rated Poor for multiple populations and life stages were:
Estuary: Quality and Extent;
Habitat Complexity: Percent Primary Pools & Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratios;
Habitat Complexity: Large Wood & Shelter;
Riparian Vegetation: Tree Diameter;
Sediment: Gravel Quality Embededdness;
Sediment Transport: Road Density;
Across all populations in the Russian River Watershed, winter rearing juveniles are the most
threatened life stage with 82% of attribute indicators rated Poor or Fair, and 41% rated as Poor
alone (Figure 5). Summer rearing juveniles are a close second with 80% of attribute indicators
rated Poor or Fair, of which 39% were rated Poor. Of the Watershed Processes, streamside road
density was identified as the most significant impact to instream and riparian habitat quality
with all populations except Upper Russian River rated Poor (Table 2). Urbanization was also
rated Poor for the Mark West and Green Valley Creek populations. The extent and impact of
passage barriers, impervious surfaces, and timber harvest within tributary populations are
minimal today as all populations were rated Fair or better with many rated Good or Very Good.
The Russian River populations are split between the two diversity strata of the North Coastal
and Interior. The ESU and Diversity Strata results from the CAP viability analysis are described
in greater detail in the section above, CCC steelhead CAP results. Population-specific results
are described below in the population profiles and rapid assessments.

Table 1: CCC steelhead DPS CAP Viability Summary by Attribute for Russian River
populations.
North
CCC Steelhead by Diversity Strata and Population - Russian River Watershed Coastal Interior
Upper Russian River

Green Valley Creek
Mark West Creek
Maacama Creek
Austin Creek
Dry Creek
Summer Rearing Juveniles Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent P P P P P P
Smolts Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent F F F F F F
Adults Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 0-10 meters) P P P P F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 0-10 meters) P P P P F P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 0-10 meters) P P P P F P
Adults Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 10-100 meters) F P P F P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 10-100 meters) F P P F P P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 10-100 meters) F P P F P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Percent Primary Pools F F P P F P
Adults Habitat Complexity Pool/Riffle/Flatw ater Ratio G P P F F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Pool/Riffle/Flatw ater Ratio G P P F F P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Pool/Riffle/Flatw ater Ratio G P P F F P
Adults Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F P P P P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F P P P P P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F F P P P P

Smolts Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F P P P P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Hydrology Flow Conditions (Baseflow ) F P F F P F
Eggs Hydrology Flow Conditions (Instantaneous Condition) V F G F P F

Summer Rearing Juveniles Hydrology Flow Conditions (Instantaneous Condition) F P F F F F
Watershed Processes Hydrology Impervious Surfaces V V F V V V
Summer Rearing Juveniles Hydrology Number, Condition and/or Magnitude of Diversions F F G F F F
Smolts Hydrology Number, Condition and/or Magnitude of Diversions F F F F F F

Adults Hydrology Passage Flow s V G F F F F
Smolts Hydrology Passage Flow s G P F F F F
Eggs Hydrology Redd Scour G P F F F F
Watershed Processes Landscape Patterns Agriculture V F G P V V
Watershed Processes Landscape Patterns Timber Harvest F G G V G V

Watershed Processes Landscape Patterns Urbanization V P P V V G
Adults Passage/Migration Passage at Mouth or Confluence G G F F F G
Summer Rearing Juveniles Passage/Migration Passage at Mouth or Confluence G P G P F F
Smolts Passage/Migration Passage at Mouth or Confluence G F V V F G
Adults Passage/Migration Physical Barriers G F G V V V

Summer Rearing Juveniles Passage/Migration Physical Barriers G P V V F V
Winter Rearing Juveniles Passage/Migration Physical Barriers G G G G F G
Summer Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Canopy Cover F V P F P P
Watershed Processes Riparian Vegetation Species Composition G F P G F P

Adults Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (North of SF Bay) P P P P P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (North of SF Bay) P P P P P P

Winter Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (North of SF Bay) P P P P P P
Adults Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (South of SF Bay) NA NA NA NA NA NA

Summer Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (South of SF Bay) NA NA NA NA NA NA
Winter Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (South of SF Bay) NA NA NA NA NA NA

Eggs Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) G F P F F F
Eggs Sediment Gravel Quality (Embeddedness) G P P P F P

Adults Sediment Quantity & Distribution of Spaw ning Gravels V P P G G G
Summer Rearing Juveniles Sediment (Food Productivity) Gravel Quality (Embeddedness) G P P P F P

Winter Rearing Juveniles Sediment (Food Productivity) Gravel Quality (Embeddedness) G P P P F P
Watershed Processes Sediment Transport Road Density G P P G V F
Watershed Processes Sediment Transport Streamside Road Density (100 m) P P P P P G
Smolts Smoltification Temperature F G F G G V
Adults Velocity Refuge Floodplain Connectivity G P P G F P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Velocity Refuge Floodplain Connectivity G P P F F F
Smolts Viability Abundance F P F F F F
Adults Viability Density F P P F F F
Summer Rearing Juveniles Viability Density F F F F F F

Summer Rearing Juveniles Viability Spatial Structure G G G P G F
Summer Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Temperature (MWMT) G F P F F P

Adults Water Quality Toxicity G F P F F F
Summer Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Toxicity F P F F F F

Winter Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Toxicity F F F F F F
Smolts Water Quality Toxicity G F F F F F
Adults Water Quality Turbidity G F F F F F

Summer Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Turbidity V F G G F F
Winter Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Turbidity F F G F F F
Smolts Water Quality Turbidity G F G F F F

Table 2: CCC steelhead DPS CAP Viability Summary by Life Stage for Russian River
populations.
North
CCC Steelhead by Diversity Strata and Population - Russian River Watershed Coastal Interior
Upper Russian River

Green Valley Creek
Mark West Creek
Maacama Creek
Austin Creek
Dry Creek
Adults Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 0-10 meters) P P P P F P
Adults Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 10-100 meters) F P P F P P
Adults Habitat Complexity Pool/Riffle/Flatw ater Ratio G P P F F P
Adults Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F P P P P P
Adults Hydrology Passage Flow s V G F F F F
Adults Passage/Migration Passage at Mouth or Confluence G G F F F G
Adults Passage/Migration Physical Barriers G F G V V V
Adults Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (North of SF Bay) P P P P P P
Adults Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (South of SF Bay) NA NA NA NA NA NA
Adults Sediment Quantity & Distribution of Spaw ning Gravels V P P G G G
Adults Velocity Refuge Floodplain Connectivity G P P G F P
Adults Water Quality Toxicity G F P F F F
Adults Water Quality Turbidity G F F F F F
Adults Viability Density F P P F F F
Eggs Hydrology Flow Conditions (Instantaneous Condition) V F G F P F
Eggs Hydrology Redd Scour G P F F F F
Eggs Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) G F P F F F
Eggs Sediment Gravel Quality (Embeddedness) G P P P F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent P P P P P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 0-10 meters) P P P P F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 10-100 meters) F P P F P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Percent Primary Pools F F P P F P

Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Pool/Riffle/Flatw ater Ratio G P P F F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F P P P P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Hydrology Flow Conditions (Baseflow ) F P F F P F
Summer Rearing Juveniles Hydrology Flow Conditions (Instantaneous Condition) F P F F F F
Summer Rearing Juveniles Hydrology Number, Condition and/or Magnitude of Diversions F F G F F F
Summer Rearing Juveniles Passage/Migration Passage at Mouth or Confluence G P G P F F
Summer Rearing Juveniles Passage/Migration Physical Barriers G P V V F V
Summer Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Canopy Cover F V P F P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (North of SF Bay) P P P P P P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (South of SF Bay) NA NA NA NA NA NA
Summer Rearing Juveniles Sediment (Food Productivity) Gravel Quality (Embeddedness) G P P P F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Temperature (MWMT) G F P F F P
Summer Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Toxicity F P F F F F
Summer Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Turbidity V F G G F F
Summer Rearing Juveniles Viability Density F F F F F F
Summer Rearing Juveniles Viability Spatial Structure G G G P G F

Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 0-10 meters) P P P P F P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Large Wood Frequency (BFW 10-100 meters) F P P F P P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Pool/Riffle/Flatw ater Ratio G P P F F P

Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F F P P P P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Passage/Migration Physical Barriers G G G G F G

Winter Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (North of SF Bay) P P P P P P
Winter Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (South of SF Bay) NA NA NA NA NA NA
Winter Rearing Juveniles Sediment (Food Productivity) Gravel Quality (Embeddedness) G P P P F P

Winter Rearing Juveniles Velocity Refuge Floodplain Connectivity G P P F F F
Winter Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Toxicity F F F F F F
Winter Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Turbidity F F G F F F
Smolts Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent F F F F F F
Smolts Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating F P P P P P
Smolts Hydrology Number, Condition and/or Magnitude of Diversions F F F F F F
Smolts Hydrology Passage Flow s G P F F F F
Smolts Passage/Migration Passage at Mouth or Confluence G F V V F G
Smolts Smoltification Temperature F G F G G V
Smolts Water Quality Toxicity G F F F F F
Smolts Water Quality Turbidity G F G F F F

Smolts Viability Abundance F P F F F F
Watershed Processes Hydrology Impervious Surfaces V V F V V V
Watershed Processes Landscape Patterns Agriculture V F G P V V

Watershed Processes Landscape Patterns Timber Harvest F G G V G V
Watershed Processes Landscape Patterns Urbanization V P P V V G

Watershed Processes Riparian Vegetation Species Composition G F P G F P
Watershed Processes Sediment Transport Road Density G P P G V F

Watershed Processes Sediment Transport Streamside Road Density (100 m) P P P P P G

Figure 5: CAP Attribute Indicator ratings for the CCC steelhead life stages in the Russian River
Watershed.
Current Conditions
The current conditions were rated for each life stage within six functionally independent or
potentially independent populations of the Russian River Watershed. Based on the three
current conditions rated the worst in each of the six populations, the three current conditions
most frequently identified (in order) were Habitat Complexity: Large Wood and/or Shelter (6
populations), Sediment: Substrate/Food Productivity (5 populations) and Estuary: Quality and
Extent (3 populations). Other current conditions, identified in the top three for each population
were, Hydrology: Water Flow & Passage Flows (2 populations), Habitat Complexity: Percent
Primary Pools & Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratios (1 population), and Viability: Reduced Density,
Abundance, and Diversity (1 population). Overall, the Green Valley, Upper Russian River and
Mark West Creek populations had the highest number of poorly ranked current conditions,
while Austin Creek had the lowest. Population-specific results for current conditions are
described in greater detail below under each population profile.

Threats
Table 3 summarizes the CAP threat results across the Russian River populations. The threats of
greatest concern throughout the Russian River Watershed are Roads and Railroads, and
Agriculture with 5 of 6 populations each rated High and 1 rated Medium. This was followed by
Channel Modification (5 High, 2 Medium), Residential and Commercial Development, and
Water Diversions and Impoundments (both with 3 High, 3 Medium). The Green Valley Creek
and Upper Russian River populations received the highest rated threats amongst all Russian
River populations. Population-specific results of threats and actions to ameliorate them are
described in greater detail below under each population profile.
Table 3: CCC steelhead Threat Summary Table for Russian River Populations, where L=Low,
M=Medium, H=High, and VH=Very High threat. Cells with [-] were not rated or not applicable.
Northern
Diversity Strata Coastal Interior
Upper Russian River

Green Valley Creek
Mark West Creek
Maacama Creek
Austin Creek
Dry Creek
CCC Steelhead Threat/Population

Agriculture M H H H H H
Channel Modification M H H H M H
Disease, Predation and Competition L L M L M M
Fire, Fuel Management and Fire Suppression M L L L M M
Fishing and Collecting L L L L L L
Hatcheries and Aquaculture L L L L L L
Livestock Farming and Ranching L M L L M M
Logging and Wood Harvesting H M M L M M
Mining M M L L L M
Recreational Areas and Activities L - M L L L
Residential and Commercial Development M H H M M H
Roads and Railroads H H H M H H
Severe Weather Patterns L H M M M M
Water Diversion and Impoundments M H M H M H
Threat Status for Targets and Project H VH VH H H H

Literature Cited
Burghduff, A.E. 1937. Russian River improvement. California Department of Fish and Game.
Sacramento, CA. in SEC 1996
Busby, P. J., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, L. J. Lierheimer, R. S., Waples, W. F. Waknitz, and I.

V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho,
Oregon, and California. U. S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-27: 261 p.
Coey, R., Nossaman-Pearce, S., Brooks, C. and Young, Z. CDFG. 2002 Draft. Russian River Basin
Fisheries Restoration Plan. California Department of Fish and Game; Coey et al. 2002.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1997. Eel River Salmon and Steelhead
Restoration Action Plan. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries
Division, Sacramento.
Christensen, W. 1957. Steelhead season longest in history. Press Democrat, February 10. Santa
Rosa, CA. in SEC 1996
Ferguson, R. A. 1931. The Historical Development of the Russian River Valley, 1579-
1865. Master's Thesis. University of California Berkeley.
Good, T. P, R. S. Waples, and P. Adams (eds.). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of
west coast salmon and steelhead. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-66:
598 p.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2002. Biological Opinion for the Proposed license
amendment for the Potter Valley Project (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Project Number 77-110). National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Rosa, CA.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Biological opinion for water supply, flood
control operations, and channel maintenance conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Sonoma County Water Agency, and the Mendocino County Russian
River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District in the Russian River
watershed. NMFS-Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA. 367 pp.

Prolysts, Incorporated and Beak Consultants, Incorporated. 1984. Coyote Valley Dam fish
mitigation study. Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento, CA.
Shapovalov, L. 1939. Recommendations for management of the fisheries of the Eel River
drainage basin, California. January 4, 1939. In: Report of the 1938 Eel River survey,
conducted by the California Division of Fish and Game.
Spence, B. C., E. P. Bjorkstedt, S. Paddock, and L. Nanus. 2012. Updates to biological viability
criteria for threatened steelhead populations in the North-Central California Coast
Recovery Domain. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science
Center, Fisheries Ecology Division, Santa Cruz, CA.
SEC (Steiner Environmental Consulting). 1996. A History of the Salmonid Decline in the
Russian River. Potter Valley, California.
SEC (Steiner Environmental Consulting). 1998. Potter Valley project monitoring program (FERC
Project Number 77-110, Article 39): effects of operations on upper Eel River anadromous
salmonids: March 1998 final report. Prepared for the Pacific Gas and Electric company
San Ramon, CA.
Stindt, Fred A. 1974. Trains to the Russian River. Pacific Coast Chapter of the Railway and
Locomotive Historical Society, Inc. April 1974
United States Bureau of Fish and Fisheries. 1888. Fisheries of the Pacific Coast. Report of
Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for 1888. Washington, D.C. in SEC 1996
USCOE. 1982. Northern California Streams Investigation Russian River Basin study. Final
Report. San Francisco, CA.
Wilson, Simone. 1990. Sonoma County: River of Time. American Historical Press. Sun Valley,
California.
Personal Communications
Chase, S. 2014. Sonoma County Water Agency, Santa Rosa, CA..
Fuller, J. 2013. National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Rosa, CA.
Griffin, M. 2006. Healdsburg, CA.

North Coastal Diversity Stratum
This stratum includes populations of steelhead spawning in direct tributaries to the Pacific
Ocean north of the Golden Gate for which proximity to the coast strongly mediates climatic
conditions, and tributaries of the Russian River exposed to coastally mediated climate.
The populations that have been selected for recovery scenarios are listed in the table below and
their profiles, maps, results, and recovery actions are in the pages following. Essential
populations are listed by alphabetical order within the diversity stratum, followed by the Rapid
Assessments of the Supporting populations:
Austin Creek
Green Valley Creek
Lagunitas Creek
Salmon Creek
Walker Creek
North Coastal Diversity Strata Rapid Assessment
o Drakes Bay Tributaries
o Estero Americano Creek
o Pine Gulch
o Redwood Creek (Marin Co.)
North Coastal Diversity Strata: Russian River Populations Rapid Assessment
o Dutch Bill Creek
o Freezeout Creek
o Hulbert Creek
o Porter Creek
o Sheephouse Creek
o Willow Creek
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft North Coastal 100

Vol. IV, Central California Coast Steelhead Diversity Stratum
CCC steelhead North Coastal Diversity Stratum Populations, Historical Status, Populations
Role in Recovery, Current IP-km, and Spawner Density and Abundance Targets for Delisting.
* IP was not developed for these populations by the SWFSC.

Diversity
CCC Steelhead Population Role In Weighted Spawner Spawner
Stratum Population Status Recovery IP-km Density Abundance
North Austin Creek I Essential 95.1 29.0 2,800

Coastal
Drakes Bay Tributaries* D Supporting N/A N/A N/A
Dutch Bill Creek D Supporting 13.2 6-12 77-156
Estero Americano Creek I Supporting 35.4 6-12 210-423
Freezeout Creek D Supporting 1.2 6-12 5-12
Green Valley Creek I Essential 37.1 38.8 1,400
Hulbert Creek D Supporting 10.2 6-12 59-120
Lagunitas Creek I Essential 85.0 30.4 2,600
Pine Gulch D Supporting 9.7 6-12 56-114
Porter Creek D Supporting 10.3 6-12 60-122
Redwood Creek (Marin D Supporting 6.7 6-12 38-78

Co.)
Salmon Creek I Essential 33.6 37.6 1,300
Sheephouse Creek D Supporting 3.7 6-12 20-42
Walker Creek I Essential 73.3 32 2,300
Willow Creek D Supporting 8.2 6-12 47-96
North Coastal Diversity Stratum Recovery Target 10,400

CCC steelhead North Coastal Diversity Stratum

Austin Creek Population
CCC Steelhead Winter-Run

Potentially Independent Population
Diversity Stratum: North Coastal
Spawner Density Target: 2,800 adults
Current Intrinsic Potential: 95.1 IP-km
For information regarding CC Chinook salmon and CCC coho salmon for this watershed,
please see the CC Chinook Salmon volume of this recovery plan and the CCC coho salmon
recovery plan (http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/).

Historical fish surveys dating back to the 1950s exist for Austin Creek and its many tributary
streams, and recently the lower mainstem has been monitored to quantify the numbers and
sources of out-migrating juveniles. However, rigorous abundance surveys do not exist for the
basin. Sporadic historical surveys indicate that steelhead were once abundant, and coho salmon
were documented occasionally. Steelhead were commonly rescued and relocated to tributary
streams both within and from out of the basin through the 1960s. In fall 2002, NMFS conducted
systematic summer juvenile sampling in mainstem Austin Creek (at the music camp), East Austin
Creek, Gilliam, Thompson, Ward, Kidd, and Bearpen Creeks. Though the data report was never
finalized, the draft report indicates that Bearpen Creek had the highest densities, though
steelhead in all age classes were documented at each of the other sites in fair numbers (NMFS
2003). From 2003 to 2007, the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Trout Unlimited (TU) and
NMFS collaborated in an out-migrant trapping effort to quantify steelhead and salmon smolt
migrations and aid the evaluation of efforts to mitigate impacts of gravel mining in the most
downstream segment of Austin Creek (Katz 2007). SCWA resumed annual out-migrant trapping
in 2010 for purposes of monitoring movement of juvenile steelhead from Austin Creek into the
Russian River estuary. Juvenile salmon are trapped at a site located about 0.3 miles from the
mouth of Austin Creek where they are tagged with Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags
that are used to document their subsequent movements. All age classes of juvenile steelhead
have been documented moving in fair numbers to the estuary. During the springs of 2010 and
2011, the fish trap in lower Austin Creek respectively collected a total of 4,682 and, 1,974 juvenile
steelhead.
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Austin Creek 103

History of Land Use
The steelhead population in Austin Creek occupies three major subwatersheds (Big Austin Creek,
East Austin Creek and Ward Creek), which collectively contain 21 other perennial tributaries and
numerous un-named intermittent streams (See Austin Creek Map). The Austin Creek watershed
has had an active land use history with timber harvest occurring from the late 1800s through the
turn of the century and again after World War II. The timber industry boom was short-lived, as
the vast majority of harvestable redwoods had been removed by the 1900s (Clar 1954). During
World War II, tractor logging of Douglas fir forests followed to provide lumber for the ever-
expanding urban population in California, but as Northwestern Railroads freight business
plummeted, the same railways carried vacationers and weekend travelers who constructed
vacation homes in popular destinations throughout the Lower Russian River from Rio Nido to
Duncans Mills. By the 1930s, logging roads and residences were being converted to residential
roads and vacation homes to capitalize on Russian River recreation and fishing opportunities.
The remains of the narrow gauge railroad, which ran from Cazadero to the headwaters of East
Austin and Austin Creeks to mine magnetite, is still evident on high terraces in East Austin Creek.
Effects from these mines still linger in the form of large instream gravel deposits below their
source. A wild fire in the 1960s further contributed to unstable slopes and sediment erosion.
Until the early 1990s, summer dams were annually constructed out of gravel, rubble, and
flashboards on the mainstem and tributaries to provide swimming opportunity for residents and
the burgeoning Bay Area vacationer population. The lower 1.5 miles of Austin Creek have been
mined continuously for over 60 years by Bohan and Canelis/Austin Creek Ready Mix, and
periodically by early predecessors such as the railroad to Cazadero and the Sonoma County Road
Department. Since 1949, approximately 1.5 million tons of aggregate material have been mined
from lower Austin Creek (Cluer et al. 2010). Together with historic watershed uses that supplied
the sediment source, these two practices reduced the channels capacity for sediment transport,
flattening the channel and filling in historic pools which provided year round summer habitat for
fish.

Austin Creek enters the Russian River downstream of the town of Cazadero, near the Bohan
Canelis Gravel Mining Operations and Berrys Saw Mill, a currently operating sawmill. The
watershed is primarily privately owned, except for portions under California State Park System
ownership [e.g., Armstrong Woods State Park and Austin Creek State Recreation Areas (5,683
acres)]. Year-round residential and summer homes are scattered along the mainstem corridor
and the lower 1.5 miles of East Austin Creek, though the watershed is generally lightly populated.
Large acre parcels (120-320 acre minimums) are designated by Sonoma County throughout the

majority of the watershed, though 0.3 to10 acre minimums exist in Cazadero and along the lower
mainstem. These riparian parcels are all on septic systems and wells, and are crisscrossed with
dirt service roads (Marcus 2005).
Major land uses in the Austin Creek watershed include timber production, gravel mining and
rural development. In 1991, after 116 years of ongoing practice, the construction of summer
recreational dams in Austin Creek was stopped by the California Department of Fish & Game
due to lack of permits and impacts on salmonid habitat. Addressing the impacts of historic gravel
mining practices, NMFS recommended in 2003 that mining practices be changed so that instream
gravel bars would be retained in order to confine the low flow channel, and maintain natural
physical processes that scour and sort sediments and maintain fish habitat (Cluer et al. 2010).
Logging continues on a smaller scale in the watershed and has been controversial in recent years
due to concerns regarding listed salmonids and their habitat.
Resource management on private lands is largely carried out by private landowners with
assistance from various Federal and state agencies (e.g., CDFW, NMFS, and Sotoyome Resource
Conservation District with the assistance of National Resource Conservation Service). A
systematic habitat assessment of the entire watershed was conducted by the CDFW Watershed
Restoration Program in the 1990s.
Salmonid Viability and Watershed Conditions

Compared to other watersheds within the Russian River basin, Austin Creek has a fairly
undisturbed hydrologic regime. Habitat surveys conducted by CDFW (CDFW 2002) indicate that
mainstem Austin Creek has impaired salmonid rearing habitat due to low stream canopy,
aggraded conditions and high levels of fine sediment. The Ward Creek, mainstem Austin, and
East Austin Creek sub-basins are major areas of steelhead production due to the deep forested
canyons that provide cool water and year round pools for over-summering fish. Thompson, Pole
Mountain, Saint Elmo and Big Oak Creeks have natural bedrock waterfalls that inhibit
anadromous fish migration, though resident rainbow trout reside above the falls.
The following indicators were rated Poor through the CAP analysis for steelhead: Habitat
Complexity, Sediment Transport, Riparian Vegetation, and Estuary Lagoon. Recovery strategies
will focus on improving these Poor conditions as well as those needed to ensure population
viability and functioning watershed processes.

Current Conditions
The following discussion focuses on those conditions that were rated Fair or Poor as a result of
our CAP viability analysis. The Austin Creek CAP Viability Table results are provided below.
Recovery strategies will focus on improving these conditions.
Population and Habitat Conditions
Riparian Vegetation: Composition, Cover & Tree Diameter

Altered riparian composition, often caused by stream bank armoring/clearing, invasive species
establishment, historic logging, channel modification, or riparian grazing, has been identified as
a limiting factor within the Russian River in CDFW stream habitat reports. In the Austin Creek
watershed, riparian composition has been impacted within many of the east-side tributaries of
the East Austin Creek sub-basin. Only 31% of the riparian zone is made up of larger trees that
provide for bank stabilization and the future recruitment of LWD, which is lacking in this
watershed. Though 12 of 16 (75% of surveyed tributaries) streams met optimal criteria (>70%
canopy averaged for the stream), only 54% of the potential steelhead habitat in the Austin Creek
watershed exceeds criteria. Specifically Sulphur, Bearpen, East Austin and Austin Creeks did not
meet optimal canopy criteria (though these latter two are not expected to perform optimally for
this variable, due to their wider channel width).
Sediment Transport: Road Density

Altered sediment transport has aggraded the mainstem of Austin Creek, reducing the number
and quality of staging pools for resting adult steelhead and primary pools for juvenile steelhead
rearing. Accelerated erosion from roads has increased sediment levels in the stream. Historic
logging roads crisscross the headwater areas of Austin Creek. Many former logging roads have
been converted to rural residential without appropriate upgrading for handling year round
traffic. Frequent landslides provide adequate gravel for spawning although the increased
sediment loading from roads above natural conditions reduces the quality of spawning habitat.
The uppermost reaches of Austin Creek provide only fair habitat as a result of the high gravel
load. Some road improvement projects have been implemented on private lands in the Ward
Creek sub-basin and State Park property in the East Austin Creek sub-basin.
Estuary: Quality & Extent

The altered flow regimes caused by regulated flows out of Coyote Dam and Lake Sonoma has
changed the natural hydrology of the Russian River mainstem and estuary, and artificial
breaching of the barrier beach at the mouth of the river is often required to prevent flooding

adjacent to the estuary. Prior to these projects, the rivers estuary likely closed during summer
months with a barrier beach that formed a large freshwater lagoon, providing high-quality
rearing habitat for steelhead and coho salmon (NMFS 2008). Recent monitoring conducted by
SCWA indicate that a large number of juvenile steelhead originating in Austin Creek utilize the
Russian River estuary for extended juvenile rearing at a rate greater than the six other Russian
River steelhead populations. This heavy reliance on estuarine rearing may be due to Austin
Creeks' proximity to the estuary.
Passage/Migration: Mouth of Confluence & Physical Barriers

Within the first several miles of mainstem Austin Creek, adult steelhead passage can be limited
during the early and late portion of the run in some years. Road building activities and historic
hard rock mining in the headwaters have aggraded and flattened the channel, reducing pool
volumes and surface water flow over riffles. Previously, gravel skimming in the lower reaches
and sub-surface baseflow conditions interrupted steelhead migration. Though recent progressive
changes to gravel mining practices have narrowed and deepened the low flow channel, when
early storms do not materialize, or storm events are spaced infrequently, the aggraded condition
of the channel can inhibit out-migration of smolts during late winter and spring. Passage is also
inhibited in Pole Mountain and Kidd Creeks due to County road culverts.
Habitat Complexity: Large Wood & Shelter

Data from CDFW habitat inventories indicate shelter ratings throughout the Austin Creek
watershed are poor within most sampled reaches. Only 5 of 16 streams (31%) meet optimal
criteria; however, mainstem Austin, Black Rock, Kidd, Clear, Ward, Bearpen, Pole Mountain, Blue
Jay, Ward Creek Tributary 1, and Holmes Canyon creeks are below optimal criteria. Poor to Fair
LWD ratings were also documented within tributaries, due largely to a lack of functional riparian
corridors and insufficient recruitment of large conifer species from adjacent upslope areas. Only
31% of available forest timber is of a size class that could recruit to the stream channel and
function as high-quality LWD.
Sediment: Gravel Quality and Quantity

Sediment: Gravel Quality conditions have a rating of Good; however, a few subwatersheds have
high gravel embededdness that likely compromises spawning, egg incubation and macro-
invertebrate food production. Specifically, mainstem Austin, Gray and Ward Creek Tributaries
did not meet optimal criteria for gravel embededdness. Kidd Creek, which has not been habitat
typed, has high embededdness levels due to the many roads and stream crossings in the
watershed (Marcus 2005).

Viability: Density, Abundance & Spatial Structure
While habitat conditions exist for the transition of steelhead between lifestages, the production of
smolts from the watershed may be the bottleneck in the population. This is primarily due
outmigration issues related to aggradation of the watershed from the historic land uses, and more
recently from floodplain channelization of the lower mainstem, and until recently, gravel mining
practices which have flattened the channel. Recent changes to gravel mining practices, and
migration enhancement projects should continue to improve survivability of smolts if they
continue.
Water Quality: Temperature

Significant alterations to the riparian corridor have resulted in accelerated thermal warming to
many sections of the watershed. Temperatures in Bear Pen, Black Rock, Blue Jay, Lawhead, and
Sulphur Creeks exceeded optimal conditions.
Other Current Conditions

Floodplain and redd scour conditions have a rating of Good for Austin Creek. These two
parameters are related in that lack of floodplain increases stream velocities above natural
conditions which can result in the scouring of redds that impacts the egg lifestage as well as
winter rearing. These are issues for steelhead in the lower mainstem and where tributaries have
been channelized for road construction and flood control and where channel incision has
occurred.
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that are rated as High or Very High (See Austin
Creek CAP Results). Recovery strategies will likely focus on ameliorating High rating threats;
however, some strategies may address medium and low threats when the strategy is essential to
recovery efforts.
Agriculture
Although agriculture currently comprises less than 1% of the land acreage of Austin Creek, it
remains a real future threat to this relatively undisturbed watershed. Should native forests be
converted from forestland to vineyards or other crops, or to rural residential development, many
of the resulting impacts can disproportionally adversely affect steelhead and their habitat,
especially the increase of sediment sources from bare slopes, removal of riparian vegetation and
water diversion for irrigation.

Fire, Fuel Management and Fire Suppression is rated as a Medium threat in the threat summary
for Austin Creek and is a historic threat. The Creighton Ridge fire (1978) burned large areas of
the Austin Creek drainage, and the effects from this fire continue to substantially impair riparian
and aquatic habitat throughout much of the basin (Marcus 2005). The intense logging and land
clearing during the latter half of the 18th century, combined with the Creighton Ridge fire in 1978,
has shifted forest composition within much of the watershed from historical conifer/redwood
stands to younger stands of conifer and oak chaparral forest in the upper and middle portion of
the watershed (Marcus 2005). This shift in forest type has likely lowered wood volumes available
for delivery into the stream environment. Following the fire, many areas failed to re-establish
redwood/conifer dominated forests. That failure is a large reason why quality LWD and
adequate shade are lacking in most of Austin Creek.

Timber harvest remains a threat to steelhead habitat in Austin Creek, mainly from smaller,
fractured ownerships which cumulatively can contribute to erosion and reduced large wood
recruitment. Although much of the larger trees were removed during the previous century, forest
tracts exist that could be of marketable size in the next decades. The general lack of wood within
Austin Creek stream channels is likely the result of adjacent harvest and the highly flashy nature
of the system, which transports out smaller woody debris during storm events.
Mining
The historic magnetite mine in the headwaters continues to bleed sediment, contributing to the
aggraded condition of the channel throughout mainstem Austin Creek. Active gravel mining in
the lower mainstem channel could contribute further to juvenile and adult passage issues if
current gravel mining practices recommended by NMFS and CDFW are not adhered to. Recently,
restoration projects and changes to gravel mining practices have improved the first mile of
channel, though conditions upstream of this reach could be improved with similar treatments
working cooperatively with local mining interests.

Though portions of East Austin Creek are within protected ownership of the State Recreation
Area, the upper portion of East Austin and the remaining watershed within the western portion
is highly susceptible to increased residential development (Marcus 2005), which could greatly
offset the benefits of the largely undisturbed hydrologic regime. Residential development can
increase road densities, increase water diversions and groundwater pumping, remove or alter
riparian habitat, and reduce water quality.

Roads and Railroads
Legacy roads from past logging and mining activity, having been adopted as year-round roads
as the basin was rurally subdivided, continue to impact the Austin Creek watershed. Road
densities within higher elevation, conifer-dominated landscapes increased between the 1930s and
1960s, largely the result of increased rural development in the basin (Marcus 2005). Many of these
roads were poorly built due to the lack of County road standards at the time, and they are not
properly maintained. Abandoned legacy timber roads may still contribute sediment to the stream
channel or alter drainage patterns.
Severe Weather Patterns

Although winters in the Austin Creek watershed exhibit a coastal-type climate with an average
rainfall between 75 and 120 inches, the summer and fall can be arid and more representative of a
Mediterranean summer. Daytime temperatures sometime exceed 100F. Given that summer
streamflows are already pressured by rural residential water extraction along the mainstem and
some tributaries (e.g., Kidd Creek), long-lasting drought patterns could pose a significant threat
to maintaining adequate stream flows and aquatic habitat. Severe flooding caused by climate
change could also contribute to road, mining, and fire-related erosion that would increase
sediment input into the already aggraded mainstem and further reduce tributary habitat quality.
Water Diversion and Impoundments

Increased water diversion resulting from residential development within Austin Creek could
offset the current benefits of the relatively undisturbed hydraulic regime, impacting juvenile
steelhead during summer and upstream migrating adults in late fall. Flows in mainstem Austin
Creek are already compromised due to the highly aggraded nature of the channel, and further
flow reductions would exacerbate this condition.
Limiting Stresses, Lifestages, and Habitats

Threat and stress analysis within the CAP workbook suggests summer juvenile and smolt
survival are likely limiting steelhead abundance within the Austin Creek watershed. Increased
sediment load, altered sediment transport processes, and reduced large wood quantity and
recruitment are a result of landscape disturbance from historic land uses, including timber
harvest, mining, and fire. Residential development and severe weather are additional future
threats to existing habitat conditions.

General Recovery Strategy
Improve Habitat Complexity: LWD Volume and Shelter
Austin Creek would benefit from improved forest management that fosters eventual LWD
recruitment and improved riparian composition and structure. The protection of riparian zones
from timber harvest would provide a long term source of instream LWD that would create shelter
for adult and juvenile fish. Adding LWD through the development of restoration projects would
benefit shelter values in a shorter time span and is recommended below for specific tributaries.
Shelter ratings are Low within many surveyed stream reaches of Austin Creek. Due largely to an
absence of LWD, quality pool habitat is absent and shelter components are comprised mainly of
undercut banks and boulders. Specifically, mainstem Austin, Black Rock, Kidd, Clear, Ward,
Bearpen, Pole MT, Blue Jay, Ward Creek and its tributaries, and Holmes Canyon Creek would
benefit from LWD enhancement. A range of treatments including unanchored, and anchored
LWD and boulder structures should be considered depending upon site specific conditions,
access and land ownership.
Decrease Sediment Sources/Improve Substrate Quality

Maintenance on existing private roads should be improved per the recommendations of Forest
and Ranch Roads (Weaver and Hagans, 1994). Maintenance on public roads should be increased
and follow the standards of the Fishnet 4c Road Manual. Problem roads and active erosion sites
should be prioritized and addressed as part of a comprehensive sediment reduction plan for the
entire Austin Creek basin. While sediment source surveys have been conducted in the Ward and
East Austin Creek sub-basins, not all recommendations have been implemented and numerous
existing and abandoned roads remain un-surveyed. Specifically, road recommendations should
be implemented in the Pole Mountain and Gray Creek watersheds, and assessments should be
conducted in the Black Rock, Kidd Creek, Bear Pen and Redslide subwatersheds and the
headwaters and subwatersheds of the East Austin Creek sub-basin. The Gilliam Creek watershed
is crisscrossed with legacy logging roads, and a large landslide exists half-way upstream, which
initiated as a result of un-maintained culverts on closed roads. The slide has been periodically a
barrier for steelhead.
Improve Smolt and Adult Passage

Passage improvements for adult salmonids on Pole Mountain Creek should be implemented as
identified in current assessments. Potential barriers on Bear Pen Creek (an old flashboard dam)
and on Gilliam Creek (a debris slide) should be evaluated and remediated. Cooperative projects
between NMFS, CDFW, TU and the local gravel mining company have proven to be effective in

expanding the window of migration in the lower mainstem, and should be expanded further
upstream where possible. These projects and passage improvements should continue to be
monitored to expand the temporal window for adult and smolt migrations.
Improve Estuary Conditions

Estuarine residency has been shown to improve juvenile salmonid growth rates, which can, in
turn, increase ocean survival and return rates of adult salmonids. The NMFS 2008 Russian River
Biological Opinion calls for implementation of a suite of measures by the Sonoma County Water
Agency to improve conditions for rearing juvenile steelhead including modification of its
approach to managing water levels and flood protection in the Russian River estuary. These
activities should be implemented to improve estuarine habitat. Monitoring of estuarine water
quality, fisheries, aquatic biota, and physical conditions in the estuary (depth, beach contours,
etc.), continued public education, and full implementation of recommended alternatives in the
Biological Opinion are all important elements to estuarine health and are critical elements to the
recovery Austin Creek steelhead, as well as all other populations of steelhead and chinook in the
Russian River basin.
Improve and Protect Riparian Corridors

Rural residential expansion should be discouraged except where General Plan elements are
protective enough to offset impacts to this largely undeveloped watershed. Conservation
easements to protect riparian resources should be evaluated and implemented where refugia
areas have been identified. The Devils Creek Coho Conservation Bank is an example that may
have applicability elsewhere in the watershed.
Improve Water Quality: Temperature

Re-establishing native riparian species in high priority riparian corridors will lower water
temperatures, improve LWD recruitment, and limit bank erosion. Planting native riparian
species and overstory species such as conifer and hardwoods in the upland areas is recommended
in the East Austin Creek and upper portion of Big Austin Creek mainstem, and its tributaries,
specifically Bear Pen, Black Rock, Blue Jay, Devils, Gray, Lawhead, and Sulphur Creek.

Literature Cited
Clar 1954 in Marcus and Associates. 2005. Austin Creek Watershed Assessment, prepared for
Sotoyome Resource Conservation District.205 pages
Cluer, Holley, and Canelis. May 5, 2010. Results from Implementing New Instream Mining
Methods 2003-2009 in Austin Creek, CA. NMFS, Santa Rosa, CA. 45 pages
Marcus and Associates. 2005. Austin Creek Watershed Assessment, prepared for Sotoyome
Resource Conservation District. 205 pages
NMFS. 2003. A survey of anadromous salmonids in Austin Creek, Willow Creek, Ft Ross Creek,
and Kohlmer Gulch, Western Sonoma County. National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa
Rosa, CA. 17 pp.
Weaver, W. E., and D. K. Hagans. 1994. Handbook for forest and ranch roads: A guide for
planning, designing, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining and closing wildland

roads.

Austin Creek CAP Viability Results
Conservation Current Indicator

# Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Current Rating
Target Measurement
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
Large Wood streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km
IP-km (>6 Key
1 Adults Condition Habitat Complexity Frequency (BFW 0-10 (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Poor
Pieces/100
meters) Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100
meters)
meters) meters) meters) meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 50% to 74% of
Large Wood streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-km
Habitat Complexity Frequency (BFW 10- (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Fair
100 meters) Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100
meters) meters) meters) meters) meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 76% of streams/
Pool/Riffle/Flatwater streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km IP-km (>40%
Habitat Complexity Good
Ratio (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; Pools; >20%
>20% Riffles) >20% Riffles) >20% Riffles) >20% Riffles) Riffles)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
51% of streams/
streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km
Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating IP-km (>80 stream Fair
(>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream
average)
average) average) average) average)
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk
Hydrology Passage Flows Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Very Good
Factor Score 51- Factor Score 35- Factor Score
Factor Score >75 Factor Score 25
75 50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
Passage at Mouth or 50% of IP-Km to 75% of IP-Km to
Passage/Migration or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km 80% of IP-km Good
Confluence 74% of IP-km 90% of IP-km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
50% of IP-Km to 75% of IP-Km to
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km 80% of IP-km Good
74% of IP-km 90% of IP-km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
Tree Diameter (North 39% Class 5 & >69% Class 5 & 31% Class 5 & 6
Riparian Vegetation & 6 across IP- & 6 across IP- Poor
of SF Bay) 6 across IP-km 6 across IP-km across IP-km
km km
69% Density 70-79% Density 80% Density
Tree Diameter (South
Riparian Vegetation rating "D" rating "D" rating "D" Not Defined Not Specified
of SF Bay)
across IP-km across IP-km across IP-km

Quantity & <50% of IP-Km
Sediment Distribution of or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km >90% of IP-km Very Good
Spawning Gravels accessible*
<50% Response 50-80% >80% Response >80% Response
Floodplain
Velocity Refuge Reach Response Reach Reach Not Defined Reach Good
Connectivity
Connectivity Connectivity Connectivity Connectivity
No Evidence of
Sublethal or No Acute or No Acute or
Water Quality Toxicity Acute Toxins or Good
Chronic Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-km
Water Quality Turbidity maintains maintains maintains maintains maintains severity Good
severity score ofseverity score severity score severity score of score of 3 or
3 or lower of 3 or lower of 3 or lower 3 or lower lower
>1 spawner per
<1 Spawner per low risk 7-20 Spawners IP-
IP-km to < low
IP-km spawner km: low risk
Size Viability Density risk spawner Fair
(Reference density per spawner density
density per
Spence) Spence (2008) per Spence (2008)
Spence (2008)
Flow Conditions NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
2 Eggs Condition Hydrology (Instantaneous Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Very Good
Condition) Factor Score >75 Factor Score 25
75 50 <35
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
Hydrology Redd Scour Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Good
75 50 <35
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% (0.85mm) 12-14% (0.85mm)
Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) and >30% (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and and <30% and <30% Good
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm) (6.4mm)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
75% streams/ IP-
Gravel Quality km (>50% stream
Sediment (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream Good
(Embeddedness) average scores of
average scores average scores average scores average scores
1 & 2)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Impaired/non- Impaired but Unimpaired Impaired/non-
3 Rearing Condition Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent Functioning Poor
functional functioning Condition functional
Juveniles Condition

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
IP-km (>6 Key
Habitat Complexity Frequency (Bankfull (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Poor
Pieces/100
Width 0-10 meters) Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100
meters)
Habitat Complexity Frequency (Bankfull (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Fair
Width 10-100 meters) Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100
<50% of 51% to 74% of 75% to 89% of >90% of
47% of streams/
IP-km (>40%
Habitat Complexity Percent Primary Pools (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average Fair
average primary
primary pool primary pool primary pool primary pool
pool frequency)
frequency) frequency) frequency) frequency)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Pool/Riffle/Flatwater streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km
Habitat Complexity Not Specified
Ratio (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools;
>20% Riffles) >20% Riffles) >20% Riffles) >20% Riffles)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
51% of streams/
average)
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
Flow Conditions Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk
Hydrology Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Fair
(Baseflow) Factor Score 51- Factor Score 35- Factor Score
75 50 <35
Hydrology (Instantaneous Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Fair
Condition) Factor Score >75 Factor Score 58
75 50 <35
Number, Condition >5 1.1 - 5 0.01 - 1 1.19
Hydrology and/or Magnitude of Diversions/10 IP Diversions/10 IP Diversions/10 IP 0 Diversions Diversions/10 IP- Fair
Diversions km km km km
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
54% of streams/
IP-km (>70%
(>70% average (>70% average (>70% average (>70% average
average stream
Riparian Vegetation Canopy Cover stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; Fair
canopy; >85%
>85% where >85% where >85% where >85% where
where coho IP
coho IP coho IP coho IP coho IP
overlaps)
overlaps) overlaps) overlaps) overlaps)
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
of SF Bay)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
75% of streams/
Sediment (Food Gravel Quality IP-km (>50%
(>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream Good
Productivity) (Embeddedness) stream average
scores of 1 & 2)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
<50% IP km (<20 50 to 74% IP km 75 to 89% IP km >90% IP km 75 to 89% IP-km
C MWMT; <16 C (<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT;
Water Quality Temperature (MWMT) MWMT where <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT Good
coho IP where coho IP where coho IP where coho IP where coho IP
overlaps) overlaps) overlaps) overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Sublethal or No Acute or Sublethal or
Water Quality Toxicity Acute Toxins or Fair
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
> 90% of streams/
IP-km maintains
Water Quality Turbidity maintains maintains maintains maintains Very Good
severity score of 3
severity score of severity score severity score severity score of
or lower
3 or lower of 3 or lower of 3 or lower 3 or lower
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5
Size Viability Density <0.2 Fish/m^2 >1.5 Fish/m^2 0.2 - 0.6 Fish/m^2 Fair
Fish/m^2 Fish/m^2
<50% of 50-74% of 75-90% of >90% of 75-90% of
Viability Spatial Structure Good
Historical Range Historical Range Historical Range Historical Range Historical Range
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
Winter Large Wood streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km
IP-km (>6 Key
4 Rearing Condition Habitat Complexity Frequency (Bankfull (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Poor
Pieces/100
Juveniles Width 0-10 meters) Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100
meters)

Habitat Complexity Frequency (Bankfull (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Fair
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
51% of streams/
average)
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
of SF Bay)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
75% of streams/
scores of 1 & 2)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
<50% Response 50-80% >80% Response >80% Response
Floodplain
Velocity Refuge Reach Response Reach Reach Not Defined Reach Good
Connectivity
Connectivity Connectivity Connectivity Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 50 to 74% of
Water Quality Turbidity maintains maintains maintains maintains maintains severity Fair
severity score of severity score severity score severity score of score of 3 or
Properly
Impaired/non- Impaired but Unimpaired Impaired but
5 Smolts Condition Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent Functioning Fair
functional functioning Condition functioning
Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
51% of streams/
average)
Number, Condition >5 1.1 - 5 0.01 - 1
Hydrology and/or Magnitude of Diversions/10 IP Diversions/10 IP Diversions/10 IP 0 Diversions Not Specified
Diversions km km km
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
Hydrology Passage Flows Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Good
75 50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% IP-Km (>6 50-74% IP-Km 75-90% IP-Km >90% IP-Km (>6 50-74% IP-km (>6
Smoltification Temperature Fair
and <14 C) (>6 and <14 C) (>6 and <14 C) and <14 C) and <14 C)
No Evidence of
Contaminants
Water Quality Turbidity maintains maintains maintains maintains maintains severity Good
severity score of severity score severity score severity score of score of 3 or
Smolt Smolt
Smolt
abundance abundance Smolt abundance
abundance to
which produces which produces which produces
produce low
Size Viability Abundance high risk moderate risk high risk spawner Fair
risk spawner
spawner density spawner density per
density per
per Spence density per Spence (2008)
Spence (2008)
(2008) Spence (2008)
>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of 0.075% of
Watershed Landscape Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in
6 Hydrology Impervious Surfaces Very Good
Processes Context Impervious Impervious Impervious Impervious Impervious
Surfaces Surfaces Surfaces Surfaces Surfaces
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of 0.028% of
Landscape Patterns Agriculture Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Very Good
Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture

>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of 26-35% of
Landscape Patterns Timber Harvest Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Fair
Timber Harvest Timber Harvest Timber Harvest Timber Harvest Timber Harvest
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of
5% of watershed
Landscape Patterns Urbanization watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 Very Good
>1 unit/20 acres
unit/20 acres unit/20 acres unit/20 acres unit/20 acres
<25% Intact 25-50% Intact 51-74% Intact >75% Intact
51-74% Intact
Historical Historical Historical Historical
Riparian Vegetation Species Composition Historical Species Good
Species Species Species Species
Composition
Composition Composition Composition Composition
2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6
>3 Miles/Square 2.3 Miles/Square
Sediment Transport Road Density Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Good
Mile Mile
Mile Mile Mile
0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1
Streamside Road >1 Miles/Square 3.2 Miles/Square
Sediment Transport Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Poor
Density (100 m) Mile Mile
Mile Mile Mile

Austin Creek CAP Threat Results
Summer Rearing Winter Rearing Watershed

Threats Across Targets Adults Eggs Juveniles Juveniles Smolts Processes Overall Threat Rank
Project-specific-threats 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Agriculture Low Low Medium Low Low Medium Medium
2 Channel Modification Low Low Medium Low Medium Medium Medium
3 Disease, Predation and Competition Low Not Specified Low Not Specified Low Not Specified Low
4 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Low Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Low
Fire, Fuel Management and Fire
5 Suppression Low Medium Low Low Low Medium Medium
6 Fishing and Collecting Low Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Low Not Specified Low
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Medium Low Low Low Low Low
8 Logging and Wood Harvesting High High Medium Medium Medium High High
9 Mining Medium Low Medium Low High Medium Medium
10 Recreational Areas and Activities Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
Residential and Commercial
11 Development Low Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium
12 Roads and Railroads Medium High Medium Medium Medium High High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low
14 Water Diversion and Impoundments Low Low Medium Low Low Medium Medium
Threat Status for Targets and Project Medium High Medium Medium High High High

Austin Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
Costs ($K)
Targeted Action
Attribute or Priority Duration Entire
Action ID Level Threat Action Description Number (Years) Potential Lead FY 1-5 FY 6-10 FY 11-15 FY 16-20 FY 21-25 Duration Comment
Address the present or threatened destruction,
AuC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species
1.1 Objective Estuary habitat or range
AuC-CCCS- Recovery
1.1.1 Action Estuary Increase quality and extent of estuarine habitat
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA NOS,
NOAA RC,
Private
Landowners,
Public Works,
RWQCB,
Develop and implement Estuary Protection and Sonoma County,
Enhancement projects to improve estuary function Sonoma County
and habitat for juveniles and smolts. Projects would Water Agency,
AuC-CCCS- focus on areas near the mouth of Austin creek and State Parks, Cost based on estuary use/residence timeat a
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary the confluence of the Russian River estuary. 2 5 USACE 283.00 283 rate of $282,233/project
5.1 Objective Passage habitat or range
AuC-CCCS- Recovery
5.1.1 Action Passage Modify or remove physical passage barriers
Identify high priority barriers and restore passage per

NMFS' Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream CDFW, NOAA
AuC-CCCS- Crossings (NMFS 2001a) at existing County culvert RC, Sonoma Cost based on providing passage at 2 barriers at
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage barriers on Pole Mountain Creek and Kid Creek. 1 10 County 533 533 1,066 a rate of $532,706/project.
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
Sonoma County,
AuC-CCCS- Continue restoration projects which employ improved Trout Unlimited,
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage gravel mining practices upstream of mile 1 1 25 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Rehabilitate and enhance passage into tributaries

5.1.2 Action Passage (aggradation/degradation)
CDFW, NOAA
Assess the log jam/slide barrier on Gilliam and RC, Private
AuC-CCCS- Schoolhouse Creeks and implement Landowners, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
5.1.2.1 Action Step Passage recommendations to improve passage 1 5 Trout Unlimited 115.00 115 rate of $114,861/project.
CDFW, NOAA
Assess the old flashboard dam on Bear Pen Creek, RC, Private Cost based on adult escapement and juvenile
AuC-CCCS- and implement recommendations to improve Landowners, migration monitoring at a rate of $36,379 and
5.1.2.2 Action Step Passage passage. 1 5 Trout Unlimited 225.00 225 $188,264/project, respectively.
AuC-CCCS- Habitat modification, or curtailment of the species
6.1 Objective Complexity habitat or range
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Habitat

6.1.1 Action Complexity Improve large wood frequency
CDFW, NOAA
Increase LWD frequency to optimal conditions (>6 RC, Private
key LWD pieces/100 meters) in select reaches of Landowners, Cost based on treating 9 miles (assume 1
AuC-CCCS- Habitat Bearpen, Black Rock, Kidd, Pole Mtn, and Blue Jay State Parks, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
6.1.1.1 Action Step Complexity Creeks 1 10 Trout Unlimited 117.00 117.00 234 $26,000/mile.

Costs ($K)
Targeted Action
Increase LWD frequency to optimal conditions (>2 CDFW, NOAA
AuC-CCCS- Habitat key LWD pieces/100 meters) in select reaches of RC, Private
6.1.1.2 Action Step Complexity Austin and Ward Creeks 1 5 Landowners 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.

6.1.2 Action Complexity Improve frequency of primary pools
Increase primary pool frequency in 25% of streams

within the Austin Creek watershed to improve
conditions for adults, and summer/winter juveniles.
Increase primary pool frequency to achieve optimal
conditions (>40% of pools meet primary pool criteria
(>2.5 feet deep in 1st and 2nd order streams; >3 feet
in third order or larger streams)) in select reaches of CDFW, NOAA
Austin, Bear Pen, Black Rock, Blue Jay, Conshea, RC, Private Cost based on treating 9 miles (assume 1
AuC-CCCS- Habitat Devils, Gray, Holmes Canyon, Kidd, Kohute Gulch, Landowners, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
6.1.2.1 Action Step Complexity Pole Mtn, and Schoolhouse Creeks 1 10 Trout Unlimited 117.00 117.00 234 $26,000/mile.

6.1.3 Action Complexity Improve shelter
Increase shelters in 25% of streams across the
Austin Creek watershed to improve conditions for
adults, and winter/summer rearing juveniles. Increase
shelters to optimal conditions (>80 pool shelter value)
in select reaches of Austin, Bearpen, Black Rock, CDFW, NOAA
Kidd, Kohute Gulch, Clear, Ward, Pole Mtn, Blue RC, Private
AuC-CCCS- Habitat Jay, Tiny, and Ward Creeks and Holmes Canyon Landowners,
6.1.3.1 Action Step Complexity Creeks 1 10 Trout Unlimited 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
7.1 Objective Riparian habitat or range
AuC-CCCS- Recovery
7.1.1 Action Riparian Improve canopy cover
Assess riparian canopy and impacts of exotic CDFW, NOAA
vegetation (e.g., Arundo donax, etc.), prioritize and RC, Private Estimated costs based on similar costs in
AuC-CCCS- develop riparian habitat reclamation and Landowners, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian enhancement programs (CDFG 2004). 3 10 RCD 32.80 32.80 66 site, setting and geographic specific.
Increase canopy in 25% of streams across the
watershed. Plant native riparian species and native
upland species (conifers/hardwoods), to increase CDFW, NOAA
canopy to optimal conditions (80% stream average) RC, Private Estimated costs based on similar costs in
AuC-CCCS- in select reaches of Sulphur, Bearpen and upper Landowners, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian East Austin Creeks. 2 10 RCD 166 166 331 site, setting and geographic specific.
AuC-CCCS- Recovery
7.1.2 Action Riparian Improve tree diameter
Increase tree diameter within 25% of watershed to

achieve optimal riparian forest conditions (55 - 69%
Class 5 & 6 tree) Plant native riparian species and CDFW, NOAA
native conifers/hardwoods in the riparian zone within RC, Private
AuC-CCCS- the Upper and Lower Gray Creek sub-basin to Landowners,
7.1.2.1 Action Step Riparian increase overall tree diameter 2 20 RCD TBD Cost accounted for in above action step.
Promote streamside conservation measures,
including conservation easements, setbacks, and City Planning,
AuC-CCCS- riparian buffers throughout the watershed (CDFG Land Trusts,
7.1.2.2 Action Step Riparian 2004). 3 25 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Costs ($K)
Targeted Action
Conduct conifer release to promote growth of larger Board of Estimated costs based on similar costs in
AuC-CCCS- diameter trees where appropriate throughout the Forestry, Private geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
7.1.2.3 Action Step Riparian watershed. 3 10 Landowners 33.50 33.50 67 site, setting and geographic specific.
8.1 Objective Sediment habitat or range
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Improve gravel quantity and distribution for macro-

8.1.1 Action Sediment invertebrate productivity (food)
Reduce embbeddness levels to the extent that 75%

to 90% of streams within the Austin Creek watershed
meet optimal criteria (>50% stream average scores CDFW, Private
of 1 & 2). Implement recommendations of completed Landowners,
sediment source surveys in Austin and East Austin RCD, Sonoma
AuC-CCCS- Creek mainstems, Gray Creek, and Pole Mountain County, Trout Cost to reduce embeddness levels associated
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment Creeks (See ROADS for specific actions) 2 5 Unlimited TBD with other action steps.
Conduct sediment source surveys in Black Rock Private

Creek, Kidd Creek and other tributaries to identify Landowners, Cost based on erosion assessment for 4,482
AuC-CCCS- existing sources of high sediment yield using RCD, Sonoma acres (assume 10% of total watershed acres) at a
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment accepted protocols and implement recommendations 3 10 County 28.50 28.50 57 rate of $12.62/acre.
10.1 Objective Water Quality habitat or range
AuC-CCCS- Recovery
10.1.1 Action Water Quality Improve stream temperature conditions
Increase canopy in 25% of streams across the California
watershed. Plant native riparian species and native Conservation
upland species (conifers/hardwoods), to increase Corps, CDFW,
canopy to optimal conditions (80% stream average) Private
AuC-CCCS- in select reaches of Sulphur, Bearpen and upper Landowners,
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality East Austin Creeks. 2 5 State Parks 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
11.1 Objective Viability habitat or range
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and

11.1.1 Action Viability diversity based on the biological recovery criteria
Improve smolt condition factor through the addition of Cost based on treating 38 miles (assume 1
AuC-CCCS- Salmon Analog pellets until adult population returns project/mile in 10% high IP) at a rate of
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability reach nutrient sustaining levels. 1 10 CDFW, NMFS 38.00 38.00 76 $2,000/mile.
CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County
Water Agency,
AuC-CCCS- Trout Unlimited,
11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability Continue to operate outmigrant traps in Austin Creek 2 10 UC Extension 0 Cost accounted for in the Monitoring Chapter.
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
Landowners,
Sonoma County
AuC-CCCS- Continue to monitor fish passage improvements in Water Agency,
11.1.1.3 Action Step Viability the lower reaches of Austin Creek 2 10 Trout Unlimited 0 Cost accounted for in the Monitoring Chapter.
Monitor population status for response to habitat
AuC-CCCS- improvements, and threat abatement through
11.1.1.4 Action Step Viability recovery action implementation 3 10 NMFS 0 Cost accounted for in the Monitoring Chapter.

Costs ($K)
Targeted Action
Adjust population targets and indicator ratings to
AuC-CCCS- reflect new habitat improvements and accessible
11.1.1.5 Action Step Viability habitat expansions 3 10 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Monitor key habitat attribute indicators to ensure they
AuC-CCCS- move from poor or fair condition towards good
11.1.1.6 Action Step Viability condition. 3 10 NMFS 0 Cost accounted for in the Monitoring Chapter.
CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County
AuC-CCCS- Use monitoring and trend information to adjust and Water Agency,
11.1.1.7 Action Step Viability adapt recovery actions/strategies. 3 10 UC Extension 0 Action is considered In-Kind
12.1 Objective Agriculture habitat or range
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport

12.1.1 Action Agriculture (road condition/density, dams, etc.)
Address sediment and runoff sources from road
networks and other actions that deliver sediment and CDFW, Private
AuC-CCCS- runoff to stream channels (see Roads for specific Landowners, Cost based on amount of agriculture road
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture actions/areas) 2 20 RCD TBD network. Estimate is $1500/mile
Implement Best Management Practices such as
those in the Fish Friendly Farming program NRCS, Private
AuC-CCCS- (California Land Stewardship Institute), or other Landowners,
12.1.1.2 Action Step Agriculture cooperative conservation programs. 3 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Encourage the NRCS, RCDs, and other appropriate CDFW, NMFS,
organizations to increase the number of landowners NRCS, Private
AuC-CCCS- participating in sediment reduction planning and Landowners,
12.1.1.3 Action Step Agriculture implementation. 3 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Complete Farm Conservation Plans (through the CDFW, Farm

SRCD, NRCS, Fish Friendly Farming program or Bureau, NMFS,
other cooperative conservation programs) to address NRCS, Private
AuC-CCCS- sediment source reduction, riparian habitat, forest Landowners, Cost of completing Farm Conservation Plan
12.1.1.4 Action Step Agriculture health, and restoration. 3 10 RCD 50.00 50.00 100 estimated at approximately $50,000 per plan.
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private Cost will likely be low if CDFW effectiveness
AuC-CCCS- Assess the effectiveness of erosion control Landowners, monitoring protocols are used. Action is
12.1.1.5 Action Step Agriculture measures throughout the winter period. 3 20 RCD 0 considered In-Kind
NRCS, Private
AuC-CCCS- Landowners,
12.1.1.6 Action Step Agriculture Continue the use of cover crops in agriculture fields. 3 25 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City Planning,
FishNet 4C,
AuC-CCCS- Public works Dept.'s should utilize the Fishnet 4C Public Works,
12.1.1.7 Action Step Agriculture Road Manual 3 25 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Livestock and Ranch Managers should utilize
Groundwork: A Handbook for Small-Scale Erosion
Control in Coastal California (MRCD, 2007), and
Management Tips to Enhance Land & Water Quality Farm Bureau,
for Small Acreage Properties (Sotoyome RCD, Private
AuC-CCCS- 2007), and The Grazing Handbook (Sotoyome RCD, Landowners,
12.1.1.8 Action Step Agriculture 2007) 3 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential landowners should utilize the

Stewardship Guide for the Russian River (Sotoyome
RCD, 2011), and Groundwork: A Handbook for Small- CDFW, Private
Scale Erosion Control in Coastal California (MRCD, Landowners,
2007), and RCD, RWQCB,
AuC-CCCS- Management Tips to Enhance Land & Water Quality Sonoma County
12.1.1.9 Action Step Agriculture for Small Acreage Properties (Sotoyome RCD, 2007) 3 25 Water Agency 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Costs ($K)
Targeted Action
Private
AuC-CCCS- Forest and ranch managers should utilize the Landowners,
12.1.1.10 Action Step Agriculture Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads (PWA, 1994) 3 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian

12.1.2 Action Agriculture species composition and structure
Promote the re-vegetation of the native riparian plant
community within inset floodplains and riparian NRCS, Private
AuC-CCCS- corridors to provide future recruitment of large wood Landowners,
12.1.2.1 Action Step Agriculture and other shelter components 2 25 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Implement programs to purchase land/conservation Cost based on amount and type of easements
AuC-CCCS- easements to encourage the re-establishment and/or Land Trusts, needed to enhance natural riparian communities,
12.1.2.2 Action Step Agriculture enhancement of natural riparian communities. 3 25 Sonoma County TBD fair market value, and landowner participation.
Private
Landowners,
AuC-CCCS- Utilize native plants when landscaping and RCD, UC
12.1.2.3 Action Step Agriculture discourage the use of exotic invasives 3 25 Extension 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

12.1.3 Action Agriculture (reduced large wood and/or shelter)
NRCS, Private
AuC-CCCS- Avoid the removal of large wood and other shelter Landowners,
12.1.3.1 Action Step Agriculture components from the stream system 3 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

12.1.4 Action Agriculture (impaired water flow)
NRCS, Private
Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Landowners, Cost based on number of off-channel storage
AuC-CCCS- water diversion during the spring and summer (e.g. RCD, UC stations needed. Cost estimate for storage site is
12.1.4.1 Action Step Agriculture diversion during winter high flow). 2 Extension TBD $5,000/site.
Utilize BMP's for irrigation (cover crop, drip) and frost
protection (wind machines, cold air drains, heaters, NRCS, Private
AuC-CCCS- or micro-sprayers) which eliminate or minimize water Landowners,
12.1.4.2 Action Step Agriculture use 3 20 RCD TBD
AuC-CCCS- Address the inadequacies of regulatory

12.2 Objective Agriculture mechanisms
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape

12.2.1 Action Agriculture disturbance
Farm Bureau,
Develop legislation that will fund county planning for NRCS, Sonoma
AuC-CCCS- environmentally sound agricultural growth and water County, UC
12.2.1.1 Action Step Agriculture supply 2 20 Extension 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Coordinate with the agencies that authorize forest Board of

AuC-CCCS- land conversions to discourage conversions to Forestry, CDFW,
12.2.1.2 Action Step Agriculture agriculture. 3 20 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Develop riparian setbacks/buffers where they do not City Planning,

AuC-CCCS- currently occur, and enforce requirements of local RWQCB,
12.2.1.3 Action Step Agriculture regulations where they do 3 25 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City Planning,
AuC-CCCS- Increase setbacks of existing agricultural activities NRCS, RCD,
12.2.1.4 Action Step Agriculture from the top of bank to 100' 3 20 Sonoma County TBD 0

Costs ($K)
Targeted Action
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, RCD, Streamlining permit processing is not expected to
AuC-CCCS- Streamline permit processing where landowners are SWRCB, cost much, and may save money through future
12.2.1.5 Action Step Agriculture conducting actions aligned with recovery priorities. 3 5 USACE 0 efficiencies. Action is considered In-Kind
Solicit cooperation from NRCS, RCDs, Farm Bureau,
and others to devise incentive programs and
incentive-based approaches to encourage increased CDFW, Farm
involvement and support existing landowners who Bureau, NMFS,
conduct operations in a manner compatible with CCC NRCS, Private Soliciting cooperation not expected to cost much
AuC-CCCS- steelhead and CC Chinook salmon recovery Landowners, outside of already existing federal and state and
12.2.1.6 Action Step Agriculture priorities. 3 10 RCD 0 local salaries. Action is considered In-Kind
AuC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species
13.1 Objective Modification habitat or range
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

13.1.1 Action Modification (reduced large wood and/or shelter)
In lower Austin Creek, Gray Creek and other areas
where channel modification has resulted in
decreased shelter, LWD frequency, and habitat
complexity, develop and implement site specific
plans to improve these conditions to re-create, and CDFW, NOAA
restore alcove, backwater, or perennial pond RC, Private
AuC-CCCS- Channel habitats. (See HABITAT COMPLEXITY for specific Landowners, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification actions/criteria). 2 10 USACE 57.50 57.50 115 rate of $114,861/project.
Promote bio-engineering solutions as appropriate

AuC-CCCS- Channel (e.g. carefully evaluate feasibility where critical CDFW, NMFS,
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification infrastructure is located) for bank hardening projects. 2 50 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Evaluate design alternatives to riprap bank repairs.
Where riprap is necessary, evaluate integration of
other habitat-forming features including large
AuC-CCCS- Channel woody debris to ensure improved habitat at the CDFW, NMFS,
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification restoration site. 3 25 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize increased landscape

13.1.2 Action Modification disturbance
CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
Conduct rehabilitation activities that restore channels, Private
floodplains and meadows to extend the duration of Landowners, Estimated costs based on similar costs in
AuC-CCCS- Channel the summer flow and provide refuge from high winter Sonoma County, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
13.1.2.1 Action Step Modification flows. 3 20 USACE 71 71 71 71 282 site, setting and geographic specific.
Evaluate undeveloped and developed floodplain Cost based on riparian and wetland restoration
AuC-CCCS- Channel property for potential function and conservation RCD, Sonoma model at a rate of $73,793 and $213,307/project,
13.1.2.2 Action Step Modification easement and/or acquisition potential. 3 10 County 144.00 144.00 288 respectively.
Ensure that all future and existing channel designed
for flood conveyance incorporate features that
AuC-CCCS- Channel enhance steelhead migration under high and low flow
13.1.2.3 Action Step Modification conditions. 3 25 NMFS, USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AuC-CCCS- Channel Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

13.2 Objective Modification mechanisms
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize increased landscape

Channel modifying projects should be designed to

ensure potential effects to CCC steelhead habitat are
AuC-CCCS- Channel fully minimized or mitigated, and where possible,
13.2.1.1 Action Step Modification existing poor conditions should be remediated. 3 20 NMFS, USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Costs ($K)
Targeted Action
All proposed flood control projects should include

AuC-CCCS- Channel habitat protection, and/or alternatives that minimize NMFS, Sonoma
13.2.1.2 Action Step Modification impacts to salmon habitat. 3 25 County, USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Modify city and county regulatory and planning

processes to minimize provisions allowing new
construction of permanent infrastructure that will
adversely affect watershed processes, particularly City Planning,
AuC-CCCS- Channel within the 100-year flood prone zones in all historical Sonoma County,
13.2.1.3 Action Step Modification CCC steelhead watersheds. 3 20 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Local agencies should develop large woody debris
retention programs and move away from the practice
AuC-CCCS- Channel of removing instream large woody debris under high City Planning,
13.2.1.4 Action Step Modification flow emergencies. 3 20 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
18.1 Objective Livestock habitat or range
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian

18.1.1 Action Livestock species composition and structure
Provide funding assistance to landowners willing to

fence riparian and other sensitive areas (areas prone Cost based on participation of landowners and
to erosion) to exclude cattle and sheep. Calf/cow amount of riparian exclusion fencing needed.
AuC-CCCS- operations should take first priority for riparian CDFW, NOAA Cost estimate for riparian exclusion fence is
18.1.1.1 Action Step Livestock fencing programs over steer operations. 2 60 RC, NRCS, RCD TBD $3.63/ft.
Encourage develop and fund riparian restoration Cost based on amount of area to be restored.
AuC-CCCS- projects to regain riparian corridors damaged from Cost estimate for riparian restoration is $75,000/
18.1.1.2 Action Step Livestock livestock and other causes. 2 30 NRCS, RCD TBD acre.
Substitute continuous season-long use of pastures in

favor of rotational grazing strategies to reduce runoff.
Short term, seasonal and long term rest from grazing
AuC-CCCS- in overgrazed areas would improve soil conditions for Action is considered In-Kind because there would
18.1.1.3 Action Step Livestock native revegetation and land values as well. 3 60 NRCS, RCD 0 not be any new land aquired, only a new strategy
NRCS, Private
AuC-CCCS- Manage rotational grazing to aid in the reduction of Landowneres,
18.1.1.4 Action Step Livestock noxious weeds. 3 60 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
AuC-CCCS- Recovery (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
18.1.2 Action Livestock toxicity)
Cost based on participation of landowners. Cost
AuC-CCCS- Aid landowners willing to fence off riparian areas with CDFW, NOAA estimate for offstream water sources estimate is
18.1.2.1 Action Step Livestock development of offstream alternative water sources 2 30 RC, NRCS, RCD TBD $5,000/site.
NRCS, Private This action step should be coordinated with
AuC-CCCS- Where necessary, establish predetermined stream Landowneres, riparian restoration and fencing activities identified
18.1.2.2 Action Step Livestock crossings when herding cattle between pastures. 2 60 RCD TBD in above action steps.
NRCS, Private
AuC-CCCS- To minimize gully initiation, grazing should be kept at Landowneres,
18.1.2.3 Action Step Livestock relatively low intensities on steeper slopes 3 60 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Establish conservative residual dry matter (RDM)

target per acre that ensures area is not overgrazed
with 1000 lbs RDM (residual dry matter)/acre left at NRCS, Private
AuC-CCCS- end of grazing season. Remove cattle from pasture Landowneres,
18.1.2.4 Action Step Livestock before soils dry out. 3 25 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
19.1 Objective Logging habitat or range

Costs ($K)
Targeted Action

19.1.1 Action Logging (reduced large wood and/or shelter)
Board of
Forestry, NMFS,
Private
Landowners,
Encourage forest management which allows for Sonoma County,
AuC-CCCS- optimal levels of natural LWD recruitment of larger State Parks, US Recruitment of LWD to the stream is critical.
19.1.1.1 Action Step Logging older trees into stream channels 2 60 EPA 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Acquire key large tracts of forestlands identified as a RCD, Sonoma
AuC-CCCS- priority by Federal, State, local government, and non- County, State Cost based on fair market value and land
19.1.1.2 Action Step Logging governmental organizations 3 60 Parks TBD turnover.
Board of
Forestry, CDFW,
NMFS, Sonoma
AuC-CCCS- Conserve and manage forestlands for older forest County, State
19.1.1.3 Action Step Logging stages. 3 60 Parks, USEPA 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport

19.1.2 Action Logging (road condition/density, dams, etc.)
Board of
Forestry, CalFire,
Develop a Road Sediment Reduction Plan that CDFW, Private
AuC-CCCS- prioritizes problem sites and outlines implementation Landowners, Costs of a road sediment reduction plan are
19.1.2.1 Action Step Logging and a timeline of necessary actions. 3 5 RCD 100.00 100 estimated at $100,000/plan.
Prevent or minimize future sediment and runoff
sources from logging by utilizing BMP's that prevent CalFire, Private
AuC-CCCS- or minimize delivery of sediment and runoff to stream Landowners, This action step should be considered standard
19.1.2.2 Action Step Logging channels. 3 25 RCD 0 practice. Action is considered In-Kind
AuC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

19.2 Objective Logging mechanisms
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape

19.2.1 Action Logging disturbance
Assign NMFS staff to conduct THP reviews of the
highest priority areas using revised "Guidelines for
NMFS Staff when Reviewing Timber Operations: Cost is minimal because NMFS/CDFW already
AuC-CCCS- Avoiding Take and Harm of Salmon and Steelhead" CalFire, CDFW, participate in meetings the Board of Forestry.
19.2.1.1 Action Step Logging (NMFS 2004). 2 2 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Establish greater oversight and post-harvest
AuC-CCCS- monitoring by the permitting agency for operations
19.2.1.2 Action Step Logging within high value habitat areas 3 10 NMFS, State 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Provide information to BOF regarding CCC
AuC-CCCS- steelhead priorities and recommend upgrading CalFire, CDFW,
19.2.1.3 Action Step Logging relevant forest practices. 3 2 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
20.1 Objective Mining habitat or range
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

20.1.1 Action Mining migration
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
Landowners, Cost based on appropriate measures needed to
AuC-CCCS- Improve passage where mining and other activities Sonoma County, improve passage. Cost fish/habitat restoration
20.1.1.1 Action Step Mining have resulted in diminished migration windows 1 20 USACE TBD model estimate of $114,861/project.

Costs ($K)
Targeted Action
Continue projects to improve adult and smolt CDFW, NMFS,

migration , habitat complexity and maintenance of Private
low flow channels in reaches upstream of active Landowners,
mining areas in cooperation with existing gravel Sonoma County,
AuC-CCCS- mining operations (eg. construction of pools, alcoves, Trout Unlimited,
20.1.1.2 Action Step Mining and LWD) 1 20 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
Gravel mining practices recommended by NMFS and Landowners,
AuC-CCCS- CDFW should be used and followed in new mining Sonoma County,
20.1.1.3 Action Step Mining practices. 2 20 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
Outmigrant monitoring and physical monitoring (cross Landowners,
sections, longitudinal profiles, etc.) should continue to Sonoma County
AuC-CCCS- document channel conditions, and expand Water Agency,
20.1.1.4 Action Step Mining knowledge of migrating smolt patterns 3 10 Trout Unlimited 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Prevent or minimize impairment to instream habitat
AuC-CCCS- Recovery complexity (altered pool complexity and/or pool riffle
20.1.2 Action Mining ratio)
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
Develop and enhance staging pool habitats and Private Cost based on treating 10 mile at a rate of
AuC-CCCS- thalweg depth where geomorphic conditions dictate Landowners, $26,000/mile. If ELJ is used, estimate rate is
20.1.2.1 Action Step Mining and allow 2 5 USACE 260.00 260 $104,000/ELJ.
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
Continue to implement and support BMP's which Private
AuC-CCCS- improve, maintain or prevent impacts to habitat Landowners,
20.1.2.2 Action Step Mining complexity when reviewing new mining plans. 3 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind

20.1.3 Action Mining (reduced large wood and/or shelter)
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
Private Estimated costs based on similar costs in
AuC-CCCS- Develop and enhance offchannel habitats such as Landowners, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
20.1.3.1 Action Step Mining alcoves to promote fry and juvenile rearing habitat 2 10 USACE 149 149 298 site, setting and geographic specific.
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
Retain LWD, boulders and vegetation on riffles Private
AuC-CCCS- where structure is beneficial to migration and resting Landowners,
20.1.3.2 Action Step Mining cover 3 20 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/C Address the present or threatened destruction,

AuC-CCCS- ommercial modification, or curtailment of the species
22.1 Objective Development habitat or range
Residential/Co
AuC-CCCS- Recovery mmercial Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
22.1.1 Action Development and diversity
CDFW, Cities,
Counties, NMFS,
Residential/Co Improve education and awareness of agencies, Private
AuC-CCCS- mmercial landowners and the public regarding salmonid Landowners,
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development protection and habitat requirements. 3 10 Water Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Costs ($K)
Targeted Action
Educate county and city public works departments,

Residential/Co flood control districts, and planning departments, etc.,
AuC-CCCS- mmercial on the critical importance of maintaining riparian CDFW, Cities,
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development vegetation, instream LWD, and LWD recruitment. 3 20 Counties, NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/Co Design and implement education programs to CDFW, Cities,
AuC-CCCS- mmercial promote public awareness of salmon and steelhead Counties, NMFS,
22.1.1.3 Action Step Development habitat within urban creek settings. 3 5 Public 75.00 75 Cost estimate from CDFG 2004.
Assess efficacy and necessity of ongoing stream CDFW, Cities,

Residential/Co maintenance practices and evaluate, avoid, minimize Counties, NMFS,
AuC-CCCS- mmercial and/or mitigate their impacts to rearing and migrating NOAA RC,
22.1.1.4 Action Step Development steelhead and Chinook salmon. 2 5 Water Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/Co
AuC-CCCS- Recovery mmercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape
22.1.2 Action Development disturbance
As mitigation for hydrograph consequences,
municipalities and counties should investigate
funding of larger detention devices in key watersheds
Residential/Co with ongoing channel degradation or in sub- Investigating funding larger detention devices is
AuC-CCCS- mmercial watersheds where impervious surface area > 10 CDFW, Cities, not expected to cost much. Implementing the
22.1.2.1 Action Step Development percent. 3 5 Counties, NMFS TBD devices will be much more expensive.
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
Residential/Co Purchase conservation easements from landowners Private Cost of purchasing land/conservation easements
AuC-CCCS- mmercial that currently have grazing or agricultural operations Landowners, is based on fair market value, land turnover, and
22.1.2.2 Action Step Development along the estuary. 2 10 RCD TBD landowner participation.
CDFW,
Identify areas at high risk of conversion from forest Counties, NMFS,
Residential/Co land to rural resident etc., and develop incentives Private Cost of identifying and developing incentives to
AuC-CCCS- mmercial and alternatives for landowners that discourage Landowners, landowners expected to be low. Action is
22.1.2.3 Action Step Development conversion. 3 25 RCD 0 considered In-Kind
Design new developments to minimize the impacts to
unstable slopes, wetlands, areas of high habitat
Residential/Co value, and similarly constrained sites that occur
AuC-CCCS- mmercial adjacent to a CCC steelhead or CC Chinook salmon CDFW, Cities,
22.1.2.4 Action Step Development watercourse. 3 100 Counties, NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Counties and municipalities should adopt a policy of

managed retreat (removal of problematic
Residential/Co infrastructure and replacement with native vegetation
AuC-CCCS- mmercial or flood tolerant land uses) for areas highly CDFW, Cities,
22.1.2.5 Action Step Development susceptible to, or previously damaged from, flooding. 2 50 Counties, NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Encouraging the county on the above issue is not
Residential/Co Encourage infill and high density developments over likely to incur any costs outside of the duties of
AuC-CCCS- mmercial dispersal of low density rural residential in CDFW, Cities, already salaried state and federal workers.
22.1.2.6 Action Step Development undeveloped areas. 3 100 Counties, NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/Co Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
AuC-CCCS- Recovery mmercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
22.1.3 Action Development toxicity)
Disperse discharge from new or upgraded
commercial and residential areas into a spatially
distributed network rather than a few point
Residential/Co discharges, which can result in locally severe erosion
AuC-CCCS- mmercial and disruption of riparian vegetation and instream Implementing the BMP is not expected to be very
22.1.3.1 Action Step Development habitat. 2 100 Cities, Counties 0 costly.

Costs ($K)
Targeted Action
CDFW, City
Planning,
Residential landowners should utilize BMP's from Private
Basins Of Relations: A Citizen's Guide to Protecting Landowners,
and Restoring Our Watersheds (OAEC, 2007), Slow Public Works,
Residential/Co it. Spread it. Sink it! (Santa Cruz Resource Sonoma County
AuC-CCCS- mmercial Conservations District, 2009) to conserve water Water Agency,
22.1.3.2 Action Step Development resources 3 25 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/C
AuC-CCCS- ommercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
22.2 Objective Development mechanisms
Residential/Co
AuC-CCCS- Recovery mmercial Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
Mendocino
Residential/Co County, Private
AuC-CCCS- mmercial Implement performance standards in Stormwater Landowners, Cost of implementing performance standards is
22.2.1.1 Action Step Development Management Plans. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 likely low.
Residential/Co Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
AuC-CCCS- Recovery mmercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Avoid, or at a minimum minimize, the use of Cities,

Residential/Co commercial and industrial products (e.g. pesticides) Mendocino
AuC-CCCS- mmercial with high potential for contamination of local County, Sonoma
22.2.2.1 Action Step Development waterways. 2 100 County, USEPA 0 Implementing the BMP is expected to be low cost.
Toxic waste products from urban activities should

Residential/Co receive the appropriate treatment before being
AuC-CCCS- mmercial discharged into any body of water that may enter any Cities, Counties,
22.2.2.2 Action Step Development steelhead or Chinook salmon waters. 2 100 Public, RWQCB 0 Implementing the BMP is expected to be low cost.
Residential/Co
AuC-CCCS- Recovery mmercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape
CDFW, Farm Institutionalizing programs to purchase land is not

Institutionalize programs to purchase Bureau, Land expected to be much cost. Buying the land, on
Residential/Co land/conservation easements to encourage the re- Trusts, NMFS, the other hand, is likely to be very expensive.
AuC-CCCS- mmercial establishment and/or enhancement of natural riparian NRCS, RCD, Cost based on fair market value, land turnover,
22.2.3.1 Action Step Development communities. 3 25 Sonoma County 0 and participation from landowners.
Residential/Co
AuC-CCCS- mmercial Discourage Sonoma County from rezoning CDFW, NMFS, The cost of discouraging forestland conversion is
22.2.3.2 Action Step Development forestlands to rural residential or other land uses. 3 20 Sonoma County 0 expected to be low. Action is considered In-Kind
Cost of ensuring enforcement of existing building

Residential/Co permits is expected to be low (i.e., covered as
AuC-CCCS- mmercial Enforce existing building permit programs to minimize part of already existing enforcement programs).
22.2.3.3 Action Step Development unpermitted construction. 3 100 Cities, Counties 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Develop legislation that will fund county planning for CDFW, Cities,
environmentally sound growth and water supply and Counties, NMFS,
Residential/Co work in coordination with California Dept. of Housing, Private
AuC-CCCS- mmercial Association of Bay Area Governments and other Landowners,
22.2.3.4 Action Step Development government associations (CDFG 2004). 3 10 Public 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/Co Minimize new construction in undeveloped areas
AuC-CCCS- mmercial within the 100-year flood prone zones in all historical CDFW, NMFS,
22.2.3.5 Action Step Development CCC steelhead watersheds. 3 5 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Costs ($K)
Targeted Action
Residential/Co Work with Mendocino County to develop more CDFW, NMFS, Cost is expected to be low since work will largely
AuC-CCCS- mmercial protective regulations in regard to exurban RWQCB, be carried out by federal, state and local staff.
22.2.3.6 Action Step Development development (vineyard and rural residential). 3 10 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Encourage Sonoma and Mendocino County to
develop and implement ordinances (e.g., Santa
Cruz) to restrict subdivisions by requiring a minimum CDFW,
Residential/Co acreage limit for parcelization and in concert with Mendocino
AuC-CCCS- mmercial limits on water supply and groundwater recharge County, NMFS, Encouraging the county is not expected to result
22.2.3.7 Action Step Development areas. 3 5 Sonoma County 0 in a high cost basis. Action is considered In-Kind
Land Trusts,
Residential/Co Explore the use of conservation easements to Private
AuC-CCCS- mmercial provide incentives for private landowners to preserve Landowners,
22.2.3.8 Action Step Development riparian corridors 2 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AuC-CCCS- Roads/Railro modification, or curtailment of the species
23.1 Objective ads habitat or range
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Roads/Railroa Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport

23.1.1 Action ds (road condition/density, dams, etc.)
In the Big Austin Creek watershed, implement results Private Cost based on road inventory of 163 miles of
of existing sediment source surveys, and assess Landowners, road network at a rate of $957/mile. Cost could
AuC-CCCS- Roads/Railroa remaining watershed road networks to eliminate high Public Works, be reduced if coordinated with similar action
23.1.1.1 Action Step ds priority and high sediment yield sources. 2 10 RCD 78.00 78.00 156 steps.
In the East Austin Creek watershed, implement

results of existing sediment source surveys, and
assess remaining watershed road networks to
eliminate high priority and high sediment yield Private
sources. Upgrade and decommission sites and road Landowners, Cost accounted for as part of similar action steps.
networks where appropriate. These actions include Public Works, Cost for upgrading and decommissioning roads
AuC-CCCS- Roads/Railroa outsloping roads, ditch relief culverts, and installing RCD, State estimate is $21,000 and $12,000/mile,
23.1.1.2 Action Step ds rolling dips. 2 10 Parks TBD respectively.
Establish adequate spoils storage sites throughout

the watershed so material from landslides and road
maintenance can be stored safely away from Private
AuC-CCCS- Roads/Railroa watercourses. Coordinate these efforts with all Landowners, Cost based on amount of adequate spoil sites
23.1.1.3 Action Step ds landowners in the watershed. 2 10 Public Works TBD needed and feasibility of implementing.
Decommission riparian roads and skid trails on

forestlands that deliver sediment into adjacent
watercourses. High priority streams identified by
DFG habitat reports include Sheephouse Creek, NRCS, Private
Austin and East Austin Creeks, Blackrock Creek, Landowners,
AuC-CCCS- Roads/Railroa Kidd Creek, Gilliam Creek, Pole Mountain, Conshea Public Works,
23.1.1.4 Action Step ds Creek, and Schoolhouse Creek (CDFG 2009). 3 20 State Parks 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Roads/Railroa Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

23.1.2 Action ds migration
CDFW, Private
Landowners,
AuC-CCCS- Roads/Railroa Assess private road stream crossings for barrier RCD, Trout
23.1.2.1 Action Step ds potential and implement recommendations 1 5 Unlimited 0 Cost likely accounted for in other action steps.
CDFW, Private
Implement public road barrier survey Landowners,
AuC-CCCS- Roads/Railroa recommendations in high then medium value areas Sonoma County, Cost based on recommendations identified in
23.1.2.2 Action Step ds as a priority (See Passage) 2 5 State Parks TBD road assessment.

Costs ($K)
Targeted Action
Utilize BMP's to upgrade existing crossings (bridges, Private
culverts, fills, and other crossings) to accommodate Landowners,
AuC-CCCS- Roads/Railroa 100-year flood flows and associated bedload and Public Works,
23.1.2.3 Action Step ds debris. 3 25 State Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Roads/Railroa Prevent or minimize increased landscape

23.1.3 Action ds disturbance
Private
Landowners,
Utilize BMP's to reduce the lengths of ditches, Public Works,
AuC-CCCS- Roads/Railroa increase the size of ditch relief culverts, or replace RCD, State This action step should be considered standard
23.1.3.1 Action Step ds with rolling dips 2 25 Parks 0 practice. Action is considered In-Kind
AuC-CCCS- Roads/Railroa 100-year flood flows and associated bedload and Public Works,
23.1.3.2 Action Step ds debris. 2 25 State Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Utilize best management practices for road

construction, maintenance, management and FishNet 4C,
decommissioning (e.g. Fishnet 4c County Roads Private
AuC-CCCS- Roads/Railroa Manual; Hagans & Weaver, 1994; Sommarstrom, Landowners,
23.1.3.3 Action Step ds 2002; Oregon Department of Transportation, 1999). 2 20 Public Works 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AuC-CCCS- Roads/Railro Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

23.2 Objective ads mechanisms
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Roads/Railroa Prevent or minimize increased landscape

23.2.1 Action ds disturbance
CalFire,
CalTrans, County
Planning, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
Landowners,
AuC-CCCS- Roads/Railroa Prevent or minimize sediment sources on newly Public, RCD, Cost cannot be determined at this time but should
23.2.1.1 Action Step ds constructed roads 3 60 Sonoma County TBD be adopted as part of future road actions.
Utilize best management practices for road Private

construction (e.g. Fishnet 4c County Roads Manual; Landowners,
AuC-CCCS- Roads/Railroa Hagans & Weaver, 1994; Sommarstrom, 2002; Public Works,
23.2.1.2 Action Step ds Oregon Department of Transportation, 1999). 3 25 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Incorporating 100-year flood flow design

All new crossings and upgrades to existing crossings CalTrans, specifications into projects is not expected to
(bridges, culverts, fills, and other crossings) should CDFW, Sonoma result in more cost. Implementing the projects
AuC-CCCS- Roads/Railroa accommodate 100-year flood flows and associated County, State may prove more costly than less protective
23.2.1.3 Action Step ds bedload and debris. 3 60 Parks 0 designs. Action is considered In-Kind
Severe
AuC-CCCS- Weather Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
24.1 Objective Patterns mechanisms
Severe
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
24.1.1 Action Patterns hydrology

Costs ($K)
Targeted Action
Board of
Forestry, CA
Coastal
Commission,
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
California
Department of
Mines and
Geology,
Caltrans, CDFW,
CDFW Law
Enforcement,
City Planning,
Farm Bureau,
FEMA, NMFS,
NRCS, Public
Works, RWQCB,
State Parks,
All Federal, State and local, planning should include SWRCB,
Severe considerations and allowances that ensure continued USACE,
AuC-CCCS- Weather operations during droughts and floods while also USEPA, USGS,
24.1.1.1 Action Step Patterns providing for salmonid recovery needs. 3 20 Water Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Severe
AuC-CCCS- Weather Address other natural or manmade factors
24.2 Objective Patterns affecting the species continued existence
Severe
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
Work with water managers on regulated streams to

assure adequate and proper consideration is given to CDFW, NMFS,
Severe fish needs. Develop agreements that will minimize Private
AuC-CCCS- Weather water-use conflicts and impacts on fish and wildlife Landowners, Cost is expected to be low. Action is considered
24.2.1.1 Action Step Patterns resources during drought conditions. 2 20 SWRCB 0 In-Kind
Severe
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
24.2.2 Action Patterns (impaired water flow)
CDFW, NMFS,
Severe Work with land owners or public agencies to acquire Private
AuC-CCCS- Weather water that would be utilized to minimize effects of Landowners, Cost difficult to estimate due to uncertainty with
24.2.2.1 Action Step Patterns droughts. 2 100 SWRCB TBD the cost of water, number of participants, etc.
Evaluate the rate and volume of water diversions CDFW, NMFS,

Severe and in streams and tributaries and, where Private
AuC-CCCS- Weather appropriate, minimize water withdrawals that could Landowners, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
24.2.2.2 Action Step Patterns impact steelhead and Chinook salmon. 3 10 SWRCB 32.50 32.50 65 a rate of $65,084/project.
Manage reservoirs and dam releases to maintain CDFW, NMFS,

Severe suitable rearing temperatures and migratory flows in Private
AuC-CCCS- Weather downstream habitats (e.g., pulse flow programs for Landowners,
24.2.2.3 Action Step Patterns adult upstream migration and smolt outmigration). 3 100 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, CDFW
Law
Severe Identify and work with water users to minimize Enforcement,
AuC-CCCS- Weather depletion of summer base flows from unauthorized NMFS, NMFS
24.2.2.4 Action Step Patterns water uses. 3 10 OLE, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Costs ($K)
Targeted Action
CDFW, Costs are expected to be minimal as some of

Implement water conservation strategies that provide RWQCB, these efforts will be part of existing programs,
Severe for drought contingencies without relying on Sonoma County however some technical assistance may be
AuC-CCCS- Weather interception of surface flows or groundwater Water Agency, necessary from a variety of agencies. Action is
24.2.2.5 Action Step Patterns depletion. 3 10 State Parks 0 considered In-Kind
Severe
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
24.2.3 Action Patterns (impaired stream temperature)
CDFW, NOAA
Maintain canopy levels at desirable levels in all RC, Private
Severe streams and restore canopy levels to desirable levels Landowners,
AuC-CCCS- Weather in high value habitat areas (See WATER QUALITY State Parks,
24.2.3.1 Action Step Patterns for specific actions/areas 2 25 Trout Unlimited TBD See WATER QUALITY and RIPARIAN
Water Address the present or threatened destruction,

AuC-CCCS- Diversion/Imp modification, or curtailment of the species
25.1 Objective oundment habitat or range
Water
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Imp Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
25.1.1 Action oundment (impaired water flow)
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NRCS,
Water Sonoma County Promoting water conservation best practices is
AuC-CCCS- Diversion/Imp Promote water conservation best practices such as Water Agency, not expected to result in additional costs. Action
25.1.1.1 Action Step oundment drip irrigation for vineyards. 3 20 SWRCB 0 is considered In-Kind
CDFW, RCD,
Water Sonoma County Costs associated with promoting use of reclaimed
AuC-CCCS- Diversion/Imp Promote the use of reclaimed water for agricultural or Water Agency, water is expected to be minimal. Action is
25.1.1.2 Action Step oundment other uses. 3 60 State Parks 0 considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
Private
Landowners,
RCD, RWQCB,
Sonoma County,
Water Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Sonoma County
AuC-CCCS- Diversion/Imp water diversion (e.g., storage tanks for rural Water Agency, Costs are minimal to promote. Action is
25.1.1.3 Action Step oundment residential users). 1 20 SWRCB 0 considered In-Kind
NMFS, RCD,
RWQCB,
Water Promote passive diversion devices designed to allow Sonoma County
AuC-CCCS- Diversion/Imp diversion of water only when minimum streamflow Water Agency, Costs to promote this action are expected to be
25.1.1.4 Action Step oundment requirements are met or exceeded (CDFG 2004). 3 30 SWRCB 0 minimal. Action is considered In-Kind
Water
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Imp Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
25.1.2 Action oundment and diversity
Cost based on amount of fish screens needed to
Water prevent juvenile salmonid mortalities. Cost for
AuC-CCCS- Diversion/Imp Adequately screen water diversions to prevent CDFW, NMFS, fish screens estimate ranges from $13,366 to
25.1.2.1 Action Step oundment juvenile salmonid mortalities. 1 10 NOAA RC TBD $53,465/screen.
Water
AuC-CCCS- Diversion/Imp Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
25.2 Objective oundment mechanisms

Costs ($K)
Targeted Action
Water
AuC-CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Imp Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
25.2.1 Action oundment (impaired water flow)
Develop and apply a distributed hydrologic water

budget model to characterize surface stream flows
within Russian River tributaries, to allow for
comparisons between impaired and unimpaired CDFW, County
conditions, with an emphasis on summer base flow Planning, Farm
conditions relative to rearing juvenile salmonids. Bureau, NMFS,
These data will reduce uncertainty, provide greater NOAA NWS,
temporal and spatial focus on impaired reaches and NOAA RC,
Water greater certainty for reaches that have water NRCS, Private
AuC-CCCS- Diversion/Imp available for consumptive uses and be useful as a Landowners,
25.2.1.1 Action Step oundment decision-support tool for other programs. 1 5 RCD 0 Cost for hydrologic model already accounted for.
CDFW, County
Planning, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NOAA NWS,
NOAA RC,
Support efforts to provide improved localized NRCS, Private
Water weather prediction capabilities in support of finer Landowners,
AuC-CCCS- Diversion/Imp scale frost protection capabilities for the benefit of RCD, Water
25.2.1.2 Action Step oundment grape growers and fisheries flows. 1 5 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, County
To resolve frost protection/fisheries conflicts over Planning, Farm
spring baseflows evaluate alternatives such as: Bureau, NMFS,
develop information about prioritizing tributaries and NOAA NWS,
locations for offstream storage; develop criteria for NOAA RC,
sizing offstream storage; develop criteria making NRCS, Private
Water compensatory releases from large dams; provide Landowners, Cost based on types and feasibility of
AuC-CCCS- Diversion/Imp policy and funding for the above actions to maximize RCD, Water recommendations to employ to reduce conflicts
25.2.1.3 Action Step oundment benefits for fisheries and agriculture. 1 5 Agencies TBD between frost protection and fisheries.
CDFW, RCD,
RWQCB,
Sonoma County,
Water Request that SWRCB review and/or modify water Sonoma County Coordination costs are expected to be minimal,
AuC-CCCS- Diversion/Imp use based on the needs of steelhead and authorized Water Agency, depending on what specific actions are proposed.
25.2.1.4 Action Step oundment diverters (CDFG 2004). 3 5 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Evaluate requests for on-stream dams above
Water migratory reaches for effects on the natural CDFW,
AuC-CCCS- Diversion/Imp hydrograph and the supply of spawning gravel for SWRCB, Evaluation costs are expected to be minimal.
25.2.1.5 Action Step oundment recruitment downstream (CDFG 2004). 3 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Water Technical assistance may be provided, and
AuC-CCCS- Diversion/Imp Improve compliance with existing water resource NMFS, RWQCB, associated costs are expected to be minimal.
25.2.1.6 Action Step oundment regulations via monitoring and enforcement. 3 15 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Green Valley Creek Population

Role within DPS: Potentially Independent Population

Historical fish surveys dating back to the 1950s and 1960s exist for Green Valley and its tributary
streams and describe in general the habitat conditions and distribution of native fishes, though
no rigorous historical abundance surveys exist for the basin (CDFW 2002). Steelhead were
commonly rescued and relocated to tributary streams both within and from out of the basin
through the 1960s, reflecting low baseflow conditions that still persist today. The first extensive
historical survey occurred in 1966, reporting steelhead commonly throughout the sixteen miles
of the survey. In 1969, it was reported that the numbers of non-game fish moving downstream
toward the confluence with the Russian River increased, while the number of juvenile steelhead
decreased through the same area (a reflection of poorer habitat conditions still existing today).
No non-game fish were observed upstream of the confluence with Atascadero Creek.
Approximately 4.4 miles of stream was estimated to be suitable for steelhead spawning (near the
Highway 116 bridge and upstream of the confluence with Atascadero Creek). Through the 1970s
sporadic surveys were conducted. In 1984, over 30,000 juvenile steelhead were released into
Green Valley and Atascadero creeks from the Warm Springs Hatchery. Abundance and
distribution surveys were conducted in 1991 though few steelhead were documented over the
three reaches sampled. In 1994, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
conducted a systematic habitat survey of the entire watershed that also included biological
inventories to describe summer juvenile and adult general abundance and distribution in all
tributaries (CDFW 1994).
Since 2005, annual juvenile, smolt and adult monitoring has been conducted in Green Valley
Creek by the University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) under contract to CDFW as
part of the Russian River Captive Broodstock Program, and more recently to assist estuarine
monitoring being conducted by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). While the focus of
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Green Valley 139

Vol. IV, Central California Coast Steelhead Creek
this program has been coho salmon, juvenile steelhead have been incidentally captured and
enumerated, though adult and smolt numbers provide limited information as the trapping
timeline has only covered a portion of the steelhead adult/smolt migration period (R. Coey, pers.
com.).
History of Land Use

European settlement brought large scale logging in the Green Valley Creek watershed during the
first half of the 20th Century, followed by extensive grazing and tree cutting for coal production.
Agricultural activities and small ranchettes expanded during the mid-1900s with cultivation of
apple orchards, followed by prunes, then wine grapes. The Boudreau report was part of a 1978
Sonoma County Green Valley study that addressed groundwater concerns in the lower
watershed area as well as the concerns of many residents at the time regarding conversion of
agricultural land to rural residential development (Sonoma County 1978). The study recognized
that almost all the housing in the watershed used domestic wells and septic systems, and that
additional housing development could reduce groundwater below levels needed to support the
housing. Despite this 1978 study, rural residential housing development in the watershed has
continued without additional municipal water supply development (Marcus 2005). Seasonal
flashboard dams used for irrigation, frost protection, and domestic water supply were common
in Green Valley, Atascadero and Purrington Creeks, and although the structures remain, few of
these are operational today.

The Green Valley watershed encompasses approximately 38 square miles, stretching from Barnett
Valley Road and the town of Occidental at its southern end and joining the mainstem of the
Russian River at Rio Dell (Marcus 2005). Primary tributary streams are Atascadero Creek, Jonive
Creek, Purrington Creek, and Green Valley Creek (See Green Valley Creek map showing the
overall watershed and its subwatersheds). Current land uses include orchards, vineyards,
pasture, and rural development. There are two sewage disposal facilities and two quarries
(CDFW 2006).
In general, the watershed has a mixture of land uses: urban/rural residential, intensive
agriculture, and a relatively large number of public and private roads (Marcus 2005). Resource
management on private lands is largely carried out by private landowners with assistance from
various Federal and state agencies (e.g., CDFW, NMFS and Goldridge Resource Conservation
District with the assistance of National Resource Conservation Service). A systematic habitat
assessment of the entire watershed was conducted by the CDFW Watershed Restoration Program

in the 1990s. Recently, Trout Unlimited has conducted numerous restoration projects primarily
for erosion control, fish passage, and instream habitat enhancement.

Habitat surveys conducted by CDFW (CDFW 2002) indicate that the lower reaches of Green
Valley Creek and much of Atascadero Creek are marginal for salmon and steelhead habitat,
consisting of long, deep glide habitats constrained by poor shelter levels, high water temperatures
and high gravel embededdness (CDFW 1994). The unstable and steep banks in these reaches
limit instream habitat improvement alternatives. Upstream of the Atascadero Creek confluence
and within Purrington, Redwood, and Jonive creeks, conditions are better with ample rearing
habitat and canopy shading, although instream shelter and riffle habitat for spawning is lacking.
Stream bank erosion is prevalent in many areas due to the incised nature of the channel. The
following indicators were rated Poor through the CAP analysis for steelhead: Riparian
Vegetation, Sediment, Velocity Refuge, Habitat Complexity, Hydrology, Passage/Migration,
Water Quality, Landscape Patterns, Sediment Transport, and Viability (Smolts). Recovery
strategies will focus on improving these Poor conditions as well as those needed to ensure
population viability and functioning watershed processes.
Current Conditions
our CAP viability analysis. The Green Valley Creek CAP Viability Table results are provided
below. Recovery strategies will focus on improving these conditions.

Please see the Russian River Overview for a complete Estuary discussion.

Sediment transport function in the watershed has been interrupted by historic logging roads and
culverts which crisscrossed the headwater areas of Green Valley Creek. Roads in the lower
floodplain have been converted to rural residential usage without appropriate upgrading for
handling year round traffic or minimizing surface erosion, and culvert sizes are inadequate to
handle higher runoff from impervious surfaces and ditching resulting in increased channel
velocities. County and private roads often parallel the riparian zone, limiting the natural
meandering of the stream. Though passage improvements have been conducted by the County
and private organizations to assist adult migration, the retro-fits have not improved sediment

transport through these undersized culverts. Consequently, the uppermost reaches of Green
Valley Creek provide only fair spawning habitat quantity and quality, due to high embededdness
and infrequent gravel deposits.
Velocity Refuge: Floodplain Connectivity

Low large woody debris volume and limited access to seasonally inundated floodplain habitat
likely impact the winter survival of juveniles throughout the Green Valley Creek watershed.
Over-wintering fish require adequate resting and feeding cover to survive long winters with high
velocities. Channel modification and incision have separated the stream channel from its natural
floodplain throughout the year, except at extreme flood flows when salmonids can be flushed out
to agricultural and grazing lands. Displaced fish may become trapped and stranded outside the
stream channel during the declining limb of the hydrograph.
Hydrology: Redd Scour

In incised or channelized reaches, winter storms are confined within the channel due to the lack
of near-stream floodplain, increasing stream velocities over and through riffles where steelhead
lay their eggs in redds. Steelhead redds already hampered by high fine sediment levels are further
threatened by these high winter flows, which can scour out and expose steelhead eggs to
sediments, light and fungus.
Hydrology: Baseflow & Passage Flows

Impaired water flow is the primary concern for summer rearing juvenile salmonids in Green
Valley Creek watershed. Though bedrock reaches maintain year-round pools, the thin riparian
corridor in most reaches does not buffer against high temperatures in hotter months/years. UCCE
has documented pools in alluvial reaches which have routinely dried up during July or August
in recent years. Recently, fish rescues, which have been performed by CDFW, UCCE and
dedicated volunteers in the Green Valley Creek mainstem to relocate stocked Captive Broodstock
released coho salmon (and incidentally steelhead), have helped to improve summer survivability
of steelhead juveniles when they are moved to pools/reaches with available carrying capacity.
Hydrology: Impervious Surfaces

Watershed hydrology has been highly altered by channel modification, floodplain loss, roads and
culverts, and residential/agricultural development. Spawning gravel recruitment is limited,
while high velocity winter flows continue to erode finer sediments from incised channels that are
deposited in the flatter mainstem channels of Green Valley and Atascadero Creeks. Fine sediment
aggradation limits macro-invertebrate production in these lower reaches, offsetting the benefits
of year-round flows and the wetland, backwater nature of these habitats. Though the percentage
of impervious surfaces within the watershed is rated as very good, the numerous roads, ditches

and culverts have altered the natural hydrograph, and flood flows can be characterized as flashy.
These conditions impact winter rearing in the higher gradient reaches, and summer rearing in
the lower gradient reaches. Adult steelhead spawning is limited to relatively few reaches in
higher gradient channels, where gravels can be retained by boulders or bedrock, and which can
be susceptible to high embededdness or redd scouring from high flows.
Habitat Complexity: Percent Primary Pools & Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratios

Riffle habitats utilized by spawning adults are lacking throughout the watershed, due largely to
undersized culverts, an absence of gravel-retaining LWD, and stabilization of stream banks.
Quality pool habitat for juvenile rearing is absent in many areas where the channel bed has
lowered, and water demand from diversions exceed water supply from headwater areas. A few
deep pools exist where flows persist year-round over bedrock outcrops in the upper watershed.

None of the nine tributaries surveyed meet optimal criteria for shelter, rating Poor to Fair;
available shelter habitat is comprised mainly of undercut banks and boulders. The Poor shelter
ratings are due largely to a lack of functional riparian corridors and limited recruitment of large
conifer or evergreen species from adjacent upslope areas (CDFW 1995). GIS data indicated only
15% of forest timber is in size classes that would allow future recruitment to the stream channel.
Large woody debris that is recruited naturally is often removed by landowners due to concerns
for erosion in the highly incised areas of the channel.
Sediment: Gravel Quality & Distribution of Spawning Gravels

Although the CAP workbook indicates gravel quality rates Fair for the watershed, embededdness
levels are only good in the smaller tributaries, including Jonive, Redwood and Castellini Creeks.
Green Valley, Atascadero, and Purrington creeks have high gravel embededdness that likely
compromises spawning, egg incubation, and macro-invertebrate food production.

Summer and winter rearing are the primary bottlenecks to steelhead production in Green Valley
Creek. Migration of adults is now relatively unimpaired, and outmigration of smolts should be
fair given the lack of barriers and low gradient. Summer rearing conditions can be improved
through pool and shelter development throughout the watershed; however, the enhancement of
winter rearing conditions in higher gradient areas is limited to areas where the incised channel is
flanked by bedrock or coarse substrate. Decreasing sediment sources and improving water
quality would improve food supply for winter rearing steelhead in lower gradient reaches.
Expanding riparian corridors for LWD and gravel recruitment would improve adult spawning
potential.

Water Quality: Turbidity or Toxicity
A lack of juvenile and resident steelhead, and a general lack of other aquatic fishes and
invertebrates in lower Green Valley and Atascadero Creeks may suggest that water quality may
be limiting fish abundance, as upstream of the Atascadero Creek confluence, salmonids and other
fishes are routinely encountered. Water quality monitoring should be performed to document
the cause and source of these observations.

Recent abundance and distribution surveys by UCCE have documented high numbers of
predatory non-native piscivores fish species, such as bluegill and green sunfish. Presumably,
these fish are flushed from stock ponds during high flow events and become summer residents
in Green Valley Creek. UCCE biologists have theorized that low survival estimates previously
enumerated may be confounded by predacious fish within isolated pools, or incidentally caught
together with salmonids during trapping events (M. Obedzinski, Pers. Comm.).
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that rate as High or Very High (See Green
Valley Creek CAP Results). Recovery strategies will likely focus on ameliorating threats rated as
High; however, some strategies may address Medium and Low threats when the strategy is
essential to recovery efforts.
Agriculture
The expansion of agricultural practices that have reduced riparian corridors and the recruitment
of LWD has taken place throughout the lower gradient reaches of Green Valley and Atascadero
Creeks. Only 15% of the watershed riparian forest is made up of larger tree classes that have the
potential to stabilize banks and provide a long term source of LWD. Domestic and agricultural
water diversions likely lower summer baseflows, disconnecting aquatic habitat and elevating
instream temperatures. Agriculture operations that encroach into adjacent riparian areas,
reducing buffer width and increasing soil exposure, can increase sediment delivery to the stream
as well as impact shading and wood recruitment.
Channel modification (e.g., floodplain and riparian removal) has been the largest impact to
salmonid resources in Green Valley Creek and its tributaries. Only an estimated 30 percent of the
stream channel network is connected to the floodplain. This compromises winter rearing success
because juveniles cannot find refugia from high velocities and are flushed from high quality

headwater rearing habitat into downstream marginal mainstem or river habitat. In many areas,
channel modification has caused channel incision, over-steepened banks, high stream velocities,
bank erosion, gravel embededdness, and the loss of mature riparian trees.

Cattle and other livestock grazing have decreased the density of under-story riparian species that
provide habitat for terrestrial invertebrates, which are food for rearing juvenile salmonids. Cattle
grazing and loafing within riparian corridors have led to bank erosion and high gravel
embededdness, impacting egg incubation and spawning success.
Mining
Gravel mining is an ongoing and future threat that can alter sediment transport processes.
Channel aggradation can occur if mining practices remove instream bars, thereby flattening the
channel, whereas channel degradation can occur if mining practices exceed the sediment
replenishment rate of the watershed. Active gravel mining in the mainstem lower channel could
contribute further to juvenile and adult passage issues if current gravel mining practices
recommended by NMFS and CDFW are not strictly adhered to.

Existing residential and commercial developments and the potential future conversion of rural
larger ranchette and agricultural parcels to residential or commercial are the primary future
threat for Green Valley Creek salmonids. Increased road densities associated with
residential/commercial development can increase fine sediment delivery to streams. The
conversion of large ranchettes to water-intensive uses, such as agriculture or residential
development, can stress already depleted summer streamflows. Summer juvenile habitat is
currently lacking and in poor quality within Green Valley Creek, and summer baseflows are often
absent where domestic/agricultural water demand exceeds recharge capacity.
Roads and Railroads

Road density is high in Green Valley Creek, both within the riparian zone and upslope areas.
Road development has altered the natural flow of water through the watershed as well as
interrupted sediment transport, often causing channel degradation below undersized culverts.
This has led to channel incision and fish passage issues at several crossings. The 2008 Green
Valley Creek Watershed Assessment and Erosion Prevention Planning Project (PWA 2008)
identified that many existing roads are not maintained adequately, which contributes sediment
to streams, and culverts are undersized, which reduces spawning gravel availability. Many
culverts within the watershed are at risk of failing or causing flow diversion.

Though winters in the Green Valley Creek watershed exhibit a coastal-type climate, summer
streamflows are pressured by rural residential diversions/pumping along the mainstem and
tributaries to such a degree that long-lasting drought patterns could pose a significant threat to
maintaining adequate streamflows and aquatic habitat during the late summer and fall. Flooding
can either improve or degrade streams through the initiation or acceleration of erosional
processes, respectively depending upon the stability or resiliency of the stream channel.
However, for Green Valley Creek, severe flooding accelerates erosion and scours redds in the
incised channels and increases road surface erosion in this developed watershed.

Though several earthen dams occur in the upper watershed, the number of reported stream
diversions is low, with the chief water demand occurring in the summer from creek-side
residential and agricultural development. Frost protection in the spring is also potentially of
concern. Currently, studies by UCCE and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation are being
conducted to quantify water demand and supply within the basin and to identify water
conservation projects and opportunities in cooperation with watershed landowners.
Limiting Conditions, Lifestages, and Habitats

Threat and condition analysis within the CAP workbook suggests summer and winter juvenile
survival are the factors limiting steelhead abundance within the Green Valley Creek watershed.
Altered watershed processes, increased sediment load, altered sediment transport processes, and
reduced large wood quantity and recruitment are a result of landscape disturbance from historic
adjacent land-uses including historic timber harvest, and current agriculture, livestock raising,
mining, and the effects of residential development. Increased residential development and severe
weather are future threats to existing habitat conditions. Restoration actions should target
addressing these issues within high-potential habitat stream reaches.

In general, recovery strategies will focus on improving conditions and ameliorating stresses and
threats discussed above, although strategies that address other indicators may also be developed
where their implementation is critical to restoring properly functioning habitat conditions within
the watershed.

Improve & Conserve Water Resources
Efforts need to focus on continuing and supporting studies being conducted to quantify water
demand and supply, and identifying water conservation projects and opportunities in
cooperation with watershed landowners in Green Valley Creek mainstem (consider expanding
these studies to include Purrington Creek). One example of such an opportunity is the imprinting
of coho salmon from the captive broodstock program in a small instream flashboard dam
temporarily installed in cooperation with landowners and CDFW. Ironically, several flashboard
dams in the upper watershed that are no longer operated may have ameliorated or masked the
effects of high residential water demand. We recommend reevaluating the benefits of these types
of structures, which may have provided recharge or persistent baseflow benefits (simulating
beaver dams that are no longer present) to rearing steelhead.
Improve Water Temperatures and Water Quality

Planting trees to improve over-story conditions and stream temperatures is recommended for
lower Green Valley and Atascadero Creeks. Investigating sources of poor water quality
conditions and remediating them is recommended for Atascadero Creek.
Address Upslope Sediment Sources

and Ranch Roads (Weaver and Hagans 1994). Maintenance on public roads should be increased
and follow the standards of the Fishnet 4c Road Manual (Fishnet 2004). PWA (2008) identifies a
total of 145 sites with the potential to deliver over 15,182 yd3 of sediment to streams if left
untreated and recommends that 127 of these sites and road segments be treated for erosion
control, and an additional 11 miles of road surfaces and/or ditches (representing over 39% of the
total inventoried road mileage) currently draining to stream channels either directly or via gullies
be treated for prevention. From these hydrologically connected road segments, it is estimated
that over 9,703 yd3 of sediment could be delivered to stream channels within the watershed area
over the next decade if no efforts are made to change road drainage patterns. The expected benefit
of completing the erosion control and prevention planning work outlined in this report lies in the
reduction of long-term sediment delivery to Green Valley Creek, its tributaries, and the Russian
River.
Improve Habitat Complexity and Shelter Ratings

Shelter ratings are low within many surveyed stream reaches of Green Valley Creek. Where
applicable, restoration efforts should incorporate instream wood/boulder structures into
degraded reaches to improve habitat complexity and shelter availability. Specifically, Green
Valley and Purrington creeks would benefit from LWD enhancement. A range of treatments,

including un-anchored and anchored structures, should be considered depending upon site-
specific conditions, access and land ownership.
Expanding opportunities for spawning and rearing habitat, such as constructing structures for
pool development and enhancement, and trapping of spawning gravels, is recommended for
upper Green Valley, Purrington Creeks and tributaries to Atascadero.
Protect Riparian Corridors and Refugia Areas

Existing riparian corridors should be protected and where opportunities exist, riparian buffers
should be widened and/or floodplain areas lowered to benefit wintertime rearing. Rural
residential expansion should be discouraged except where General Plan elements are protective
enough to offset impacts to this largely undeveloped watershed. Conservation easements to
protect riparian resources should be evaluated and implemented where refugia areas have been
identified with willing landowners. Confining livestock out of riparian corridors in upper Green
Valley and Atascadero creeks has been conducted and will continue to eliminate concerns for
temperature and/or poor water quality from livestock browsing and loafing if fences are
maintained. Projects to limit access by livestock in any areas where livestock currently have
access should be implemented. Existing and future agricultural practices should follow accepted
best management practices such as those used in the Fish Friendly Farming program to protect
and enhance salmonid resources and water quality.

Literature Cited
CDFW 1994. Green Valley Creek Stream Inventory Report. 2002. California Department of Fish
and Game 2002 Draft Russian River Basin Fisheries Restoration Plan.
Fishnet 4C. 2004. County Road Maintenance Guidelines for Protecting Aquatic Habitat and
Salmon Fisheries Mendocino County Resource Conservation District June 1994.
M. Obedzinski, UCCE Sea Grant Biologist, 2012. Personal communication regarding

unpublished data.
PWA (Pacific Watershed Associates). 2008. Green Valley Creek Watershed Assessment and
Erosion Prevention Planning Project Sonoma County, California
R. Coey, NMFS Biologist 2012. Personal communication regarding unpublished data.
Sonoma County, 1978. Green Valley Study, Sonoma County Community and
Environmental Services.
Weaver, W.E. and D.K. Hagans. 1994. Handbook for forest and ranch roads: A guide for
planning designing, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining and closing wildland

roads.

Green Valley Creek CAP Viability Results
Current
Conservation Current
# Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Indicator
Target Rating
Measurement
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
1 Adults Condition Habitat Complexity Frequency (BFW 0- (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Poor
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Habitat Complexity Frequency (BFW 10- (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Poor
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 17% streams/
Pool/Riffle/Flatwater streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km 13% IP-km
Habitat Complexity Poor
Ratio (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools;
>20% Riffles) >20% Riffles) >20% Riffles) >20% Riffles) >20% Riffles)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
0% streams/ 0%
Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating IP-km (>80 Poor
stream average)
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
NMFS Flow
Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk
Hydrology Passage Flows Protocol: Risk Good
Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score
Factor Score 58
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km 50% of IP-Km 75% of IP-Km
Passage at Mouth or
Passage/Migration or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km 80% of IP-km Good
Confluence
accessible* km km
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km 70% of IP-km Fair
accessible* km km
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
Tree Diameter 39% Class 5 & >69% Class 5 & 15% Class 5 & 6
Riparian Vegetation 5 & 6 across IP- 5 & 6 across IP- Poor
(North of SF Bay) 6 across IP-km 6 across IP-km across IP-km
km km
70-79%
69% Density 80% Density
Tree Diameter Density rating Not
Riparian Vegetation rating "D" rating "D" Not Defined
(South of SF Bay) "D" across IP- Specified
across IP-km across IP-km
km

Quantity & <50% of IP-Km 50% of IP-Km 75% of IP-Km <50% of IP-Km
Sediment Distribution of or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km or <16 IP-Km Poor
Spawning Gravels accessible* km km accessible*
50-80% >80%
<50% Response 30% Response
Floodplain Response Response
Velocity Refuge Reach Not Defined Reach Poor
Connectivity Reach Reach
Connectivity Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants
Water Quality Turbidity maintains maintains maintains maintains maintains Fair
severity score severity score severity score severity score severity score of
of 3 or lower of 3 or lower of 3 or lower of 3 or lower 3 or lower
<1 spawner >1 spawner
per IP-km to < per IP-km to < low risk
low risk low risk spawner <7 spawners per
Size Viability Density Poor
spawner spawner density per IP-km
density per density per Spence (2008)
Spence (2008) Spence (2008)
Flow Conditions NMFS Flow
2 Eggs Condition Hydrology (Instantaneous Protocol: Risk Fair
Condition) Factor Score 67
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
NMFS Flow
Hydrology Redd Scour Protocol: Risk Poor
Factor Score 83
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% 15-17%
Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) and >30% (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and Fair
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm)
streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km 28% IP-km
Gravel Quality
Sediment (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream Poor
(Embeddedness)
average scores average scores average scores average scores average scores
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Juveniles Condition

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Habitat Complexity Frequency (Bankfull (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Poor
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Habitat Complexity (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Poor
Width 10-100
Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100
meters)
<50% of 51% to 74% of 75% to 89% of >90% of 56% streams
Percent Primary
Habitat Complexity (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average Fair
Pools
primary pool primary pool primary pool primary pool primary pool
frequency) frequency) frequency) frequency) frequency)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Pool/Riffle/Flatwater streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km Not
Habitat Complexity
Ratio (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; Specified
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
0% streams/ 0%
stream average)
NMFS Flow
Flow Conditions Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk
Hydrology Protocol: Risk Poor
(Baseflow) Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score
Factor Score 83
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
Hydrology (Instantaneous Protocol: Risk Poor
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
Hydrology and/or Magnitude of Diversions/10 Diversions/10 Diversions/10 0 Diversions Diversions/10 IP- Fair
Diversions IP km IP km IP km km
<50% of IP-Km 50% of IP-Km 75% of IP-Km <50% of IP-km or
Passage at Mouth or
Passage/Migration or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km <16 IP-km Poor
Confluence
accessible* km km accessible*
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km <16 IP-km Poor

streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km /100% IP-km
(>70% average (>70% average (>70% average (>70% average (>70% average
Riparian Vegetation Canopy Cover stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; Very Good
>85% where >85% where >85% where >85% where >85% where
coho IP coho IP coho IP coho IP coho IP
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
km km
70-79%
km
Sediment (Food Gravel Quality
(>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream Poor
Productivity) (Embeddedness)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP 75 to 89% IP
<50% IP km >90% IP km 50 to 74% IP-km
km (<20 C km (<20 C
(<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT;
Temperature MWMT; <16 C MWMT; <16 C
Water Quality <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT Fair
(MWMT) MWMT where MWMT where
where coho IP where coho IP where coho IP
coho IP coho IP
overlaps) overlaps) overlaps)
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Sublethal or No Acute or
Water Quality Toxicity Acute Toxins or Acute Poor
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5 0.2 - 0.6
Size Viability Density <0.2 Fish/m^2 >1.5 Fish/m^2 Fair
Fish/m^2 Fish/m^2 Fish/m^2
<50% of 50-74% of 75-90% of >90% of
75-90% of
Viability Spatial Structure Historical Historical Historical Historical Good
Historical Range
Range Range Range Range

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Winter Rearing
4 Condition Habitat Complexity Frequency (Bankfull (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Poor
Juveniles
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km Not
Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating
(>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream Specified
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km 80% of IP-km Good
accessible* km km
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
km km
70-79%
km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50-80% >80%
<50% Response 30% Response
No Evidence of
Contaminants

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Not
Water Quality Turbidity maintains maintains maintains maintains
Specified
severity score severity score severity score severity score
of 3 or lower of 3 or lower of 3 or lower of 3 or lower
Properly
Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
0% streams/ 0%
stream average)
Not
Hydrology and/or Magnitude of Diversions/10 Diversions/10 Diversions/10 0 Diversions
Specified
Diversions IP km IP km IP km
NMFS Flow
Hydrology Passage Flows Protocol: Risk Fair
Factor Score 67
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km 50% of IP-Km 75% of IP-Km <50% of IP-Km
Passage at Mouth or
Passage/Migration or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km or <16 IP-Km Poor
Confluence
<50% IP-Km (>6 50-74% IP-Km 75-90% IP-Km >90% IP-Km 75-90% IP-km
Smoltification Temperature Good
and <14 C) (>6 and <14 C) (>6 and <14 C) (>6 and <14 C) (>6 and <14 C)
No Evidence of
Contaminants
Smolt
Smolt Smolt
abundance Smolt
abundance abundance
which abundance to
which produces which produces
produces produce low
Size Viability Abundance high risk high risk Poor
moderate risk risk spawner
spawner spawner density
spawner density per
density per per Spence
density per Spence (2008)
Spence (2008) (2008)
Spence (2008)
>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of 1.9% of
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of 21.9% of
Landscape Patterns Agriculture Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Fair
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of 25-15% of
Landscape Patterns Timber Harvest Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Good
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of 93% 1 Unit / 5
Landscape Patterns Urbanization watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 Acres to 2 Units Poor
unit/20 acres unit/20 acres unit/20 acres unit/20 acres / Acre (48%)
<25% Intact 25-50% Intact 51-74% Intact >75% Intact 25-50% Intact
Historical Historical Historical Historical Historical
Riparian Vegetation Species Composition Fair
Species Species Species Species Species
Composition Composition Composition Composition Composition
>3 2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6
Sediment 4.8 Miles/Square
Road Density Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Poor
Transport Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile
>1 0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1
Sediment Streamside Road 4.6 Miles/Square
Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Poor
Transport Density (100 m) Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile

Green Valley Creek CAP Threat Results

1 Agriculture Medium Medium High High High Medium High
2 Channel Modification High High High High Medium High High
3 Disease, Predation and Competition Low Not Specified Medium Low Medium Low Medium
4 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Low Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Low Not Specified Low
5 Suppression Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low
6 Fishing and Collecting Low Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Low
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
8 Logging and Wood Harvesting High Low Medium Medium Low Low Medium
9 Mining Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
10 Recreational Areas and Activities Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified
11 Residential and Commercial Development High High High Medium Medium High High
12 Roads and Railroads High High Medium Medium High High High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Medium Medium High Medium High Medium High
14 Water Diversion and Impoundments Medium High Very High Medium High Medium High
Threat Status for Targets and Project High High Very High High High High Very High

Green Valley Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
Targeted Action Costs ($K)
Attribute or Priority Duration Recovery Entire
Action ID Level Threat Action Description Number (Years) Partner FY 1-5 FY 6-10 FY 11-15 FY 16-20 FY 21-25 Duration Comment
GVC-CCCS- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species
2.1 Objective Connectivity habitat or range
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain

2.1.1 Action Connectivity Rehabilitate and enhance floodplain connectivity
Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- Farm Bureau,

GVC-CCCS- Floodplain established in low gradient response reaches of NMFS, Public
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity lower Green Valley and Atascadero Creek mainstem. 2 10 Works, RCD TBD
Design and implement floodplain rehabilitation

projects that target winter and summer rearing habitat
for juvenile steelhead. Improve conditions to re-
create, and restore alcove, backwater, or perennial
pond habitats in lower Green Valley, lower
Atascadero and lower Purrington Creeks or other
areas where channel modification has resulted in
decreased shelter, LWD frequency, and habitat NMFS, Private
complexity, develop and implement site specific Landowners,
plans to improve these conditions to re-create, and Public Works,
GVC-CCCS- Floodplain restore alcove, backwater, or perennial pond RCD, Sonoma
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity habitats. 2 10 County TBD
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain

2.1.2 Action Connectivity Increase and enhance velocity refuge
Farm Bureau,
Private
Landowners,
Public Works,
GVC-CCCS- Floodplain Add or incorporate features to enhance winter habitat RCD, Sonoma Cost based on treating 1 mile at a rate of
2.1.2.1 Action Step Connectivity refugia to existing and new habitat projects. 2 10 County 13.00 13.00 26 $26,000/mile.
GVC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species
3.1 Objective Hydrology habitat or range
GVC-CCCS- Recovery
3.1.1 Action Hydrology Improve flow conditions (baseflow conditions)
CDFW, NFWF,
NMFS, Private
Continue and support the Russian River Resources Landowners,
GVC-CCCS- Partnership led by NFWF to model flows and water RCD, UC
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology usage. 1 5 Extension 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NFWF,
Develop cooperative projects with private NMFS, Private
GVC-CCCS- landowners to conserve summer flows based on Landowners,
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology results of the NFWF efforts. 1 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVC-CCCS- Develop rearing habitat curves in Green Valley Creek Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
3.1.1.3 Action Step Hydrology to identify optimal base flow conditions. 3 10 CDFW, SWRCB 32.50 32.50 65 a rate of $65,084/project.
GVC-CCCS- Recovery
3.1.2 Action Hydrology Improve flow conditions (instantaneous conditions)
CDFW, CDFW
Law
Enforcement,
NMFS, NMFS
OLE, Private This action step requires develop of feasible
Landowners, alternatives for frost protection. Cost will vary
GVC-CCCS- Reduce the rate of frost protection and domestic RCD, SWRCB, depending upon the number and type of
3.1.2.1 Action Step Hydrology drawdown in the spring. 2 5 UC Extension TBD alternative is implemented.

GVC-CCCS- Recovery
3.1.3 Action Hydrology Minimize redd scour
California
Conservation
Corps, CDFW,
Develop floodplain enhancement and LWD projects NOAA RC,
in modified areas of Green Valley and Atascadero Private Cost accounted for through implementation of
GVC-CCCS- Creeks, and in incised channel areas of major Landowners, similar action steps identified above in
3.1.3.1 Action Step Hydrology tributaries. 2 10 Trout Unlimited 0 FLOODPLAIN and HABITAT COMPLEXITY.
GVC-CCCS- Recovery
Identify high priority barriers and restore passage per CDFW, NOAA
NMFS' Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream RC, Private
GVC-CCCS- Crossings (NMFS 2001a) at multiple sites along Landowners, Cost based on providing passage at 6 barriers at
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage Atascadero Creek and tributaries. 1 5 Sonoma County 3,196 3,196 a rate of $532,706/project.
GVC-CCCS- Habitat modification, or curtailment of the species
GVC-CCCS- Recovery
6.1.1 Action Habitat Complexity Increase large wood frequency
Increase large wood frequency in 75% of streams

within the watershed to improve conditions for
adults, and winter/summer rearing juveniles. Increase CDFW, NOAA
LWD frequency to optimal conditions (>6 key LWD RC, Private Cost based on treating 1 mile at a rate of
pieces/100 meters) in all reaches of Green Valley, Landowners, $26,000/mile. This action step should be
GVC-CCCS- Purrington, Atascadero, Redwood, Jonive, Castellini State Parks, coordinated with similar action steps to reduce
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity and Sexton Creeks 1 10 Trout Unlimited 13.00 13.00 26 cost and redundancy.
GVC-CCCS- Recovery
6.1.2 Action Habitat Complexity Increase frequency of primary pools
Increase primary pool frequency in 25% of streams

within the watershed to improve conditions for
adults, and summer/winter juveniles. Increase
primary pool frequency to achieve optimal conditions
(>40% of pools meet primary pool criteria (>2.5 feet CDFW, NOAA
deep in 1st and 2nd order streams; >3 feet in third RC, Private
GVC-CCCS- order or larger streams)) in all reaches of Purrington, Landowners,
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity Atascadero, and Castellini Creeks. 1 10 Trout Unlimited TBD
GVC-CCCS- Recovery
6.1.3 Action Habitat Complexity Increase pool/riffle/flatwater ratio
Increase the frequencies of riffles in 55% of the

streams within the watershed. Increase riffle CDFW, NOAA
frequency to 20% by converting flatwater habitats RC, Private
(glides, runs, etc.) utilizing boulders and log Landowners,
GVC-CCCS- structures in select reaches of Green Valley, RCD, Trout
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity Atascadero, Jonive, Castellini and Sexton Creeks. 1 5 Unlimited TBD
GVC-CCCS- Recovery
6.1.4 Action Habitat Complexity Improve shelter

Increase shelters in 75% of streams across the

watershed to improve conditions for adults, and
winter/summer rearing juveniles. Increase shelters to CDFW, NOAA
optimal conditions (>80 pool shelter value) in all RC, Private
GVC-CCCS- reaches of Green Valley, Purrington, Atascadero, Landowners,
6.1.4.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity Redwood, Jonive, Castellini and Sexton Creeks. 1 10 Trout Unlimited TBD
GVC-CCCS- Recovery
GVC-CCCS- riparian buffers throughout the watershed (CDFG Land Trusts,
GVC-CCCS- Recovery

Class 5 & 6 tree). Plant native riparian species and CDFW, NOAA
native conifers/hardwoods throughout riparian zones RC, Private
GVC-CCCS- within the eastern and southern portions of the Landowners,
7.1.2.1 Action Step Riparian watershed to increase overall tree diameter. 1 25 RCD TBD
GVC-CCCS- Recovery
8.1.1 Action Sediment Improve instream gravel quality
CDFW, Private
Landowners,
Implement recommendations of completed sediment RCD, Sonoma Cost based on erosion assessment of 6,108
GVC-CCCS- source surveys in Green Valley and Purrington County, Trout acres (assume 25% of watershed) at a rate of
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment Creeks (See ROADS for specific actions). 2 5 Unlimited 77.00 77 $12.62/acre.
Conduct instream and upslope sediment source Private

surveys in Atascadero Creek to identify existing Landowners,
GVC-CCCS- sources of high sediment yield using accepted RCD, Sonoma
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment protocols and implement recommendations. 2 10 County TBD
GVC-CCCS- Recovery
8.1.2 Action Sediment Improve quantity and distribution of spawning gravels
CDFW, NMFS,
Develop habitat enhancement projects to establish NOAA SWFSC,
additional riffle habitat and import spawning gravel Private Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
from mining operations in the Russian River basin to Landowners, rate of $114,861/project. Additional cost will be
GVC-CCCS- select reaches of Green Valley, Atascadero, Jonive, RCD, Trout encumbered for appropriate habitat enhancement
8.1.2.1 Action Step Sediment Castellini and Sexton Creeks. 1 5 Unlimited 115.00 115 projects.
GVC-CCCS- Recovery
10.1.1 Action Water Quality Improve stream water quality conditions
Cost based on installing a minimum of 3
NMFS, Private continuous water quality stations at a rate of
GVC-CCCS- Install continuous water quality monitoring stations in Landowners, $5,000/station. Cost does not account for data
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality lower Green Valley and within Atascadero Creek. 1 5 RWQCB 15.00 15 management or maintenance.
CDFW, CDFW
Law
Identify and provide solutions for point and non-point Enforcement, Recommendations for point and non-point source
GVC-CCCS- sources contributing to poor water quality and RWQCB, pollution are dependent upon results from water
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality pollution. 1 5 USEPA TBD quality sampling efforts.
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and

CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County
Continue to operate UCCE/SCWA outmigrant traps Water Agency,
GVC-CCCS- in Lower Green Valley Creek to develop smolt Trout Unlimited,
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability abundance estimates. 1 10 UC Extension 0 Cost accounted for in the Monitoring Chapter.
CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County
Water Agency,
GVC-CCCS- Conduct habitat surveys to monitor change in key Trout Unlimited,
11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability habitat variables. 3 10 UC Extension 0 Cost accounted for in the Monitoring Chapter.
CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County
GVC-CCCS- Use monitoring and trend information to adjust and Water Agency,
11.1.1.3 Action Step Viability adapt recovery actions/strategies. 1 10 UC Extension 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Monitor fish passage on Purrington and Green Valley CDFW, Public
GVC-CCCS- Creeks where passage projects are occurring in Works, Trout Monitoring for this action step will likely be carried
11.1.1.4 Action Step Viability cooperation with Public Works. 2 10 Unlimited 0 out by current NMFS and/or CDFW.
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport

GVC-CCCS- runoff to stream channels (see Roads for specific Landowners, Cost based on results of road inventory. Estimate
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture actions/areas) 2 25 RCD TBD is $1500/mile
GVC-CCCS- (California Land Stewardship Institute), or other Landowners,
GVC-CCCS- participating in sediment reduction planning and Landowners,

GVC-CCCS- sediment source reduction, riparian habitat, forest Landowners, Cost of completing Farm Conservation Plan
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
GVC-CCCS- Assess the effectiveness of erosion control Landowners, The cost is likely to be low if CDFW effectiveness
12.1.1.5 Action Step Agriculture measures throughout the winter period. 3 20 RCD TBD monitoring protocols are used.
NRCS, Private
GVC-CCCS- Landowners,

Forest and ranch managers should utilize the NRCS, Private
GVC-CCCS- Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads (PWA, Landowners,
12.1.1.7 Action Step Agriculture 1994). 3 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City Planning,
FishNet 4C,
GVC-CCCS- Public works Dept's should utilize the Fishnet 4C Public Works,
12.1.1.8 Action Step Agriculture Road Manual. 3 25 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind

2007), and Management Tips to Enhance Land & RCD, RWQCB,
GVC-CCCS- Water Quality for Small Acreage Properties Sonoma County
12.1.1.9 Action Step Agriculture (Sotoyome RCD, 2007). 3 20 Water Agency 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian

community within inset floodplains and riparian NRCS, Private Estimated costs based on similar costs in
GVC-CCCS- corridors to provide future recruitment of large wood Landowners, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
12.1.2.1 Action Step Agriculture and other shelter components. 2 10 RCD 10.50 10.50 21 site, setting and geographic specific.
Implement programs to purchase land/conservation Cost based on amount of land/conservation

GVC-CCCS- easements to encourage the re-establishment and/or Land Trusts, easements needed, fair market value, and
12.1.2.2 Action Step Agriculture enhancement of natural riparian communities. 3 20 Sonoma County TBD landowner participation.
Private
Landowners,
GVC-CCCS- Utilize native plants when landscaping and RCD, UC
12.1.2.3 Action Step Agriculture discourage the use of exotic invasives. 3 30 Extension 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

CDFW, Private Cost based on treating 1 mile (assume 1

GVC-CCCS- Landowners, project/mile) at a rate of $26,000/mile. If ELJ
12.1.3.1 Action Step Agriculture Add large woody debris to reach optimal frequencies 2 10 RCD 13.00 13.00 26 used, cost estimated at $104,000/ELJ.
NRCS, Private
GVC-CCCS- Avoid the removal of large wood and other shelter Landowners,
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality

12.1.4 Action Agriculture (impaired stream temperature)
CDFW, Private
Landowners,
GVC-CCCS- Re-establish native plant communities in riparian RCD, UC Cost accounted for in other action steps, see
12.1.4.1 Action Step Agriculture zones to increase stream canopy to 80%. 2 20 Extension 0 RIPARIAN
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

NRCS, Private Cost based on the number of off-channel storage

Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Landowners, sites needed to reduce impacts from water
GVC-CCCS- water diversion during the spring and summer (e.g. RCD, UC diversions and landowner participation. Estimate
12.1.5.1 Action Step Agriculture diversion during winter high flow). 2 Extension TBD for off-channel storage is $5,000/station.
GVC-CCCS- or micro-sprayers) which eliminate or minimize water Landowners,
12.1.5.2 Action Step Agriculture use. 3 20 RCD TBD
GVC-CCCS- Address the inadequacies of regulatory

GVC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape

Farm Bureau,
GVC-CCCS- environmentally sound agricultural growth and water County, UC
12.2.1.1 Action Step Agriculture supply. 2 10 Extension 0 Action is considered In-Kind

GVC-CCCS- land conversions to discourage conversions to Forestry, CDFW,

GVC-CCCS- currently occur, and enforce requirements of local RWQCB,
12.2.1.3 Action Step Agriculture regulations where they do. 3 20 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City Planning,
GVC-CCCS- Increase setbacks of existing agricultural activities NRCS, RCD,
12.2.1.4 Action Step Agriculture from the top of bank to 100'. 3 20 Sonoma County TBD
CDFW, NMFS,
GVC-CCCS- Streamline permit processing where landowners are SWRCB, cost much, and may save money through future
GVC-CCCS- steelhead and CC Chinook salmon recovery Landowners, outside of already existing federal and state and
GVC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

13.1.1 Action Modification connectivity (impaired quality & extent)
GVC-CCCS- Channel property for potential function and conservation RCD, Sonoma model at a rate of $73,793 and $213,307/project,
CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
GVC-CCCS- Channel the summer flow and provide refuge from high winter Sonoma County, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification flows (see FLOODPLAIN for specific actions). 2 20 USACE 186 186 186 186 744 site, setting and geographic specific.
CDFW, FEMA,
NMFS, NOAA
RC, Private
Set-back existing levees in strategic areas to Landowners, Cost based on amount of levee system to
GVC-CCCS- Channel increase flood-flow detention and promote flood- RCD, Sonoma setback. Estimate for setting back levees is
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification tolerant land uses. 2 20 County, USACE TBD $34.94/linear ft.

infrastructure and replacement with native vegetation
GVC-CCCS- Channel or flood tolerant land uses) for areas highly FEMA, Sonoma
13.1.1.4 Action Step Modification susceptible to, or previously damaged from, flooding. 2 100 County, USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind

GVC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

13.1.2 Action Modification migration
GVC-CCCS- Channel enhance steelhead migration under high and low flow
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize increased landscape

13.1.3 Action Modification disturbances

GVC-CCCS- Channel habitat protection, and/or alternatives that minimize NMFS, Sonoma

GVC-CCCS- Channel fully minimized or mitigated, and where possible,
GVC-CCCS- Channel woody debris to ensure improved habitat at the CDFW, NMFS,

GVC-CCCS- Channel (e.g. carefully evaluate feasibility where critical CDFW, NMFS,
GVC-CCCS- Channel Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

GVC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize increased landscape

13.2.1 Action Modification disturbances

processes to eliminate or minimize the provisions
allowing new construction of permanent infrastructure
that will adversely affect watershed processes, City Planning,
GVC-CCCS- Channel particularly within the 100-year flood prone zones in Sonoma County,
13.2.1.1 Action Step Modification all historical CCC steelhead watersheds. 3 10 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVC-CCCS- Channel of removing instream large woody debris under high City Planning,
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian


fence riparian and other sensitive areas (areas prone Cost based on treat 1.6 miles at a rate of $3.63/ft.
to erosion) to exclude cattle and sheep. Calf/cow Currently, there are cost-share programs in
GVC-CCCS- operations should take first priority for riparian CDFW, NOAA existence that can reduce the cost of this action
18.1.1.1 Action Step Livestock fencing programs over steer operations. 2 10 RC, NRCS, RCD 15.50 15.50 31 step if done in conjunction.
Encourage develop and fund riparian restoration Estimated costs based on similar costs in
GVC-CCCS- projects to regain riparian corridors damaged from geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
18.1.1.2 Action Step Livestock livestock and other causes. 2 30 NRCS, RCD 16.67 16.67 16.67 16.67 16.67 100 site, setting and geographic specific.


Short term, seasonal and long term rest from grazing NRCS, RCD, Action is considered In-Kind because no new land
GVC-CCCS- in overgrazed areas would improve soil conditions for Private is being purchased, only a change in grazing
18.1.1.3 Action Step Livestock native revegetation and land values as well. 3 60 Landowners 0 strategy
NRCS, RCD,
GVC-CCCS- Manage rotational grazing to aid in the reduction of Private
18.1.1.4 Action Step Livestock noxious weeds. 3 60 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVC-CCCS- Recovery (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Cost for offstream alternative water sources
estimated at $5,000/site. This action step should
GVC-CCCS- Aid landowners willing to fence off riparian areas with CDFW, NOAA be done in coordination with above action step to
18.1.2.1 Action Step Livestock development of offstream alternative water sources. 2 30 RC, NRCS, RCD TBD fence off riparian areas.
NRCS, RCD,
GVC-CCCS- Where necessary, establish predetermined stream Private This action step should be part of above action
18.1.2.2 Action Step Livestock crossings when herding cattle between pastures. 2 60 Landowners TBD steps.
NRCS, RCD,
GVC-CCCS- To minimize gully initiation, grazing should be kept at Private
18.1.2.3 Action Step Livestock relatively low intensities on steeper slopes 3 60 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind

with 1000 lbs RDM (residual dry matter)/acre left at NRCS, RCD,
GVC-CCCS- end of grazing season. Remove cattle from pasture Private
18.1.2.4 Action Step Livestock before soils dry out. 3 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVC-CCCS- 2007), and The Grazing Handbook (Sotoyome RCD, Landowners,
18.1.2.5 Action Step Livestock 2007). 3 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
19.1 Objective Logging habitat or range

CDFW, NMFS,
Acquire key large tracts of forestlands identified as a RCD, Sonoma Need to estimate where and how much land will
GVC-CCCS- priority by Federal, State, local government, and non- County, State come available and fair market value for purchase
19.1.1.1 Action Step Logging governmental organizations. 3 60 Parks TBD in the future
Board of
Forestry, CDFW,
NMFS, Sonoma
GVC-CCCS- Conserve and manage forestlands for older forest County, State
Board of
Forestry, NMFS,
Private
Landowners,
GVC-CCCS- optimal levels of natural LWD recruitment of larger State Parks, US Recruitment of LWD to the stream is critical.


GVC-CCCS- or minimize the delivery of sediment and runoff to Landowners,
19.1.2.1 Action Step Logging stream channels. 3 50 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory


CalFire, NMFS,
GVC-CCCS- Prevent or minimize future conversion of forestlands Private
19.2.1.1 Action Step Logging to agriculture or other land uses. 2 60 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVC-CCCS- Avoiding Take and Harm of Salmon and Steelhead" CalFire, CDFW, participate in meetings the Board of Forestry.
GVC-CCCS- steelhead priorities and recommend upgrading CalFire, CDFW,
19.2.1.3 Action Step Logging relevant forest practices. 3 2 NMFS TBD Cost is difficult to estimate at this time.
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

CDFW, NMFS,
Private
Landowners, Cost based on appropriate measures needed to
GVC-CCCS- Improve passage where mining and other activities Sonoma County, improve passage. Cost fish/habitat restoration
20.1.1.1 Action Step Mining have resulted in diminished migration windows. 1 10 USACE TBD model estimate of $114,861/project.
CDFG, NMFS,
Private
Landowners,
GVC-CCCS- Use gravel mining practices recommended by NMFS Sonoma County,
20.1.1.2 Action Step Mining and CDFW. 2 25 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVC-CCCS- Recovery complexity (altered pool complexity and/or pool riffle
CDFW, Cost based on treating 1 mile (assume 1
Counties, NMFS, project/mile with a minimum of 1 mile) at a rate of
Develop and enhance staging pool habitats and Private $26,000/mile. Cost may be higher if using other
GVC-CCCS- thalweg depth where geomorphic conditions dictate Landowners, methods such as ELJ , estimated at
20.1.2.1 Action Step Mining and allow. 2 10 USACE 13.00 13.00 26 $104,000/ELJ.
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
GVC-CCCS- improve, maintain or prevent impacts to habitat Landowners,

CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
Private Estimated costs based on similar costs in
GVC-CCCS- Develop and enhance offchannel habitats such as Landowners, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
20.1.3.1 Action Step Mining alcoves to promote fry and juvenile rearing habitat 2 10 USACE 372.00 372.00 744 site, setting and geographic specific.

CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
GVC-CCCS- where structure is beneficial to migration and resting Landowners,
20.1.3.2 Action Step Mining cover. 3 50 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential Address the present or threatened destruction,
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial modification, or curtailment of the species
Residential
GVC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
CDFW, Cities,
Counties, NMFS,
Residential Improve education and awareness of agencies, Private
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial landowners and the public regarding salmonid Landowners,

Residential flood control districts, and planning departments, etc., Cost of training and encouraging partners to
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial on the critical importance of maintaining riparian CDFW, Cities, maintain riparian health is expected to be low.
Residential Design and implement education programs to CDFW, Cities,
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial promote public awareness of salmon and steelhead Counties, NMFS,
Assess efficacy and necessity of ongoing stream CDFW, Cities, Estimated cost of $50,000 for an assessment.
Residential maintenance practices and evaluate, avoid, minimize Counties, NMFS, Cost of other resulting mitigation is unknown since
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial and/or mitigate their impacts to rearing and migrating NOAA RC, the number, location and scope of future projects
22.1.1.4 Action Step Development steelhead and Chinook salmon. 2 5 Water Agencies 50.00 50 is not known.
Residential
GVC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape
Residential with ongoing channel degradation or in sub- Investigating funding larger detention devices is
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial watersheds where impervious surface area > 10 CDFW, Cities, not expected to cost much. Implementing the
Where existing infrastructure exists within historical
floodplains or offchannel habitats in any historical CDFW,
steelhead or chinook watersheds, and restoration is Counties, Land
Residential found feasible, encourage willing landowners to Trusts, NMFS, Encouraging landowners to restore floodplain
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial restore these areas through conservation Private areas is not expected to cost much. Action is
22.1.2.3 Action Step Development easements, etc. 3 25 Landowners 0 considered In-Kind
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFG, Counties,
Residential Purchase conservation easements from landowners NMFS, Private Cost of purchasing land/conservation easements
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial that currently have grazing or agricultural operations Landowners, is highly variable, depends on fair market value,
22.1.2.4 Action Step Development along the estuary. 2 10 RCD TBD and landowner participation.
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
Residential Identify areas at high risk of conversion, and develop Private Cost of identifying and developing incentives to
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial incentives and alternatives for landowners that Landowners, landowners expected to be low. Action is
22.1.2.5 Action Step Development discourage conversion. 3 25 RCD 0 considered In-Kind
Design new developments to minimize impacts to
Residential value, and similarly constrained sites that occur
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial adjacent to a CCC steelhead or CC Chinook salmon CDFW, Cities,
22.1.2.6 Action Step Development watercourse. 3 100 Counties, NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind


Residential infrastructure and replacement with native vegetation
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial or flood tolerant land uses) for areas highly CDFW, Cities,
Residential Encourage infill and high density developments over likely to incur any costs outside of the duties of
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial dispersal of low density rural residential in CDFW, Cities, already salaried state and federal workers.
Residential Minimize new development, or road construction Cities, Counties,

GVC-CCCS- /Commercial within floodplains, riparian areas, unstable soils or Public Works,
22.1.2.9 Action Step Development other sensitive areas 3 20 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential Conserve open space in un-fractured landscapes, Cities, Counties,

GVC-CCCS- /Commercial protect floodplain areas and riparian corridors, and Public Works,
22.1.2.10 Action Step Development develop conservation easements. 3 20 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Residential 2007), and Management Tips to Enhance Land & RCD, RWQCB,
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial Water Quality for Small Acreage Properties Sonoma County
22.1.2.11 Action Step Development (Sotoyome RCD, 2007). 3 20 Water Agency 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
GVC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Residential discharges, which can result in locally severe erosion
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial and disruption of riparian vegetation and instream Implementing this BMP is not expected to be very
Residential
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
Residential
GVC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
Mendocino
Residential County, Private
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial Implement performance standards in Stormwater Landowners, Cost of implementing performance standards is
22.2.1.1 Action Step Development Management Plans. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 likely low. Action is considered In-Kind
GVC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or

Residential commercial and industrial products (e.g. pesticides) Mendocino
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial with high potential for contamination of local County, Sonoma Implementing this BMP is not expected to be very
22.2.2.1 Action Step Development waterways. 2 100 County, USEPA 0 costly.

Residential receive the appropriate treatment before being
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial discharged into any body of water that may enter any Cities, Counties, Implementing this BMP is not expected to be very
22.2.2.2 Action Step Development steelhead or Chinook salmon waters. 2 100 RWQCB, Public 0 costly.

CDFW, City
Planning,
Residential it. Spread it. Sink it! (Santa Cruz Resource Sonoma County
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial Conservations District, 2009) to conserve water Water Agency,
22.2.2.3 Action Step Development resources. 3 20 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential
GVC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape

Residential land/conservation easements to encourage the re- Trusts, NMFS, the other hand, is likely to be very expensive.
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial establishment and/or enhancement of natural riparian NRCS, RCD, Cost based on fair market value, land turnover,
Residential
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial Discourage Sonoma County from rezoning CDFW, NMFS, The cost of discouraging forestland conversion is

Residential permits is expected to be low (i.e., covered as
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial Enforce existing building permit programs to minimize part of already existing enforcement programs).
Residential work in coordination with California Dept. of Housing, Private
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial Association of Bay Area Governments and other Landowners,
Residential Minimize new construction in undeveloped areas
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial within the 100-year flood prone zones in all historical CDFW, NMFS,
22.2.3.5 Action Step Development CCC steelhead watersheds 3 5 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential Work with Mendocino County to develop more CDFW, NMFS, Cost is expected to be low since work will largely
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial protective regulations in regard to exurban RWQCB, be carried out by federal, state and local staff.
Residential acreage limit for parcelization and in concert with Mendocino
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial limits on water supply and groundwater recharge County, NMFS, Encouraging the county is not expected to result
Land Trusts,
Residential Explore the use of conservation easements to Private
GVC-CCCS- /Commercial provide incentives for private landowners to preserve Landowners,
23.1 Objective Roads/Railroads habitat or range

23.1.1 Action Roads/Railroads (road condition/density, dams, etc.)
CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
Assess existing road networks and implement Private
GVC-CCCS- actions that hydrologically disconnect roads and Landowners, Cost based on road inventory of 180 miles of
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads reduce sediment sources. 2 5 RCD 77.00 77 road network at a rate of $957/mile.

Implement results of existing sediment source

surveys, and assess remaining watershed road
networks to eliminate high priority and high sediment Private
yield sources. Upgrade and decommission sites and Landowners, Cost based on decommissioning 50 miles of
road networks where appropriate. These actions Public Works, riparian road at a rate of $12,000/mile and
GVC-CCCS- include outsloping roads, ditch relief culverts, and RCD, State upgrading 19 miles (assume 25% after
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads installing rolling dips. 2 20 Parks 203.00 203.00 203.00 203.00 812 decommissioning) at a rate of $21,000/mile.

the watershed so material from landslides and road Cost based on amount of adequate spoils sites
maintenance can be stored safely away from Private needed. Road inventory should identify the
GVC-CCCS- watercourses. Coordinate these efforts with all Landowners, number of spoils sites and locations to implement
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads landowners in the watershed. 3 20 Public Works TBD them.

GVC-CCCS- Hagans & Weaver, 1994; Sommarstrom, 2002; Public Works,
23.1.1.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads Oregon Department of Transportation, 1999). 3 20 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Private
Landowners,
GVC-CCCS- increase the size of ditch relief culverts, or replace RCD, State
23.1.1.5 Action Step Roads/Railroads with rolling dips. 3 20 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVC-CCCS- 100-year flood flows and associated bedload and Public Works,
23.1.1.6 Action Step Roads/Railroads debris. 3 20 State Parks TBD 0
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

23.1.2 Action Roads/Railroads migration
CDFW, NOAA
GVC-CCCS- Assess private road stream crossings for barrier RC, Private
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads potential and implement recommendations. 1 10 Landowners TBD
CDFW, NOAA
Implement public road barrier survey RC, Private
GVC-CCCS- recommendations in high then medium value areas Landowners, Cost based on recommendations identified in
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads as a priority (See Passage). 2 5 RCD TBD road assessment.
GVC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

23.2 Objective Roads/Railroads mechanisms

23.2.1 Action Roads/Railroads disturbance
Continue education of Caltrans, County road

engineers, and County maintenance staff regarding
watershed processes and the adverse effects of
GVC-CCCS- improper road construction and maintenance on Cost to expand an existing program are expected
23.2.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads salmonids and their habitats. 3 5 CDFW, RCD 0 to be minimal. Action is considered In-Kind
City Planning,
FishNet 4C,
GVC-CCCS- Utilize the Fishnet4c manual in training and Public Works,
23.2.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads operations. 3 10 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Board of
Forestry,
CalTrans,
Bridges associated with new roads or replacement CDFW, City
bridges (including railroad bridges) should be free Planning, Private Incorporating free span bridges into replacement
span or constructed with the minimum number of Landowners, and new construction plans is unlikely to increase
GVC-CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation RCD, Sonoma costs. Construction of the bridges will likely be
23.2.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads and facilitate fish passage. 3 60 County TBD much higher.
All new crossings and upgrades to existing crossings
(bridges, culverts, fills, and other crossings) should
GVC-CCCS- accommodate 100-year flood flows and associated Sonoma County,
23.2.1.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads bedload and debris. 3 20 State Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVC-CCCS- Severe Weather Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

GVC-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed

Board of
Forestry, CA
Coastal
Commission,
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
California
Department of
Mines and
Geology,
Caltrans, CDFG,
CDFG Law
Enforcement,
City Planning,
Farm Bureau,
FEMA, NMFS,
NRCS, Public
Works, RWQCB,
State Parks,
considerations and allowances that ensure continued USACE,
GVC-CCCS- Severe Weather operations during droughts and floods while also USEPA, USGS,
GVC-CCCS- Severe Weather Address other natural or manmade factors

24.2 Objective Patterns affecting the species continued existence
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed


fish needs. Develop agreements that will minimize Private
GVC-CCCS- Severe Weather water-use conflicts and impacts on fish and wildlife Landowners, Cost is expected to be low. Action is considered
24.2.1.1 Action Step Patterns resources during drought conditions. 2 20 SWRCB 0 In-Kind
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology


Implement water conservation strategies that provide CDFW, NMFS,
for drought contingencies without relying on Private
GVC-CCCS- Severe Weather interception of surface flows or groundwater Landowners, Implementing conservation strategies not
24.2.2.1 Action Step Patterns depletion. 2 100 SWRCB 0 expected to be a high cost endeavor.
CDFW, NMFS,
Work with land owners or public agencies to acquire Private
GVC-CCCS- Severe Weather water that would be utilized to minimize effects of Landowners, Cost difficult to estimate due to uncertainty with
Evaluate the rate and volume of water diversions CDFW, NMFS,

and in streams and tributaries and, where Private
GVC-CCCS- Severe Weather appropriate, minimize water withdrawals that could Landowners, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
24.2.2.3 Action Step Patterns impact steelhead and Chinook salmon. 3 20 SWRCB 16.25 16.25 16.25 16.25 65 a rate of $65,084.
Manage reservoirs and dam releases to maintain CDFW, NMFS,

suitable rearing temperatures and migratory flows in Private
GVC-CCCS- Severe Weather downstream habitats (e.g., pulse flow programs for Landowners, Cost expected to zero or a small amount. Action
24.2.2.4 Action Step Patterns adult upstream migration and smolt outmigration). 3 100 SWRCB 0 is considered In-Kind
CDFW, CDFW
Law
Identify and work with water users to minimize Enforcement,
GVC-CCCS- Severe Weather depletion of summer base flows from unauthorized NMFS, NMFS Cost expected to be low. Action is considered In-
24.2.2.5 Action Step Patterns water uses. 3 10 OLE, SWRCB 0 Kind
CDFW, Costs are expected to be minimal as some of

Implement water conservation strategies that provide RWQCB, these efforts will be part of existing programs,
for drought contingencies without relying on Sonoma County however some technical assistance may be
GVC-CCCS- Severe Weather interception of surface flows or groundwater Water Agency, necessary from a variety of agencies. Action is
24.2.2.6 Action Step Patterns depletion. 3 10 State Parks 0 considered In-Kind
GVC-CCCS- Water Diversion modification, or curtailment of the species
25.1 Objective /Impoundment habitat or range
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

25.1.1 Action /Impoundment (impaired water flow)
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
Private
Landowners,
RCD, RWQCB,
Sonoma County,
Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Sonoma County Costs are minimal to promote. Costs for
GVC-CCCS- Water Diversion water diversion (e.g., storage tanks for rural Water Agency, implementation will depend on the number of
25.1.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment residential users). 2 20 SWRCB TBD participants.
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NRCS,
Sonoma County Promoting water conservation best practices is
GVC-CCCS- Water Diversion Promote water conservation best practices such as Water Agency, not expected to result in additional costs. Action
25.1.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment drip irrigation for vineyards. 3 20 SWRCB 0 is considered In-Kind
CDFW, RCD,
Sonoma County Costs associated with promoting use of reclaimed
GVC-CCCS- Water Diversion Promote the use of reclaimed water for agricultural or Water Agency, water is expected to be minimal. Action is
25.1.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment other uses. 3 60 State Parks 0 considered In-Kind

NMFS, RCD,
RWQCB,
Promote passive diversion devices designed to allow Sonoma County
GVC-CCCS- Water Diversion diversion of water only when minimum streamflow Water Agency, Costs to promote this action are expected to be
25.1.1.4 Action Step /Impoundment requirements are met or exceeded (CDFG 2004). 3 30 SWRCB 0 minimal. Action is considered In-Kind
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,

25.1.2 Action /Impoundment and diversity
Cost based on number and type of fish screens to
GVC-CCCS- Water Diversion Adequately screen water diversions to prevent CDFW, NMFS, implement. Estimate for fish screens is
25.1.2.1 Action Step /Impoundment juvenile salmonid mortalities. 1 10 NOAA RC TBD $53,465/screen.
GVC-CCCS- Water Diversion Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

25.2 Objective /Impoundment mechanisms
GVC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology


greater certainty for reaches that have water NRCS, Private
GVC-CCCS- Water Diversion available for consumptive uses and be useful as a Landowners, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
25.2.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment decision-support tool for other programs. 1 5 RCD 65.00 65 a rate of $65,084/project.
CDFW, County
Planning, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NOAA NWS,
NOAA RC,
weather prediction capabilities in support of finer Landowners,
GVC-CCCS- Water Diversion scale frost protection capabilities for the benefit of RCD, Water
25.2.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment grape growers and fisheries flows. 1 5 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, County
compensatory releases from large dams; provide Landowners, Cost based on types and feasibility of
GVC-CCCS- Water Diversion policy and funding for the above actions to maximize RCD, Water recommendations to employ to reduce conflicts
25.2.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment benefits for fisheries and agriculture. 1 5 Agencies TBD between frost protection and fisheries.
CDFW, RCD,
RWQCB,
Sonoma County,
Request that SWRCB review and/or modify water Sonoma County Coordination costs are expected to be minimal,
GVC-CCCS- Water Diversion use based on the needs of steelhead and authorized Water Agency, depending on what specific actions are proposed.
25.2.1.4 Action Step /Impoundment diverters (CDFG 2004). 3 5 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
migratory reaches for effects on the natural CDFW,
GVC-CCCS- Water Diversion hydrograph and the supply of spawning gravel for SWRCB, Evaluation costs are expected to be minimal.
25.2.1.5 Action Step /Impoundment recruitment downstream (CDFG 2004). 3 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Technical assistance may be provided, and
GVC-CCCS- Water Diversion Improve compliance with existing water resource NMFS, RWQCB, associated costs are expected to be minimal.
25.2.1.6 Action Step /Impoundment regulations via monitoring and enforcement. 3 15 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Lagunitas Creek Population

Spawner Abundance Target: 2,600 adults

In contrast to coho salmon, production of steelhead smolts appears more evenly distributed
across the Lagunitas watershed with winter habitat being the limiting factor for the survival of
fry, and poor estuarine conditions limiting the production of smolts. Steelhead population
dynamics in Lagunitas Creek are less well understood than for coho salmon (Stillwater 2008).
Until recently, spawner surveys focused almost exclusively on coho salmon, and even now are
conducted for only part of the steelhead spawning season, so adult steelhead run data is limited
(MMWD, 2010). Numbers of age 1+ steelhead are consistently low, regardless of the abundance
of age 0+ steelhead in the previous year, indicating winter survival is a key limiting factor
(Stillwater Sciences 2008). Age 0+ steelhead population estimates have ranged from
approximately 26,000 to 75,000 since 1995, while the 1+ steelhead estimate has fluctuated between
approximately 2,000 and 4,000. National Park Service (NPS) studies (2008) on Olema Creek
reported steelhead juvenile densities from 1999 2008 ranging from 1.1 to 2.5 fish per meter.
Chinook salmon are also occasionally observed in the watershed, though the Lagunitas Creek
population is not a focus of this Recovery Plan for Chinook.
History of Land Use

Commercial logging began in the upper Lagunitas Creek watershed in the 1860s and moved
downstream until nearly all of the old growth Douglas fir and redwood trees were harvested
(UCCE, 1995). A paper mill was constructed on mainstem Lagunitas Creek near Devils Gulch in
1856, and logging continued in the Olema Creek watershed until 1962 (Marin RCD, 2004). Major
fires have burned portions of the watershed several times (e.g. 1878, 1904, 1923, and 1945,
Stillwater Sciences 2009). Since the mid-1900s fire suppression has dramatically reduced the
number of fires but has also increased the fuel load, and modified the vegetative community.
This may result in intense fires when they do occur (Stillwater Sciences 2009).
In the early 1920s, Olema Creek between the town of Olema and its confluence with Lagunitas
Creek was straightened into the 3-kilometer long Olema Canal that drained the surrounding
land for agricultural production. Dairy farming, beef and sheep production, and potato growing
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Lagunitas Creek 175

dominated the more open landscapes of the lower watershed and San Geronimo, Nicasio and
Olema Valleys. Gravel and sand was mined from the streambed at the confluence of Lagunitas
and Nicasio Creeks until a short time after Nicasio Dam was constructed in 1960. Ranchers
regularly harvested small amounts of streambed gravel to maintain ranch roads through the
1980s.
The first reservoir, Lake Lagunitas, was built in 1872, followed by Alpine Lake in 1918, and then
by Bon Tempe in 1948. Peters Dam, built in 1953 to form Kent Lake, was raised 45 feet in 1982,
nearly doubling reservoir capacity from 16,600 acre feet to 33,000 acre feet. The last reservoir
built in the watershed was Nicasio Reservoir, formed by Seeger Dam in 1960, on Nicasio Creek.
In addition to blocking anadromous fish passage to miles of spawning and rearing habitat, the
impoundments have altered streamflows and reduced bedload transport from the upper reaches
of the watershed.
Recreational use of the extensive public lands in the watershed includes hiking, bicycling,
horseback riding, and camping in the state park. The railroad right-of-way from Tocaloma Bridge
south through the state park has been converted into a trail.

The Lagunitas Creek watershed drains an area of 109 square miles and is the largest drainage into
Tomales Bay. Its major tributaries include San Geronimo Creek, Devils Gulch, Cheda Creek,
Nicasio Creek, and Olema Creek. At the southwestern edge of the watershed, Olema Creek flows
in nearly a straight line through a rift valley along the San Andreas Fault zone.
Over half of the watershed is in public ownership. The watershed experiences a Mediterranean-
type climate and supports a varied vegetative community including conifers, riparian forests,
shrub lands, and coastal scrub, prairie, and dunes. The upper portions of the Nicasio Creek
subwatershed are dominated by grassland habitats while the mainstem of Lagunitas Creek, San
Geronimo Creek and Olema Creek are dominated by forest habitats.
The upper part of the watershed is owned and managed by Marin Municipal Water District
(MMWD) for water supply, and State and National Parks manage much of the lower watershed
and mainstem. The Lagunitas Creek watershed holds many small rural communities including
Woodacre, San Geronimo, Forest Knolls, and Lagunitas in San Geronimo Valley, as well as
Nicasio, Olema, and Point Reyes Station (Marin RCD, 2004). Ranching on land leased from NPS
continues on the east side of Olema Valley and in Lagunitas Valley, within Nicasio Valley, and
one private cattle ranch remains in San Geronimo Valley.

The following indicators were rated Poor through the CAP process for steelhead: floodplain,
large wood frequency, shelter rating, streamside road density, and riparian vegetation. Other
indicators that are identified as impaired include the following: viability, base and passage flow
conditions, gravel quality, habitat diversity, redd scour, and estuary/lagoon quality and extent.
Recovery strategies will focus on improving these poor conditions as well as those needed to
ensure population viability and functioning watershed processes.
Current Conditions
our CAP viability analysis. The Lagunitas Creek CAP Viability Table results are provided below.

Riparian Vegetation conditions have a rating of Poor due to lower than optimal average forest
tree diameter, the extent of agriculture, grazing, and limited LWD recruitment for rearing
salmonids. Though lower Lagunitas Creek has a wide riparian corridor dominated by redwoods
and conifer species, the corridor is thin elsewhere within the watershed (e.g., San Geronimo
Creek). Continued livestock grazing occurs in the lower watershed in the Olema sub-basin,
including leases conducted on NPS property, and there is potential for future logging operations
in the headwaters

Sediment Transport from streamside road density conditions has a rating of Poor. Altered
sediment transport due to higher than optimal riparian road density limits spawning gravel
recruitment and impacts spawning gravel quality. According to the SF Bay Regional Water
Board/EPA TMDL, Lagunitas is impaired by excessive sediment and temperature and the
RWQCB just adopted a Basin Plan Amendment TMDL for sediment throughout the watershed.
Required actions and timeframes for implementation that should be supported by this recovery
plan include road assessments and remediation actions.

Channelization has occurred in San Geronimo and lower Olema Creeks, and the riparian zone is
thin, and residential development and agriculture encroach upon the historic floodplain

respectively. Many stream channels have been disconnected from their floodplain, leaving
winter rearing juveniles without refugia from high velocities. Juvenile steelhead can be flushed
from tributaries during winter storms. The lack of large woody debris or access to refugia in the
near stream floodplain impacts the winter survival of juveniles throughout the system.
Modification and incision have removed the stream channel from its natural floodplain except at
extreme flood flows when salmonids can be flushed out to agricultural and grazing lands, where
they may become trapped on the declining limb of the hydrograph.

In the incised or channelized reaches, winter storms are confined within the channel due to the
lack of near stream floodplain. As a result, eggs may be flushed out of redds due to high velocities
(Stillwater 2008). Adequate incubation of eggs is stressed due to high embededdness levels and
is further stressed by high flows during the winter months which can accelerate erosion sites.
Hydrology: Baseflow and Passage Flows

Though the number of diversions in the Lagunitas Creek watershed is rated Fair, many of these
are direct domestic diversions and many more unreported riparian diversions exist, so low
summer flows are a concern, especially in highly developed sub-basins such as San Geronimo
Creek where diversions reduce viable salmonid summer rearing habitat. Low spring and
summer flows also increase pool stratification in the estuary to create bottom saline layers too hot
and low in oxygen to sustain salmonids (Stillwater 2008).
Passage/Migration: Mouth or Confluence and Physical Barriers

Steelhead passage for adults and smolts is limited by road crossings in some tributaries.
Additionally, adult migration and winter refugia are affected by the lack of shelter and the incised
or channelized conditions of some tributaries. The Nicasio Reservoir and tributaries above the
reservoir (Halleck Creek and Nicasio Creek) are historic habitat currently inaccessible to
steelhead. The TRT determined that viability targets may be achieved for this watershed without
providing passage over or removing Seeger dam on Nicasio Creek (Spence et al. 2007). If an
opportunity arises to facilitate passage over Seeger Dam, it would reduce the pressure on other
areas in the watershed to produce enough fish to meet adult density targets and assist with
meeting the Diversity Strata target.
Habitat Complexity: Percent Primary Pools and Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratios and Habitat
Complexity: Large Wood and Shelter
Stillwater Sciences (2008) outlines the limiting factors for coho salmon and steelhead in the
Lagunitas creek watershed. Stillwater Sciences (2008) found that complex winter refugia habitat
for young of the year steelhead likely limits production within the watershed. Ideal winter

refugia habitat for young of the year steelhead generally includes complex wood jams because
they provide slackwater habitat throughout all stages of the hydrograph, as well as complex
configurations of cobble and boulder substrate in the channel to create velocity refuge.
Habitat complexity has been lost in many streams due to poor abundance of complex features
(e.g., LWD, boulders, etc.), channel simplification, and sediment aggradation, which are all
associated with reservoir construction, channel modification and past logging and wood harvest
activities. In addition, riparian zones degraded by these activities have severely limited the
natural recruitment of LWD in many historically productive streams within the watershed,
limiting the quality of juvenile rearing habitat in many areas of the watershed.
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats rated as High or Very High (See Lagunitas
Creek CAP Results). Recovery strategies will likely focus on ameliorating High rated threats;
however, some strategies may address Medium and Low threats when the strategy is essential to
recovery efforts.
Agriculture
Historic farming practices have reduced riparian vegetation, causing stream and bank erosion.
Erosion leads to increased sedimentation and water temperatures, degrading the quality of
marshes and open water area in the estuary. Though GIS spatial analysis showed existing
vegetation as less than 1% in agricultural production, 35% of the watershed is in annual
grasslands habitats consisting of rangeland, dairy land and pasture. Water diversions supporting
viticulture in these areas would lower summer baseflows, causing disconnected aquatic habitat.
Also, agricultural operations could encroach further into adjacent riparian areas, which could
increase sediment delivery to the stream as well as impact shading and wood recruitment.
Channel modification has had an historic impact to salmonid resources in Lagunitas Creek and
several of its tributaries through the removal and transport of timber from the floodplain,
riparian, and forest resources. Channel modification has led to channel incision, oversteepened
banks, high erosional forces and gravel embeddedness, and ultimately loss of riparian trees and
width in some reaches. Road building, culverts and grazing land development elsewhere have
led to channel incision and the lack of large woody debris or access to velocity refugia.
Modification and incision have removed the stream channel from its natural floodplain except at
extreme flood flows. High density streamside roads limit floodplain enhancement in some
portions of the watershed.

Livestock in streams generally inhibit growth of new trees, exacerbate erosion and reduce
summertime survival of juvenile fish by defecating in the water (DFG, 2004). Erosion leads to
increased sedimentation and water temperatures, degrading the quality of marshes and open
water area in the estuary. Currently, 35% of the watershed is in annual grasslands habitats
consisting of rangeland, dairy land and pasture. Grazing occurs in the riparian zone and much
of the native forest habitat has been converted to perennial grasslands with higher runoff and
sedimentation potential.

Residential pressures can result in increased road building, water development, the removal of
riparian habitat and reduced water quality. Though Lagunitas Creek currently has a low
percentage of development and much of the anadromous portions of the watershed is under state
and Federal ownership, conversion of ranches, farms and dairy lands to home tracts could greatly
reduce the benefits of the land uses which remain in open space and have relatively undisturbed
hydrologic regimes. San Geronimo Creek and lower Lagunitas Creek are the most heavily
developed areas and have been the subject of recent county involvement to address growth and
encroachment issues.
Roads and Railroads

Streamside road density is high in the watershed, and the highest in the San Geronimo Creek and
Lagunitas mainstem, though overall watershed road density is low, and existing roads have been
upgraded. However, considering that few road decommissioning projects occur in the urban
areas and within riparian zones, and the likelihood of more road building, this threat is likely to
continue in the future.

The watershed experiences a Coastal type climate and year-round flows are normal in the
Lagunitas Creek watershed. Severe drought conditions were present in the summer of 2004, and
streamflows declined rapidly throughout the watershed. During drought periods and annually
in August, riffles can become dry, disconnecting surface flow to pools in some tributaries. Given
that summer streamflows are already pressured by agricultural and some residential
development, long-lasting drought patterns could pose a significant threat to maintaining
adequate streamflows and aquatic habitat. Flooding can contribute positive as well as negative
changes to streams through the initiation or acceleration of natural processes respectively. For
Lagunitas Creek, severe flooding could accelerate erosion sites in channelized and incised
reaches, as well as increase the potential for redd scour, which has been identified as a limiting
factor (Stillwater, 2008).

Four large dams already occur in the upper watershed, and though the number of reported
diversions is low, the chief water demand occurs in the summer from creek side residential and
agricultural development. Increased water diversion resulting from residential development
within Lagunitas Creek system could further stress riparian and aquatic resources. Water
diversion in the tributaries could impact rearing juveniles. Flows in the mainstem are already
compromised due to the operations of the dams, though management currently is thought to
benefit salmonid rearing and migration.

The juvenile lifestages are most limited by lack of floodplain connectivity for winter rearing, and
by lack of large wood and low shelter values for summer rearing. Additionally, the estuary is
impaired for rearing age 1+ fish through the summer (Stillwater, 2008). Altered sediment
transport and associated impacts to watershed processes is also a major stress limiting recovery
of steelhead in the Lagunitas population.

To improve the inadequate ratings of key habitat attribute indicators in Lagunitas Creek, priority
recovery actions include: improvement of riparian vegetation, improve baseflows during the
summer months, reducing riparian road density, improving habitat complexity (for rearing and
high flow refugia), and continued improvements to water quality in Tomales Bay to improve the
habitat used by summer and winter rearing juveniles, and improve survival of smolts.
Improve Canopy Cover and Riparian Recruitment

The Lagunitas Creek watershed would benefit from improved riparian composition and
structure, which would increase stream shading and improve LWD recruitment for eventual
increases in instream shelter for juvenile steelhead. Practices to improve riparian condition
include native riparian planting, development and enforcement of riparian buffers, and livestock
exclusion fencing. Olema and San Geronimo Creek sub-basins are high priority areas.
Improve Water Quality in the Estuary

Tomales Bay is identified by the SFBRWQCB as impaired for sedimentation, nutrients, pathogens,
and mercury. Current efforts to reduce pollution are focused on human pathogen sources from
failing septic systems and inadequate facilities for recreational users, animal waste from
agricultural operations, mercury-contaminated sediments from the Gambonini Mine, and
sediment from erosion throughout the watershed. Ensuring water quality in Tomales Bay and

tributary streams sufficient to support natural resources and sustain beneficial uses will require
reductions in sediment, pathogen, mercury, and nutrient loading, restoring and maintaining
adequate high quality freshwater flow, controlling invasive non-native species, and protecting
habitats of native species in the Tomales Bay watershed.
Address Upslope and Riparian Road Sediment Sources

Many of the public roads have been surveyed, and recommendations have been partially
implemented, though numerous private roads remain within the watershed and within the
riparian corridor. Existing problem roads and active erosion sites should be prioritized and
addressed as part of a comprehensive sediment reduction and transportation plan for the entire
basin. Future road construction should utilize BMPs to prevent alteration of hydrologic
processes, sediment transport, and fish passage, and avoid or minimize construction of roads
within riparian zones.
Increase Instream Shelter Ratings and Pool Volume

MMWD, Tomales Bay Watershed Council, Point Reyes National Seashore, the Salmon Protection
and Watershed Network (SPAWN), Trout Unlimited, and other partners within the watershed
have embarked on many instream large wood placement projects, which have improved habitat
complexity in some areas. However, complexity could be significantly improved where existing
pool habitats are mainly comprised of undercut banks and aquatic vegetation by adding
additional LWD at single log structure sites. Other stream reaches could utilize similar
supplementation of multiple LWD placement, boulders and other channel forming features to
encourage more desirable pool/riffle/flatwater ratios (including primary pools), sort coarse
sediment, and increase pool shelter ratings. High priority sub-basins within the Lagunitas Creek
watershed in need of LWD placement include: Devils Gulch, San Geronimo Creek, upper
reaches of Lagunitas Creek, Larsen Creek, Olema Creek and Woodacre Creek. Enhancing these
streams will greatly improve the quality of available spawning and seasonal rearing habitat
potential for steelhead.
Improve Baseflow Conditions

Residential development and associated diversions (riparian, legal and illegal) contribute to
reduced baseflows in summer. To address this, the MS Recovery Team recommends continued
support for studies being conducted to quantify water demand and supply and identify water
conservation projects and opportunities in cooperation with watershed landowners. Exploring
the benefits of simulated beaver dam structures (beavers are no longer present) in providing year
round flow for rearing steelhead is also recommended. Maintaining sufficient freshwater flows
in upstream rearing habitats will increase flows to the estuary, and moderate salinity,
temperature and dissolved oxygen.

Literature Cited
Marin Resource Conservation District (RCD), 2004. Marin County Watershed Management Plan
Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), 2010.
Stillwater Sciences. 2008. Lagunitas Creek Stewardship Plan.
Stillwater Sciences. 2009. San Geronimo Valley Existing Conditions Report. Prepared by
Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley, California for Marin County Department of Public Works,
San Rafael, California.

Lagunitas Creek CAP Viability Results
Current
Target Rating
Measurement
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Pool/Riffle/Flatwater streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-km
Habitat Complexity Fair
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
0% streams/ 0%
Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating IP-km (>80 Fair
stream average)
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 58
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
Passage at Mouth or 50% of IP-Km to 75% of IP-Km to 75% of IP-km to
Passage/Migration or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km Good
Confluence 74% of IP-km 90% of IP-km 90% of IP-km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km 91.88% of IP-km Very Good
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
Riparian Tree Diameter 39% Class 5 & >69% Class 5 & 0% Class 5 & 6
& 6 across IP- & 6 across IP- Poor
Vegetation (North of SF Bay) 6 across IP-km 6 across IP-km across IP-km
km km
Riparian Tree Diameter Not
rating "D" rating "D" rating "D" Not Defined
Vegetation (South of SF Bay) Specified

50% of IP-Km to 75% of IP-Km to 75% of IP-km to
Sediment Distribution of or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km Good
74% of IP-km 90% of IP-km 90% of IP-km
50-80%
<50% Response >80% Response <50% Response
Floodplain Response
Velocity Refuge Reach Reach Not Defined Reach Poor
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity Connectivity Connectivity
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants
Water Quality Turbidity maintains maintains maintains maintains maintains Good
severity score of severity score severity score severity score severity score of
3 or lower of 3 or lower of 3 or lower of 3 or lower 3 or lower
>1 spawner
<1 spawner per
per IP-km to < low risk Low risk
IP-km to < low
low risk spawner spawner density
Size Viability Density risk spawner Good
spawner density per per Spence
density per
density per Spence (2008) (2008)
Spence (2008)
Spence (2008)
2 Eggs Condition Hydrology (Instantaneous Protocol: Risk Good
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
NMFS Flow
Hydrology Redd Scour Protocol: Risk Fair
Factor Score 58
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% (0.85mm) 12-14%
Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) and >30% (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and and <30% (0.85mm) and Good
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm)
Gravel Quality
Sediment (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream Fair
(Embeddedness)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
3 Rearing Condition Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent Functioning Fair
Juveniles Condition

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Habitat Complexity (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Fair
Width 10-100
meters)
Percent Primary
Habitat Complexity (>49% of pools (>49% of pools (>49% of pools (>49% of pools (>49% of pools Good
Pools
are primary are primary are primary are primary are primary
pools) pools) pools) pools) pools)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
0% streams/ 0%
stream average)
NMFS Flow
Hydrology Protocol: Risk Fair
Factor Score 67
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
Hydrology (Instantaneous Protocol: Risk Good
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
Hydrology and/or Magnitude of Diversions/10 IP Diversions/10 Diversions/10 0 Diversions Diversions/10 Fair
Diversions km IP km IP km IP-km
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*

Riparian
Canopy Cover stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; Very Good
Vegetation
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
(>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream Fair
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP 75 to 89% IP
<50% IP km (<20 >90% IP km 50 to 74% IP-km
km (<20 C km (<20 C
C MWMT; <16 C (<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT;
Water Quality MWMT where <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT Fair
coho IP where coho IP where coho IP
coho IP coho IP
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of >90% of
streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km
Water Quality Turbidity maintains maintains maintains maintains maintains Very Good
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5 0.2 - 0.6
50-74% of 75-90% of
<50% of >90% of 75-90% of
Viability Spatial Structure Historical Historical Good
Historical Range Historical Range Historical Range
Range Range

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Winter Rearing
Juveniles
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Not
Specified
severity score of severity score severity score severity score
3 or lower of 3 or lower of 3 or lower of 3 or lower
Properly
Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
0% streams/ 0%
Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating IP-km (>80 Fair
stream average)
NMFS Flow
Hydrology Passage Flows Protocol: Risk Very Good
Factor Score 33
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% IP-Km (>6 50-74% IP-Km 75-90% IP-Km >90% IP-Km (>6 75-90% IP-km
and <14 C) (>6 and <14 C) (>6 and <14 C) and <14 C) (>6 and <14 C)
No Evidence of
Contaminants
Smolt Smolt
Smolt Smolt
abundance abundance
abundance to abundance to
produce low produce low
Size Viability Abundance high risk moderate risk Good
risk spawner risk spawner
spawner density spawner
density per density per
per Spence density per
(2008) Spence (2008)

>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of 0.432% of
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of 0.33% of
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of <15% of
Landscape Patterns Timber Harvest Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Very Good
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of 9% of
Landscape Patterns Urbanization watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 Good
unit/20 acres unit/20 acres unit/20 acres unit/20 acres unit/20 acres
Riparian Historical Historical Historical Historical Historical
Species Composition Fair
Vegetation Species Species Species Species Species
2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6 2.6
Sediment >3 Miles/Square
Road Density Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Fair
Transport Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile
0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1 3.3
Sediment Streamside Road >1 Miles/Square
Mile Mile Mile Mile

Lagunitas Creek CAP Threat Results

1 Agriculture Medium Low Medium Low Low Medium Medium
2 Channel Modification Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
3 Disease, Predation and Competition Low Not Specified Low Low Low Low Low
4 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Low Not Specified Low Not Specified Low Not Specified Low
5 Suppression Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
8 Logging and Wood Harvesting Low Low Medium Low Low Medium Medium
9 Mining Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Low Low
10 Recreational Areas and Activities Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Low Low
11 Residential and Commercial Development Medium Low High High Low Medium High
12 Roads and Railroads Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Medium Low Medium Low Low Medium Medium
14 Water Diversion and Impoundments Medium Low Medium Low Medium Medium Medium
Threat Status for Targets and Project Medium Medium High Medium Medium High High

Lagunitas Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
LaC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species
LaC-CCCS- Recovery
1.1.1 Action Estuary Increase the extent of estuarine habitat
CDFW, Marin
Prevent or minimize future encroachment of landuse County,
LaC-CCCS- (agricultural, residential and commercial) into RWQCB,
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary floodplain areas of the estuary 3 50 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MMWD,
Tomales Bay
LaC-CCCS- Support a salmonid limiting factors assessment in Watershed Cost based on estuary use, residence time model
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary Keys Estero and Tomales Bay (CDFG 2004). 3 10 Council 161.00 161.00 322 at a rate of $321,745/project.
California
Coastal
Per a completed limiting factors assessment, and Conservancy,
utilizing adaptive management guidelines, develop CDFW, NMFS,
restoration projects in areas which have high value Tomales Bay
LaC-CCCS- physical and chemical properties for rearing Watershed
1.1.1.3 Action Step Estuary salmonids 2 15 Council TBD
LaC-CCCS- Recovery
1.1.2 Action Estuary Increase and enhance habitat complexity features
CA Coastal
Commission,
Restore estuarine wetlands and sloughs, develop California
floodplain and backwater habitat projects, and Coastal
improve prey abundance by increasing shoreline Conservancy,
LaC-CCCS- perimeter and planting native emergent and riparian CDFW, Private Cost based on treating 5% of total estuarine
1.1.2.1 Action Step Estuary species to improve foraging and cover. 2 10 Landowners 633 633 1,265 habitat at a rate of $46,740/acre.
LaC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
1.2 Objective Estuary mechanisms
LaC-CCCS- Recovery
1.2.1 Action Estuary Improve estuarine freshwater inflow
Improve estuarine water quality by identifying and Cost for continuous water quality monitoring
remediating upstream pollution sources which RWQCB, gauges estimated at $5,000/unit. Assume
LaC-CCCS- contribute to poor water quality conditions in the SWRCB, Water minimum of 3 for lagoon. Cost does not account
1.2.1.1 Action Step Estuary estuary 2 10 Agencies 7.50 7.50 15 for maintenance or data management.
CDFW, Marin
County, NMFS, Increasing freshwater inflow will require
RWQCB, reductions in water diversions and improved
Tomales Bay storage facilities. Cost based on the amount of
LaC-CCCS- Increase freshwater inflow to improve water quality in Watershed water to be purchased/leased and off-channel
1.2.1.2 Action Step Estuary the estuary. 2 12 Council, USACE TBD storage facilities to implement.
Reduce extent of estuarine shoreline development

LaC-CCCS- Recovery via the planning process or with the assistance of
1.2.2 Action Estuary land conservation organizations.
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, Marin
County, NMFS,
Tomales Bay
LaC-CCCS- Evaluate alterations to diking and leveeing which has Watershed Cost based on estuary use monitoring estimated
1.2.2.1 Action Step Estuary reduced shoreline complexity and natural function 3 10 Council, USACE 161.00 161.00 322 at $321,745/project.

CA Coastal
Commission,
Evaluate the effect of nearby landuse practices and California Costs associated with removal of structures will
development structures which may impair or reduce Coastal depend on the number and type of structures
LaC-CCCS- the historical tidal prism and other estuarine functions Conservancy, identified and cannot be accurately determined at
1.2.2.2 Action Step Estuary and implement improvements 3 10 CDFW TBD this time.
LaC-CCCS- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain
Marin County,
LaC-CCCS- Floodplain Delineate reaches possessing both potential winter MMWD, NPS, This is a GIS exercise with ground truthing, and
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity rearing habitat and floodplain areas. 2 5 State Parks 40.00 40 costs are expected to be fairly low.
Identify the floodplain activation flow - the smallest

flood pulse event that initiates substantial beneficial Marin County,
LaC-CCCS- Floodplain ecological processes when associated with Private Cost for fish/habitat monitoring estimated at
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity floodplain inundation (Williams et al. 2009). 2 10 Landowners 57.50 57.50 115 $114,861/project.
CDFW, Marin Costs to promote and support restoration efforts

Promote restoration projects designed to create or County, MMWD, (e.g. technical assistance) depend on level of
LaC-CCCS- Floodplain restore alcove, backchannel, ephemeral tributary, or NMFS, NPS, technical assistance provided and the types of
2.1.1.3 Action Step Connectivity seasonal pond habitats. 2 60 State Parks 0 projects proposed. Action is considered In-Kind
Create flood refuge habitat, such as by: 1)

hydrologically connecting floodplains with riparian
forest; 2) removing or setting back levees; or 3) using Marin County,
the streamway concept where appropriate. Installing Marin RCD, Cost based on treating 2.9 miles (assume 1
LaC-CCCS- Floodplain shelter components (LWD, boulders, etc.) MMWD, NPS, project/mile in 25% High IP with 80 acres/mile) at
2.1.2.1 Action Step Connectivity appropriate to the channel type. 2 10 State Parks 4,920 4,920 9,839 a rate of $42,408/acre.
Cost accounted for in above action steps. Costs

depend on level of technical assistance required
and types of projects proposed. Many salmon
recovery efforts and management programs are
currently ongoing by a variety of agencies and
Marin County, stakeholders. It is possible that there could be
Target habitat restoration and enhancement projects MMWD, NMFS, additional salmon restoration costs identified;
LaC-CCCS- Floodplain that will function between winter base flow and flood NPS, State however, at this time we do not have sufficient
2.1.2.2 Action Step Connectivity stage. 2 60 Parks 0 information to estimate those potential costs.
Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re-

established in low gradient response reaches (e.g.
Olema Ranch Campground). Improve conditions to
re-create, and restore alcove, backwater, or
perennial pond habitats where channel modification
has resulted in decreased shelter, LWD frequency,
and habitat complexity, develop and implement site
specific plans to improve these conditions to re- Farm Bureau, Cost based on riparian and wetland restoration
LaC-CCCS- Floodplain create, and restore alcove, backwater, or perennial Marin County, model at a rate of $84,124 and $243,169/project,
2.1.2.3 Action Step Connectivity pond habitats. 2 50 NMFS, RCD 32.80 32.80 32.80 32.80 32.80 328 respectively.
Support landowners and the RCD in developing
projects to improve channel conditions and restore CDFW, Marin
natural channel geomorphology, including side County, Private
LaC-CCCS- Floodplain channels and dense contiguous riparian vegetation Landowners,
2.1.2.4 Action Step Connectivity (CDFG 2004). 2 40 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Land Trusts,
Marin County, Cost based on amount of historical floodplains to
Encourage willing landowners to restore historical Private place in conservation easements. Cost varies
LaC-CCCS- Floodplain floodplains or offchannel habitats through Landowners, depending upon landowner participation, fair
2.1.2.5 Action Step Connectivity conservation easements, etc. 3 10 RCD TBD market value, and size of easement.
LaC-CCCS- Floodplain Evaluate potential acquisition or easements to NPS, Private

2.1.2.6 Action Step Connectivity protect floodplain function on lower Lagunitas Creek. 3 5 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Evaluate existing floodplain and historic floodplain
LaC-CCCS- Floodplain property for potential function and acquisition using MMWD, NPS,
2.1.2.7 Action Step Connectivity conservation easements. 3 3 SPAWN TBD
LaC-CCCS- Floodplain Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
2.2 Objective Connectivity mechanisms
Implementation of existing program activities are
LaC-CCCS- Floodplain Implement Marin County Flood Zone activities for the Marin County, unlikely to increase costs associated with
2.2.1.1 Action Step Connectivity improvement of steelhead habitat 3 5 MMWD 0 recovery. Action is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Recovery
LaC-CCCS- Develop rearing habitat curves to identify optimal Cost for stream flow model estimated at
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology base flow conditions 3 10 CDFW, SWRCB 32.50 32.50 65 $65,084/project.
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
Landowners,
LaC-CCCS- Continue to support efforts to model flows and water RCD, UC
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology usage 3 5 Extension 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
LaC-CCCS- Develop cooperative projects with private Landowners,
3.1.1.3 Action Step Hydrology landowners to conserve summer flows 2 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Recovery
California
Conservation
Corps, CDFW,
Marin County,
Marin RCD,
NOAA RC,
Develop floodplain enhancement and LWD projects Private Cost accounted for in other recovery actions.
LaC-CCCS- in modified and incised channel areas of major Landowners, See habitat complexity and floodplain
3.1.2.1 Action Step Hydrology tributaries including San Geronimo Creek 2 10 Trout Unlimited 0 connectivity.
Improve spawning success and egg survival through CDFW, Marin

LaC-CCCS- improving channel configuration, sediment dynamics, County, NMFS,
3.1.2.2 Action Step Hydrology and channel roughness and stability 2 20 RCD TBD
3.2 Objective Hydrology mechanisms
LaC-CCCS- Recovery
Promote, via technical assistance and/or regulatory

action, the reduction of water use affecting the CDFW, Marin
natural hydrograph, development of alternative water County, Marin
LaC-CCCS- sources, and implementation of diversion regimes RCD, MMWD, Technical assistance is ongoing. Action is
3.2.1.1 Action Step Hydrology protective of the natural hydrograph. 2 60 NMFS 0 considered In-Kind

Provide incentives to water rights holders willing to
convert some or all of their water right to instream DWR, Marin
LaC-CCCS- use via petition change of use and California Water County, NMFS, Cost is based on amount and type of incentives to
3.2.1.2 Action Step Hydrology Code 1707 (CDFG 2004). 2 10 SWRCB TBD provide and participation from diverters.
LaC-CCCS- Evaluate the feasibility of reintroducing beavers to CDFW, MMWD,
3.2.1.3 Action Step Hydrology improve summer baseflow conditions. 2 5 NMFS 0 Cost of evaluations is likely In-Kind.
LaC-CCCS- Recovery
Restore fish passage at Roys Pools to facilitate Marin County,
LaC-CCCS- unimpeded passage for all life stages into the San SPAWN, Trout This action would provide access to the San
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage Geronimo Creek 2 5 Unlimited 800 800 Geronimo Valley for all lifestages.
Cost based on treating 25% of remaining

structures assuming 1 barrier/5 miles High IP at a
rate of $367,732/unit. This action would provide
Marin County, access to the most productive subwatershed in
LaC-CCCS- Remove all barriers in the Woodacre, Arroyo, Larsen SPAWN, Trout this system. Many barriers have been addressed,
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage and Montezuma and San Geronimo subwatersheds 2 10 Unlimited 750 750 1,500 however some continue to limit access to habitat.
Marin County,
LaC-CCCS- Removal all remaining barriers in the Cheda, Devil's MMWD, NPS,
5.1.1.3 Action Step Passage Gulch and Olema subwatersheds. 2 10 State Parks TBD
LaC-CCCS- Habitat modification, or curtailment of the species
LaC-CCCS- Recovery
Increase shelters in 75% of streams across the CDFW, Marin Cost based on placing LWD for 5.7 miles of
LaC-CCCS- watershed to improve conditions for adults, and County, Marin stream (assume 1 project/mile in 50% High IP) at
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity winter/summer rearing juveniles 2 10 RCD 85.00 85.00 170 a rate of $29,640/mile.
Increase shelters to optimal conditions (>80 pool CDFW, NOAA
shelter value) by installing multiple log structures in RC, Private
LaC-CCCS- select reaches of Larsen, San Geronimo, Woodacre, Landowners, Cost accounted for in increase shelters in 75% of
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity and Olema Creeks 2 10 Trout Unlimited 0 streams.
Focus efforts to restore channel complexity in the Costs are expected to be included in
LaC-CCCS- Tocaloma reach of the Lagunitas mainstem to implementation of LWD placements actions.
6.1.1.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity improve smolt survival. 2 10 MMWD, NPS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Recovery
Cost based on treating 2.9 miles (assume 1
Increase pool frequency in 25% of streams within the CDFW, Marin project/mile of 25% High IP) at a rate of
LaC-CCCS- watershed to improve conditions for adults, and County, NMFS, $29,640/mile. Cost may vary if ELJ or placement
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity summer/winter juveniles 2 10 NOAA RC 85.00 85.00 170 of boulders is preferred.
Increase pool frequency to achieve optimal

conditions (>40% of pools meet primary pool criteria CDFW, NOAA
(>2.5 feet deep in 1st and 2nd order streams; >3 feet RC, Private
LaC-CCCS- in third order or larger streams)) in select reaches of Landowners, Cost accounted for in increase pool frequency in
6.1.2.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity Olema, Woodacre and San Geronimo Creeks 2 10 Trout Unlimited 0 25 % of streams.
Hold restoration workshops to specifically focus on

restoration techniques that promote winter rearing
juvenile habitat complexity in the Tocaloma reach of
the lower Lagunitas mainstem. In addition, focus on Marin County,
restoration techniques that specifically address Marin RCD,
LaC-CCCS- declining pool frequency and shelters for summer NOAA RC,
6.1.2.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity rearing juveniles. 3 20 SPAWN 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Analyze whether summertime low-flow pools

(perceived to be a limiting factor) are filling up with
fine sediment from San Geronimo Creek between
flow events that have enough power to scour the
pools. This could be examined by surveying selected
pools in detail several times a year (long enough to
LaC-CCCS- cover several potential scour and fill events), as was MMWD, NPS,
6.1.2.4 Action Step Habitat Complexity conducted in 1981. 3 10 SPAWN 0 Cost accounted for in fish/habitat monitoring.
LaC-CCCS- Recovery
6.1.3 Action Habitat Complexity Improve pool:riffle:flatwater ratio (hydraulic diversity)
CDFW, Marin
LaC-CCCS- Increase riffle frequency in 25% of streams within the County, NMFS, Cost accounted for as part of increase frequency
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity watershed to improve conditions for spawning adults 2 10 RCD 0 of primary pools action step.
Increase riffle frequency to achieve optimal

conditions (20% riffles) by converting flatwater CDFW, NOAA
LaC-CCCS- habitats (glides, runs, etc.) utilizing boulders and log RC, Private Cost accounted for as part of increase pool
6.1.3.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity structures in select reaches of San Geronimo Creek 2 10 Landowners 0 frequency action step.
In the San Geronimo Creek sub-watershed, continue

public outreach and education for private
landowners, residents, commercial, public utility and
county workers regarding best management
practices to control erosion, protect riparian
LaC-CCCS- vegetation, retain LWD, and minimize disturbance to Marin County, Continue ongoing efforts. Action is considered In-
6.1.3.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity steelhead from domestic animals. 3 5 SPAWN 0 Kind
LaC-CCCS- Recovery
Increase large wood frequency throughout the CDFW, NOAA
LaC-CCCS- watershed to improve conditions for adults, and RC, Private
6.1.4.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity winter/summer rearing juveniles 2 10 Landowners 0 Cost accounted for in previous action steps.
LaC-CCCS- key LWD pieces/100 meters) in select reaches of RC, Private
6.1.4.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity Olema Creek 2 10 Landowners 0 Cost likely accounted for in other action steps.
key LWD pieces/100 meters) in select reaches of RC, Private
LaC-CCCS- Larsen, Woodacre, San Geronimo, and Devils Gulch Landowners,
6.1.4.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity Creeks 2 10 Trout Unlimited 0 Cost likely accounted for in other action steps.
MMWD,
Expand on the efforts of the Regional Water Quality RWQCB,
LaC-CCCS- Control Board and Marin Municipal Water District to SPAWN, Trout Cost to maintain LWD is expected to be minimal.
6.1.4.4 Action Step Habitat Complexity retain LWD. 2 10 Unlimited 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Marin
Install structures with multiple logs and root balls County, Marin
LaC-CCCS- because they are more effective than structures with RCD, MMWD,
6.1.4.5 Action Step Habitat Complexity only one log. 3 10 NPS, SPAWN 0 Cost likely accounted for in other action steps.
LaC-CCCS- Recovery
Continue riparian protection and sediment control Marin County,

projects with a focus on working with landowners to Marin RCD, Livestock damage has severe effects in the
manage livestock to protect riparian areas, and to MMWD, NPS, Olema watershed, but is less of an issue in the
LaC-CCCS- implement erosion control projects on State and SPAWN, State other areas of the watershed. Action is
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian Federal park and private lands (e.g., Devil's Gulch). 2 10 Parks 0 considered In-Kind
Plant native riparian species and native
conifers/hardwoods in the riparian zone within the CDFW, NOAA
central portion of the watershed (Olema and lower RC, Private Estimated costs based on similar costs in
LaC-CCCS- Lagunitas Creek mainstem) to increase overall tree Landowners, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian diameter 2 20 RCD 40 40 40 40 159 site, setting and geographic specific.

including conservation easements, setbacks, and Land Trusts,
LaC-CCCS- riparian buffers throughout the watershed (CDFG Marin County,
Marin County,
MMWD,
Tomales Bay
LaC-CCCS- Manage riparian areas for their site potential Watershed
7.1.1.4 Action Step Riparian composition and structure. 3 60 Council 0 Action is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Recovery
Implement the San Geronimo Valley Salmon Marin County,
LaC-CCCS- Enhancement Plan to protect riparian integrity in San Private
7.1.2.1 Action Step Riparian Geronimo Creek 2 20 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Conduct conifer release to promote growth of larger Board of Cost based on treating 1.7 miles (assume 80
LaC-CCCS- diameter trees where appropriate throughout the Forestry, Private acres/mile in 15% High IP) at a rate of
7.1.2.2 Action Step Riparian watershed. 3 10 Landowners 114.00 114.00 228 $1,673/acre.
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Improve gravel quantity and distribution for macro-
Private
Landowners,
Reduce embbeddness levels to the extent that 75% RCD, Tomales Fish/habitat monitoring should identify areas with
LaC-CCCS- to 90% of streams within the watershed meet optimal Bay Watershed increased embeddness levels. Cost for based on
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment criteria (>50% stream average scores of 1 & 2) 2 10 Council 65.50 65.50 131 fish/habitat model at a rate of $130,941/project.
Marin County,
Private
Conduct sediment source surveys in remaining Landowners,
portion of the watershed to identify existing sources RCD, Tomales
LaC-CCCS- of high sediment yield using accepted protocols and Bay Watershed Cost for erosion assessment (assume 25% of
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment implement recommendations 3 10 Council 125.50 125.50 251 total watershed acres) estimated at $14.38./acre.
CDFW, Marin
County, Private
Landowners,
RCD, Tomales
Bay Watershed
LaC-CCCS- Implement recommendations of completed sediment Council, Trout
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment source surveys (See ROADS for specific actions) 2 5 Unlimited TBD
LaC-CCCS- Recovery
Determine site-specific recommendations, including Marin County, Existing programs could be copied for
LaC-CCCS- incentives, to remedy high temperatures and MMWD, NPS, implementation, so costs are expected to be
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality implement accordingly (CDFG 2004) . 2 5 State Parks TBD minimal.
Focus on restoration efforts that deal with riparian
canopy, shelters and any other impaired key habitat Marin County, Existing programs could be copied for
LaC-CCCS- attribute indicator that relates specifically to instream MMWD, NPS, implementation, so costs are expected to be
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality temperature. 2 5 State Parks TBD minimal.
LaC-CCCS- Recovery
Marin County, Implementation of the TMDL is mandated by the
MMWD, NPS, Clean Water Act, and additional costs associated
LaC-CCCS- Fully implement practices consistent with the RWQCB, State with recovery are not expected. Action is
10.1.2.1 Action Step Water Quality SFRWQCB pathogen and sediment TMDLs. 3 10 Parks 0 considered In-Kind

LaC-CCCS- Address other natural or manmade factors

11.1 Objective Viability affecting the species' continued existence
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and

LaC-CCCS- Conduct habitat surveys to monitor change in key
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability habitat variables. 1 100 CDFW 0 Action is considered In-Kind
To better understand changes in sedimentation, CDFW, NMFS,

monitoring in the basin should include: longitudinal SPAWN, Trout This recommendation should be considered
LaC-CCCS- profiles, cross-sections, V*, LWD volume and Unlimited, UC standard practice of monitoring efforts. Action is
11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability distribution, and embeddedness. 2 10 Extension 0 considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
SPAWN, Trout
LaC-CCCS- Unlimited, UC
11.1.1.3 Action Step Viability Support operation of outmigrant traps. 1 10 Extension 0 Cost accounted for in the Monitoring Chapter.
LaC-CCCS- Use monitoring and trend information to adjust and
11.1.1.4 Action Step Viability adapt recovery actions/strategies. 3 50 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- reflect new habitat improvements and accessible
11.1.1.5 Action Step Viability habitat expansions. 3 5 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Prevent or minimize impairment to instream
LaC-CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
12.1.1 Action Agriculture quantity)
Marin County,
Address sediment and runoff sources from road Private Stringent review by permitting agencies is
networks and other actions that deliver sediment and Landowners, expected to reduce costs associated with poorly
LaC-CCCS- runoff to stream channels (see Roads for specific Public Works, planned and poorly located developments. Action
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture actions/areas) 2 60 RCD, USACE 0 is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
Implement programs to purchase land/conservation

LaC-CCCS- easements to encourage the re-establishment and/or Land Trusts, Cost difficult to determine because of fair market
12.1.2.1 Action Step Agriculture enhancement of natural riparian communities. 3 30 Marin County TBD value and rate of turnover.
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, RCD,
LaC-CCCS- Minimize agricultural activities within 100 feet of the SWRCB,
12.1.2.2 Action Step Agriculture edge of a stream 3 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

and others to devise incentive programs and CDFW, Farm
incentive-based approaches to encourage increased Bureau, NMFS,
involvement and support existing landowners who NRCS, Private Soliciting cooperation not expected to cost much
LaC-CCCS- conduct operations in a manner compatible with CCC Landowners, outside of already existing federal and state and
12.1.3.1 Action Step Agriculture steelhead recovery priorities. 3 10 RCD 0 local salaries. Action is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Recovery (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
12.1.4 Action Agriculture toxicity)
CDFW, Farm
Complete Farm Conservation Plans (through the Bureau, NMFS,
SRCD, NRCS, or Fish Friendly Farming programs) to Private
LaC-CCCS- reduce sediment sources and restore riparian habitat Landowners, Cost of completing plan estimated at
12.1.4.1 Action Step Agriculture and forest health 3 10 RCD 50 50 100 approximately $100,000 per plan
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

CDFW, Farm
Work with the agricultural community to develop Bureau, NMFS,
water conservation strategies protective of salmonids NRCS, Private Soliciting cooperation not expected to cost much
LaC-CCCS- while allowing ongoing agricultural land uses (i.e., off- Landowners, outside of already existing federal and state and
12.1.5.1 Action Step Agriculture channel storage ponds). 3 10 RCD, SWRCB 0 local salaries. Action is considered In-Kind

Assist in the development and support
implementation of sediment TMDL to assure water
quality conditions for steelhead are improved and Costs are expected to be minimal, however
LaC-CCCS- fine sediment loads are decreased to baseline RWQCB, Water technical assistance from several agencies will be
12.2.1.1 Action Step Agriculture conditions. 3 5 Agencies 0 needed. Action is considered In-Kind
Develop riparian setbacks/buffers where they do not

LaC-CCCS- currently occur, and enforce requirements of local Marin County,
12.2.2.1 Action Step Agriculture regulations where they do. 2 50 RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Enforce requirements of local regulations and
12.2.2.2 Action Step Agriculture riparian/setbacks. 1 50 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
Private Streamlining permit processing is not expected to
LaC-CCCS- Streamline permit processing where landowners are Landowners, cost much, and may save money through future
12.2.2.3 Action Step Agriculture conducting actions aligned with recovery priorities. 2 5 RCD 0 efficiencies.Action is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
CDFW, Marin
Conduct rehabilitation activities that restore channels, County, NOAA
floodplains and meadows to extend the duration of RC, NRCS,
the summer flow and provide refuge from high winter Private
LaC-CCCS- Channel flows.(Evaluate the Tocaloma reach of the lower Landowners, See Floodplain Connectivity actions for cost
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification Lagunitas mainstem) 2 10 USACE 0 estimates.

LaC-CCCS- Channel (e.g. carefully evaluate feasibility where critical CDFW, NMFS,
LaC-CCCS- Channel woody debris to ensure improved habitat at the CDFW, NMFS,
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment of floodplain
13.1.2 Action Modification connectivity (impaired quality and extent)
LaC-CCCS- Channel enhance steelhead migration under high and low flow
CDFW, Marin
LaC-CCCS- Channel Any larger wood or rootwads should be stockpiled for County, Marin
13.1.2.2 Action Step Modification future restoration projects where feasible. 2 10 RCD, NOAA RC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Channel Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory


LaC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment of floodplain
Look for opportunities to locate new infrastructure

outside of historic floodplains and find the means to
compensate landowners in exchange for
development rights or purchase of the land by a Land
Trust. Look for opportunities for landowners to
LaC-CCCS- Channel relocate existing infrastructure within the 100 year Marin County,
13.2.1.1 Action Step Modification flood zone on a voluntary basis. 2 10 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
13.2.2 Action Modification (reduce large wood and/or shelter)
LaC-CCCS- Channel Do not remove LWD, unless it is a emergency which
13.2.2.1 Action Step Modification threatens life and/or infrastructure. 2 10 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NPS, NRCS,
Exclude livestock from riparian areas, specifically on Private
LaC-CCCS- State and Federal Park and private lands (e.g. Landowners,
18.1.1.1 Action Step Livestock Devils Gulch). 2 50 RCD TBD

fence riparian and other sensitive areas (areas prone
to erosion) to exclude cattle and sheep. Calf/cow
LaC-CCCS- operations should take first priority for riparian Cost based on fencing 0.6 miles (assume 5% of
18.1.1.2 Action Step Livestock fencing programs over steer operations. 2 10 NRCS, RCD 7.00 7.00 14 high IP) at a rate of $4.14/ft.
Encourage develop and fund riparian restoration NRCS, RCD, Estimated costs based on similar costs in
LaC-CCCS- projects to regain riparian corridors damaged from Private geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
18.1.1.3 Action Step Livestock livestock and other causes. 2 20 Landowners 15 15 15 15 60 site, setting and geographic specific.
NRCS, RCD,
LaC-CCCS- Manage rotational grazing to aid in the reduction of Private
18.1.2 Action Livestock quantity)

Short term, seasonal and long term rest from grazing
LaC-CCCS- in overgrazed areas would improve soil conditions for
18.1.2.1 Action Step Livestock native revegetation and land values as well. 3 60 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NRCS, RCD,
LaC-CCCS- To minimize gully initiation, grazing should be kept at Private
NRCS, RCD,
LaC-CCCS- Where necessary, establish predetermined stream Private
18.1.3.2 Action Step Livestock crossings when herding cattle between pastures. 2 60 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
18.1.4 Action Livestock (impaired water flow)
Marin RCD, Costs for required infrastructure (e.g. mobile

Increase the use of water storage and catchment NPS, Private water trailers, tanks, etc.) will be the responsibility
LaC-CCCS- systems that collect rainwater in the winter for use Landowners, of individual landowners or supporting agencies,
18.1.4.1 Action Step Livestock during the dry summer and fall seasons. 2 10 State Parks TBD but cannot be determined at this time.


18.2 Objective Livestock mechanisms

LaC-CCCS- end of grazing season. Remove cattle from pasture Private
18.2.1.1 Action Step Livestock before soils dry out. 3 50 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/Com Address the present or threatened destruction,
LaC-CCCS- mercial modification, or curtailment of the species
Residential/Comm Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
LaC-CCCS- Recovery ercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
County Planning,
Residential/Comm Marin County, Much of the cost of conducting this work is the
LaC-CCCS- ercial RWQCB, Private responsibility of private landowners whose
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development Address failing septic systems in rural areas 3 10 Landowners TBD systems are failing.
Marin County,
Private
Residential/Comm Improve water quality where necessary by Landowners,
LaC-CCCS- ercial addressing residential and commercial pollutant Public Works, It is anticipated Marin County would know of
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development sources. 2 10 RCD, RWQCB TBD current pollutant sources.
Residential/Comm
LaC-CCCS- Recovery ercial Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
22.1.2 Action Development (impaired water flow)
Residential/Comm Marin County,
LaC-CCCS- ercial Encourage the use and provide incentives for rooftop Private
22.1.2.1 Action Step Development water storage and other conservation devices 2 20 Landowners TBD
Residential/Comm Disperse discharge from commercial and residential Marin County,

LaC-CCCS- ercial areas into a spatially distributed network rather than a Public Works,
22.1.2.2 Action Step Development few point discharges. 2 50 Water Agencies TBD
Residential/Comm
LaC-CCCS- Recovery ercial Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
22.1.3 Action Development species composition and structure
Residential/Comm
LaC-CCCS- ercial Enforce existing building permit programs to minimize
22.1.3.1 Action Step Development unpermitted construction. 1 50 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Design new developments to minimize impacts to Marin County, Stringent review by permitting agencies is
Residential/Comm unstable slopes, wetlands, areas of high habitat Private expected to reduce costs associated with poorly
LaC-CCCS- ercial value, and similarly constrained sites that occur Landowners, planned and poorly located developments. Action
22.1.3.2 Action Step Development adjacent to watercourses. 2 20 RCD, USACE 0 is considered In-Kind
Marin RCD,
MMWD, NPS,
Residential/Comm Maintain intact and properly functioning riparian Private
LaC-CCCS- ercial buffers to filter and prevent fine sediment input from Landowners,
22.1.3.3 Action Step Development entering streams. 3 60 State Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, FishNet
4C, Marin
Encourage FishNet 4C to facilitate instream and County, MMWD,
Residential/Comm riparian restoration and management workshops with NMFS, NPS,
LaC-CCCS- ercial a specific focus on problems and opportunities in the SPAWN, State
22.1.3.4 Action Step Development Lagunitas Watershed. 3 5 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Work with private landowners to promote the re- CDFW, Marin

vegetation of the native riparian plant community RCD, NPS,
Residential/Comm within inset floodplains and riparian corridors to Private
LaC-CCCS- ercial ameliorate instream temperature and provide a Landowners,
22.1.3.5 Action Step Development source of future large woody debris recruitment. 3 60 State Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/Com
LaC-CCCS- mercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
Residential/Comm
LaC-CCCS- Recovery ercial Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
Assess efficacy and necessity of ongoing stream
Residential/Comm maintenance practices and evaluate, avoid, minimize Marin County, Costs may vary with methods and extent of
LaC-CCCS- ercial and/or mitigate their impacts to rearing and migrating MMWD, NPS, assessments and actions taken to address
22.2.1.1 Action Step Development CCC steelhead. 3 20 State Parks TBD impacts, and cannot be determined at this time.
CDFW, Marin
Residential/Comm Support the Marin County Streamside Conservation County, NPS,
LaC-CCCS- ercial Area Ordinance. Evaluate current moratorium in San SPAWN, State
22.2.1.2 Action Step Development Geronimo Valley for pertinent action items. 3 10 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/Comm
LaC-CCCS- ercial Enforce existing building permit programs to minimize Marin County,
22.2.1.3 Action Step Development unpermitted construction. 3 20 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/Comm
LaC-CCCS- Recovery ercial Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
Residential/Comm with ongoing channel degradation or in sub- Marin County, Investigating funding larger detention devices is
LaC-CCCS- ercial watersheds where impervious surface area > 10 RWQCB, Water not expected to cost much. Implementing the
22.2.2.1 Action Step Development percent. 3 25 Agencies TBD devices will be much more expensive.
Develop legislation that will fund county planning for
environmentally sound growth water supply
development and work in coordination with California
Residential/Comm Dept. of Housing, Association of Bay Area
LaC-CCCS- ercial Governments and other government associations
22.2.2.2 Action Step Development (CDFG 2004). 1 10 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
23.1.1 Action Roads/Railroads quantity)
Assess and redesign transportation network to
LaC-CCCS- minimize road density and maximize transportation CalTrans, Marin Cost based on road inventory of 281 miles of
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads efficiency. 3 10 County 153.50 153.50 307 road at a rate of $1,090/mile.
Private
Landowners,
Utilize BMP's to reduce the lengths of ditches, Public Works, The road assessment should identify priorities for
LaC-CCCS- increase the size of ditch relief culverts, or replace RCD, State utilizing BMPs within the watershed. Action is
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads with rolling dips. 2 20 Parks 0 considered In-Kind
In the Olema Creek watershed, implement results of Private

existing sediment source surveys, and assess Landowners,
LaC-CCCS- remaining watershed road networks to eliminate high Public Works,
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads priority and high sediment yield sources. 2 20 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in previous action steps.

In the Lagunitas Creek watershed, implement results

of existing sediment source surveys, and assess
remaining watershed road networks to eliminate high Private
priority and high sediment yield sources. Upgrade Landowners,
and decommission sites and road networks where Public Works,
LaC-CCCS- appropriate. These actions include outsloping roads, RCD, State Cost to decommission roads estimated at
23.1.1.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads ditch relief culverts, and installing rolling dips. 2 30 Parks TBD $13,680/mile and to upgrade is $23,940/mile.

LaC-CCCS- watercourses. Coordinate these efforts with all Landowners, Cost depend on feasibility and need of adequate
23.1.1.5 Action Step Roads/Railroads landowners in the watershed. 3 20 Public Works TBD spoils storage sites.
Decommission or treat the road sites on the priority
list of 20 road sites within the San Geronimo Marin County,
LaC-CCCS- subwatershed based on amount of sediment Marin RCD, Cost based on decommissioning 3 miles of road
23.1.1.6 Action Step Roads/Railroads discharge. 2 20 SPAWN 10.25 10.25 10.25 10.25 41 network at a rate of $13,680/mile.
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
23.1.2 Action Roads/Railroads hydrology
construction (e.g. Fishnet 4C, 2004; Weaver and Caltrans, Marin
LaC-CCCS- Hagans, 1994; Sommarstrom et al., 2002; Oregon County, Private
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads Department of Transportation, 1999). 3 100 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
23.1.3 Action Roads/Railroads species composition and structure
Evaluate the potential of road widening projects (e.g.

LaC-CCCS- Sir Francis Drake Rd) on riparian corridors, and Caltrans, CDFW,
23.1.3.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads discourage encroachment into riparian zone. 3 50 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Marin County,
Discourage or eliminate unwanted vegetation types RCD, State Similar existing programs could be modified and
LaC-CCCS- and species and promote desirable (native) Parks, Water implemented at minimal cost. Action is considered
23.1.3.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads vegetation. 3 10 Agencies 0 In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape

LaC-CCCS- improper road construction and maintenance on Cost to expand an existing program are expected
California
Coastal
LaC-CCCS- Monitor and maintain the Coastal Conservancy Conservancy,
23.1.4.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads database of barriers to fish passage (CDFG 2004). 3 10 CDFW, NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and
Utilize BMP's to develop new and upgrade existing Marin County,
crossings (bridges, culverts, fills, and other Private
LaC-CCCS- crossings) to accommodate 100-year flood flows and Landowners,
23.1.5.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads associated bedload and debris. 2 50 State Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Board of
Forestry,
CalTrans,
bridges (including railroad bridges) should be free Planning, Private
span or constructed with the minimum number of Landowners,
LaC-CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation Public Works,
23.1.5.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads and facilitate fish passage. 3 60 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Marin County,
Prevent future barriers on newly constructed roads RCD, State
LaC-CCCS- utilizing NMFS Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Parks, Water
23.1.5.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads Stream Crossings (NMFS 2001a). 2 25 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Private
Landowners,
LaC-CCCS- Assess private road stream crossings for barrier RCD, Trout
23.1.5.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads potential and implement recommendations. 1 5 Unlimited TBD Recommendations based on road assessment.
CDFW, Private
Implement public road barrier survey Landowners,
LaC-CCCS- recommendations in high then medium value areas Public Works,
23.1.5.5 Action Step Roads/Railroads as a priority (See Passage). 1 5 State Parks TBD

23.2 Objective Roads/Railroads mechanism
Minimize new road construction within floodplains,
riparian areas, unstable soils or other sensitive areas
until a watershed specific and/or agency/company Existing authorities of permitting agencies
LaC-CCCS- specific road management plan is created and Marin County, facilitate implementation at minimal costs. Action
23.2.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads implemented. 3 20 USACE 0 is considered In-Kind
Support the MMWD in their efforts to reduce
sedimentation from lands in the Lagunitas Creek
watershed. MMWD will also coordinate with the
Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Program (MCSTOPPP) to make sure that
educational materials about non-point source Marin RCD, Outreach and education are ongoing, and
LaC-CCCS- pollution are available to homeowners in the San MMWD, additional costs are expected to be minimal.
23.2.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads Geronimo Valley. 3 10 RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Support and Implement the MOU for Maintenance
LaC-CCCS- and Management of Unpaved Roads in the
23.2.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads Lagunitas Watershed. 1 10 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Severe Weather modification, or curtailment of the species
24.1 Objective Patterns habitat or range
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
Work with land owners or public agencies to acquire
LaC-CCCS- Severe Weather water that would be utilized to minimize effects of CDFW, Marin
24.1.1.1 Action Step Patterns droughts. 3 10 County, NMFS 0
CDFW, Marin
County, Marin
Evaluate and implement rainfall capture from RCD, MMWD, Costs cannot be determined due to an unknown
LaC-CCCS- Severe Weather impervious surfaces for irrigation use to protect water NPS, SPAWN, number of participants and types of modifications
24.1.1.2 Action Step Patterns quality and reduce water demand in summer. 3 10 State Parks TBD required for implementation.
LaC-CCCS- Severe Weather Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

LaC-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
All local and state planning and development should
consider, and provide contingencies for, droughts in
LaC-CCCS- Severe Weather a manner compatible with CCC steelhead recovery CDFW, County,
24.2.1.1 Action Step Patterns needs. 3 20 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impou modification, or curtailment of the species
25.1 Objective ndment habitat or range

Water
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Impound Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
25.1.1 Action ment (impaired water flow)
Water
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound Minimize reductions of flow <8 cfs below major dams Marin County,
25.1.1.1 Action Step ment in the summer 2 50 NMFS, SWRCB TBD See SEVERE WEATHER PATTERNS.
Water Cost for stream flow gauge estimated at
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound Ensure consistent fishery flows below Peter's Dam NMFS, State $1000/gauge. Cost does not account for
25.1.1.2 Action Step ment by improving gauging at SP Taylor Park 2 5 Parks 1.00 1 maintenance or data management.
Water CDFW, Farm Promoting water conservation best practices is

LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound Promote water conservation best practices such as Bureau, NRCS, not expected to result in additional costs.Action
25.1.1.3 Action Step ment drip irrigation for vineyards. 2 20 Water Agencies 0 is considered In-Kind
Water CDFW, Marin Costs associated with promoting use of reclaimed

LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound Promote the use of reclaimed water for agricultural or County, RCD, water is expected to be minimal. Action is
25.1.1.4 Action Step ment other uses. 3 60 Water Agencies 0 considered In-Kind
CDFW, Marin
County, Marin
RCD, NMFS, Costs are minimal to promote. Costs for
Private implementation will depend on the number of
Water Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Landowners, participants. Estimate for off-channel storage is
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound water diversion (e.g., storage tanks for rural RWQCB, $5,000/station.
25.1.1.5 Action Step ment residential users). 3 20 SWRCB TBD
Water Promote passive diversion devices designed to allow NMFS, RCD,

LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound diversion of water only when minimum streamflow RWQCB, Water
25.1.1.6 Action Step ment requirements are met or exceeded (CDFG 2004). 3 30 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Marin
Water County, RCD, Costs associated with promoting conjunctive use
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound Promote conjunctive use of water with water projects RWQCB, Water of water is expected to be minimal. Action is
25.1.1.7 Action Step ment whenever possible. 3 60 Agencies 0 considered In-Kind
Water Dedicate appropriative water rights to instream flow

LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound in Olema Creek watershed (NPS is currently
25.1.1.8 Action Step ment evaluating opportunities in this watershed). 2 7 NPS, RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Marin RCD,
MMWD, Private
Landowners,
Water RWQCB,
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound Evaluate and assess impacts of local groundwater SWRCB, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
25.1.1.9 Action Step ment withdrawals in San Geronimo Creek watershed. 3 20 SPAWN 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 75 a rate of $74,195/project.
CDFW, Marin
Manage reservoirs and dam releases to maintain County, NMFS,
Water suitable rearing temperatures and migratory flows in Private
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound downstream habitats (e.g., pulse flow programs for Landowners, Action is considered In-Kind because it will only
25.1.1.10 Action Step ment adult upstream migration and smolt outmigration). 2 20 SPAWN 0 be a change in operations
Water
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Impound Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
25.1.2 Action ment (impaired stream temperature)
Water
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound Encourage enforcement of SWRCB Order 95-17
25.1.2.1 Action Step ment (specifically in the warm summer months) 2 50 NMFS, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Water Discourage the transfer of water from Nicasio
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound Reservoir to Kent Lake which could degrade water CDFW, NMFS,
25.1.2.2 Action Step ment quality releases into Lagunitas Creek 2 50 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Water Discourage the proposed water diversion through

LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound Groundwater Well by North Marin Water District CDFW, NBWD,
25.1.2.3 Action Step ment which could adversely affect stream flows 2 20 NMFS, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Water Prevent or minimize impairment to instream habitat
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Impound complexity (altered pool complexity and/or pool riffle
25.1.3 Action ment ratio)
Water CDFW, MMWD, Estimated costs based on similar costs in

LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound Develop riffles and/or spawning channels below Kent NMFS, Trout geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
25.1.3.1 Action Step ment Dam to increase spawner distribution and success 2 5 Unlimited 300.00 300 site, setting and geographic specific.
Water
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Impound Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport
25.1.4 Action ment (road conditions/density, dams etc.)
Water Develop and Evaluate opportunities to expand CDFW, MMWD, Estimated costs based on similar costs in
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound spawning distribution through gravel augmentation NMFS, Trout geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
25.1.4.1 Action Step ment below major dams. 2 10 Unlimited 100.00 100.00 200 site, setting and geographic specific.
Water
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Impound Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
25.1.5 Action ment (reduced large wood and/or shelter)
Water Develop and implement a plan to improve shelter CDFW, MMWD,
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound value and rearing habitat through LWD augmentation NMFS, Trout Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
25.1.5.1 Action Step ment below major dams. 2 5 Unlimited 75.00 75 rate of $74,195/project
Water
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Impound Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
25.1.6 Action ment and diversity
CDFW, Marin
County, NMFS,
Water Private Cost based on amount and type of fish screens to
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound Adequately screen water diversions to prevent Landowners, prevent juvenile salmonid mortalities. Estimate
25.1.6.1 Action Step ment juvenile salmonid mortalities. 2 100 SPAWN TBD for fish screens is $60,950/project.
Water Allow all "fisheries flows" (baseflows, and passage, Marin County,
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound attractant, and channel maintenance flows) to bypass MMWD, Action is considered In-Kind because it is only a
25.1.6.2 Action Step ment or flow through diversion facilities. 1 20 SWRCB 0 change in management
Water
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impou Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
25.2 Objective ndment mechanisms
Water
LaC-CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Impound Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
Improve coordination between agencies and others

to address season of diversion, off-stream
Water reservoirs, bypass flows protective of salmonids and CDFW, NMFS,
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound their habitats, and avoidance of adverse impacts RCD, Water
25.2.1.1 Action Step ment caused by water diversion (CDFG 2004). 2 60 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Minimize take attributable to diversion of stream flow
through alternatives such as: the operation of off- CDFW, Marin Costs associated with development of
Water stream reservoirs, development of infrastructure RCD, MMWD, alternatives cannot be determined due to the
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound necessary for conjunctive use of stream flow, and Private unknown number and types of alternatives that
25.2.1.2 Action Step ment use of reclaimed water. 2 30 Landowners TBD might be proposed.
Identify and work with the SWRCB to eliminate

depletion of summer base flows from unauthorized CDFW Law
Water water uses. Coordinated efforts by Federal and Enforcement,
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound State, and County law enforcement agencies to County, NMFS
25.2.1.3 Action Step ment remove illegal diversions from streams. 2 10 OLE, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Encourage the SWRCB to adjudicate watersheds to CDFW, Marin

Water resolve over-allocation of water resources and County, RCD,
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound provide adequate funding to water masters to RWQCB, Water
25.2.1.4 Action Step ment enforce allocations. 2 5 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind

CDFW, Marin
Water Request that SWRCB review and/or modify water County, RCD,
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound use based on the needs of salmonids and authorized RWQCB, Water
25.2.1.5 Action Step ment diverters (CDFG 2004). 2 5 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Encourage SWRCB to conduct interagency

Water consultation with the California Department of Fish
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound and Wildlife, and seek technical assistance from CDFW, NMFS,
25.2.1.6 Action Step ment NMFS on the issuance of water rights permits. 2 15 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Water
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound Improve compliance with existing water resource
25.2.1.7 Action Step ment regulations via monitoring and enforcement. 3 15 NMFS, RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Water migratory reaches for effects on the natural
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound hydrograph and the supply of spawning gravel for
25.2.1.8 Action Step ment recruitment downstream (CDFG 2004). 3 5 CDFW, USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Water
LaC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound Enforce SWRCB Order 95-17 (specifically in the
25.2.1.9 Action Step ment warm summer months). 1 10 NMFS, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Salmon Creek Population

Spawner Target: 1,300 adults

Few historical surveys dating back to the 1950s exist for Salmon Creek, although angling reports
from California Department of Fish and Game/Wildlife (CDFG/CDFW) wardens indicate that
angling pressure (and presumably steelhead numbers) decreased from 1950s to the 1970s (PCI
2006). Sporadic historical surveys indicate that coho salmon were once abundant and steelhead
were documented commonly. CDFG fish field surveys were conducted in the 1960s
documenting, and although the majority of fish were silver salmon, steelhead occurred at a rate
of 50-100 fish/100 feet (CDFG 1964) and 100 fish /100 feet (CDFG 1965). In 1977, after a very
dry winter and several years of drought, local residents reported that the number of steelhead
and coho declined significantly after that period, with the fall run of steelhead never returning
to normal (PCI 2006).
In 2002, CDFG/CDFW conducted a systematic habitat survey of the entire watershed, which
also included biological inventories to describe summer juvenile and adult general abundance
and distribution in all the tributaries. Steelhead were documented in good numbers and were
found to present in all age classes. From 2004 to 2006, PCI (2006) conducted a study in the
Salmon Creek estuary routinely encountering steelhead in the estuary. From 2008 to recently,
summer juvenile, adult fish, and redd monitoring had been or was conducted by Goldridge
RCD in coordination with CDFG/CDFW and Trout Unlimited (TU) as a result of adult coho
salmon releases to Salmon Creek from the Russian River Captive Broodstock Program. While
the focus of this program was coho, juvenile steelhead have been incidentally captured and
enumerated, though adult counts can only be considered anecdotal as the trapping timeline has
only covered a portion of the steelhead adult migration period.
History of Land Use

Coast Miwok people were managing the Salmon Creek watershed when Russians first
established farms in Bodega and Freestone in 1812 (PCI 2006). European settlers began to arrive
in the 1840s and immediately began logging for their own needs as well as for the developing
city of San Francisco. In the mid 1800s, an era of large-scale farming, ranching and timber-
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Salmon Creek 209

cutting began in Salmon Creek watershed with farms producing dairy products, potatoes and
grain for Californias growing population. In the early 1890s, timber cutting had a major impact
on the watershed, with mills built and moved, sometimes to several locations within upland
and lowland areas of each tributary. Douglas fir was harvested for lumber, oak for firewood,
and tanoak for charcoal production and tanning. Felled logs were dragged by long teams of
oxen through creek beds and over rough roads on slopes, then trucked out, or later exported by
the narrow gauge railroad (Goldridge RCD and PCI, 2007).
Through the early part of the century, logging roads were used by automobiles to transport the
increasing number of vacationers from the Bay Area to see the coast. This influx of vacationers
led to the improvement of myriad failing roads that crisscrossed the watershed to meet
engineering standards of the time in Sonoma County. In the 1960s, two significant wildfires
occurred in the northern portion of the watershed: the Robertson Fire in 1961, which burned
~2000 acres in Fay Tannery and Coleman Valley Creeks and the 1965 Coleman Valley Fire,
which burned 1,840 acres on the ridge between Fay and Coleman Creeks and went almost to
Salmon Creek. This fire took out most of the trees and the understory (PCI 2006).

Today, the land cover of the Salmon Creek Watershed is still mostly forest (50% of land cover),
grassland (37%) and shrub communities although the distribution and composition are
significantly changed from what was present prior to European settlement. There are 424 acres
of vineyards; 110 acres of paved surfaces; and 90 acres of orchards in the watershed. Nearly the
entire Salmon Creek watershed is in private ownership, with only 98 acres in the lower estuary
as Sonoma Coast State Beach, and is managed by the California Department of Parks and
Recreation. The dominant land use is agriculture, livestock, and dairy production in the
western portion of the watershed, along with viticulture and timber harvest occurring in the
rest of the watershed. Residential development is fairly low, and commercial development is
confined to the small unincorporated communities of Occidental, Freestone, Bodega, and
Salmon Creek (PCI 2006).
assistance from various Federal and state agencies (e.g., CDFW, NMFS, and Goldridge Resource
Conservation District (RCD) with the assistance of National Resource Conservation Service).
Recently, Goldridge RCD with the assistance of the Salmon Creek Watershed Council, CDFG
and Trout Unlimited has conducted some salmonid population monitoring throughout the
watershed where access is available.

Salmon Creek drains about 35 square miles in western Sonoma County, including the
tributaries of Finley, Coleman Valley, Thurston, Nolan, and Tannery Creeks and enteres the
ocean just north of Bodega Bay. Its estuary extends approximately 1.3 miles inland from the
coast. The mouth of the estuary is closed by a sandbar in spring or summer every year and
remains closed until after the first significant storms. Under conditions of adequate summer
streamflow, the closed estuary converts to a largely freshwater lagoon (PCI 2006). Habitat
surveys conducted by CDFW (CDFG 2004) found the highest quality habitat conditions in
upper Salmon Creek, and Tannery and Fay Creeks although access for surveys was not granted
basin-wide. Frequency of pools, shelter values, canopy levels, and stream temperatures were
noted as limiting factors for salmonids in many reaches of the watershed. The following
indicators were rated Poor through the CAP process for steelhead: Riparian Vegetation,
Estuary/Lagoon, Habitat Complexity, Sediment Transport, and Landscape Disturbance.
Recovery strategies will focus on improving these Poor conditions as well as those needed to
Current Conditions
The following discussion focuses on those conditions that rated Fair or Poor as a result of our
CAP viability analysis. The Salmon Creek CAP Viability Table results are provided below.

Stream canopy, which is required for good summer rearing, buffers water temperatures. Only
57% (4 of 7) of streams meet optimal criteria (>70% canopy averaged for the stream) for stream
canopy. Specifically Salmon, Coleman Valley, and Nolan creeks rate Fair (50-69% canopy), and
the native structure of the riparian zone has been highly altered on Salmon Creek mainstem.
Only 30% of the riparian zone is made up of larger conifer and hardwood species which
provide for bank stabilization and the future recruitment of LWD. Loss of woody plants on
channel banks of most of the tributaries is a major problem contributing to the destabilization of
the stream bank (Circuit Rider Productions, Inc., 1987). Much of the surrounding forest which
was historically present has been cleared for grazing purposes with the largest classes in annual
grasses (42%), redwood (28%) and Hardwoods (12%).

Sediment transport was altered by historic logging roads, which crisscross the watershed of
Salmon Creek. These roads in the lower floodplain were converted to rural residential without
appropriate upgrading for handling year round traffic and sizing of culverts to handle
increased drainage areas and ditches. County and private roads parallel and occur in the
riparian zone, limiting natural meandering of the stream. Though passage improvements have
been conducted by the County and private organizations to assist adult migration, the retro-fits
have not improved sediment transport through culverts.

According to or In the PCI (206) estuary study, increased water consumption in the upper
watershed from groundwater and direct stream withdrawals has reduced base streamflows
during critical periods. These lower spring and summer flows increase pool stratification in the
estuary to create bottom saline layers too hot and low in oxygen to sustain salmonids; thus, fish
are confined to the upper freshwater layer and to the well-mixed area near the sandbar where
they are vulnerable to predation by birds. Significant amounts of course sediment have
dramatically decreased the areal extent and depth of the estuary since the mid-1800s (PCI 2006).
These conditions when combined with low spring and summer flows also reduce lagoon
elevations and can delay the breaching of the sandbar, delaying adult salmonid river entry.
Additionally, erosion of fine sediments from the upper watershed creates high turbidity levels
that impair salmonid physiological functioning and behavior.

Even though channelization has occurred in the mainstem of lower Salmon Creek, flooding
frequently occurs; however, the riparian zone is thin, and agriculture encroaches upon the
historic floodplain. Road building, culverts, and grazing development have led to severe
channel incision in lower Salmon Creek and Finley Creek. The lack of large woody debris or
access to refugia in the near stream floodplain impacts the winter survival of juveniles
throughout the Salmon Creek watershed. Channel modification and incision have removed the
stream channel from its natural floodplain except at extreme flood flows when salmonids can be
flushed out to agricultural and grazing lands where they may become trapped on the declining
limb of the hydrograph. High density streamside roads limits floodplain enhancement in some
portions of the watershed.

In the incised or channelized reaches, winter storms are confined within the channel due to the
lack of near stream floodplain, which may scour eggs out of redds due to high velocities.

During the winter months, adequate incubation of eggs due to high embededdness levels is
further stressed by high flows which accelerate erosion sites.

Though the number of diversions in the Salmon Creek watershed rated as Fair, many of them
are direct domestic diversions and many more unreported riparian diversions exist; thus, low
summer flows reduce viable salmonid rearing habitat in the main channel and tributaries. Low
spring and summer flows also increase pool stratification in the estuary to create bottom saline
layers too hot and low in oxygen to sustain salmonids (PCI 2006).

Only Salmon Creek meet frequency criteria for diversity of habitat types although all streams
except Finley Creek meet pool depth criteria. No streams meet optimal criteria for shelter
complexity for any lifestage, within the watershed. Adequate numbers of pools with adequate
shelter are specifically lacking and are of particular concern in most of Salmon Creek and its
tributaries. Summer juvenile production is highly affected by the lack of or poor condition of
these habitat elements.

CDFW habitat surveys conducted in 2008 indicated that mainstem Salmon creek lacked pool
shelter and habitat complexity. Habitat complexity was lost in many streams due to poor
abundance of channel forming features (e.g., LWD, boulders, etc.), channel simplification, and
sediment aggradation, which reduced both summer and winter survival. In addition, thin
buffer width of riparian zones severely limited the natural recruitment of LWD and the quality
of juvenile rearing habitat in many areas of the watershed.

Temperatures in Salmon Creek and Coleman Valley Creek exceeded optimal conditions.
Chileno and Frink Canyon Creeks hovered slightly below optimal conditions at 16 and 14
degrees respectively. Temperatures in Lower Salmon Creek and within the estuary also exceed
optimal conditions for smolting.

High siltation affects incubating eggs, and high nutrient loading can affect summer rearing
conditions by affecting temperature and levels of oxygen. Turbidity is also considered a
problem for winter rearing smolts because it affects their ability to forage for food and avoid
predators. PCI (2006) shows turbidity levels remaining above the detrimental level for

salmonids for an extended period of time during storm monitoring. Stormrelated turbidity
monitoring shows turbidity events as the creeks quickly rise and fall during flashy flood events.
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that rate as High or Very High. Recovery
strategies will likely focus on ameliorating High rated threats; however, some strategies may
address Medium threats when the strategy is essential to recovery efforts. The figures and
tables that display data used in this analysis are provided in Salmon Creek CAP results.
Agriculture
Historic farming practices and current intensive grazing have reduced riparian vegetation,
causing stream and bank erosion. Livestock in streams generally inhibit the growth of new
trees, exacerbate erosion, and reduce summertime survival of juvenile fish by defecating in the
water (CDFG, 2004). Erosion leads to increased sedimentation and water temperatures,
degrading the quality of marshes and open water area in the estuary (Goldridge RCD and PCI,
2007). Although GIS spatial analysis shows vegetation occurring as only 4% in Agricultural
production, 61% of the watershed is in grasslands habitats consisting of rangeland, dairy land
and pasture. Grazing in the riparian zone is common, and much of the native forest habitat has
been converted to perennial grasslands. Water diversions supporting viticulture in these areas
likely lower summer baseflows, causing disconnected aquatic habitat and elevated instream
temperatures. Also, agriculture operations can encroach into adjacent riparian areas, possibly
increasing sediment delivery to the stream as well as impacting shading and wood recruitment.
Channel modification has had an historic impact to salmonid resources in Salmon Creek and its
tributaries through the removal and transport of timber from the floodplain, riparian, and forest
resources. Less than 80% of stream channels are estimated to be connected to their floodplain,
leaving winter rearing juveniles without refugia from high velocities. Juvenile steelhead can be
flushed from headwater areas which have higher rearing potential to lower reaches which have
documented poorer habitat conditions. Channel modification has led to channel incision, over-
steepened banks, high erosional forces and gravel embededdness, and ultimately loss of
riparian trees and width in some reaches. While channelization has occurred in the mainstem
of Salmon Creek, flooding frequently occurs; however, where the riparian zone is thin, and
agriculture, road building, culverts and grazing land development encroach upon the historic
floodplain, which have led to severe channel incision in upper Salmon Creek, Thurston and
Nolan Creeks, and Freestone Valley subwatershed.

The GIS spatial analysis shows vegetation occurring as only 3 percent in agricultural
production, and 4 percent of lands are classified as Timber Production by Goldridge RCD and
PCI (2007), although 47 percent of the watershed is in grasslands habitats consisting of
rangeland, dairy land and pasture. Grazing in the riparian zone is common, and much of the
native forest habitat has been converted to perennial grasslands; however, the irreversibility of
these land use impacts is low. Cattle and other livestock browsing have decreased understory
riparian species that provide habitat for terrestrial invertebrates that are food for rearing
juvenile salmonids. Grazing and loafing within riparian corridors has led to bank erosion and
high gravel embededdness impacting spawning success and resulting egg incubation. Bank
erosion on tributary streams which are freely accessed by livestock is common (Goldridge RCD
and PCI, 2007). Land use in the lower Salmon Creek and Finely Creek subwatersheds
predominantly consists of pastureland, at 95 percent and 89 percent respectively (PCI 2007).

The general lack of wood within Salmon Creek stream channels is likely a cause of historic
harvest and the highly flashy nature of the system, which transports out smaller woody debris
during storm events. Alhough close to 50 percent of the forested land in the watershed is
comprised of redwood forests (Goldridge and PCI 2007), GIS analysis of the riparian forest
indicates only 30% of the forest riparian canopy is made up of large tree classes. Alhough much
of the larger trees were removed during the previous century, forest tracts that could be of
marketable size in the next decades exist. Thus, timber harvest remains a threat mainly from
smaller fractured ownerships which if harvested, could cumulatively contribute to erosion and
reduced canopy and large wood recruitment.

Alhough Salmon Creek is a relatively small watershed, residential and commercial
development pressures exist, with an impervious surfaces measurement of 23 percent, resulting
in a rating of Poor at the watershed scale. The potential future demand for residential and
commercial development in Sonoma County is very high. Although Salmon Creek currently
has a low percentage of development, conversion of ranches, farms, and dairy lands to home
tracts could greatly offset the benefits of the current land uses which remain in open space and
have relatively undisturbed the hydrologic regime. Residential pressures can result in
increased road building, water development, the removal of riparian and reduced water
quality. The irreversibility of land use impacts associated with residential and commercial
development is high. The upper Salmon Creek, Thurston, and Nolan creeks, and Freestone
Valley subwatersheds are the most heavily developed with a mix of land uses (Goldridge RCD
and PCI, 2007).

Roads and Railroads
While road density rated Fair within the Salmon Creek watershed, streamside road density is
high. Road development has altered the natural flow of water and interrupted sediment
transport, often causing channel degradation below undersized culverts. Currently many
existing roads are not maintained adequately, and this lack of maintenance contributes
sediment from surface erosion. Most culverts are undersized reducing the availability of
spawning gravel and increasing channel incision. Increased road building would accompany
further development of the basin. No watershed wide road assessment or transportation plan
exists for this basin. Most other watersheds in Marin and adjacent Sonoma County have
road/culvert assessments completed and erosion correction/prevention plan recommendations
in progress or completed.

The watershed experiences a Coastal type climate and year-round flows are normal conditions
in the Salmon Creek watershed. Severe drought conditions were present in the summer of
2004. Spring rainfall totals were 35% of normal. Streamflows declined rapidly throughout the
watershed. Continuous monitoring of the water table elevation captured the decline over a 3
month period. By mid-August, the riffles were dry, disconnecting the pools. Given that
summer streamflow are already pressured by agricultural and some residential development,
long-lasting drought patterns could pose a significant threat to maintaining adequate
streamflows and aquatic habitat. Flooding can contribute positive as well as negative changes
to streams through the initiation or acceleration of natural processes respectively. For Salmon
Creek, severe flooding could accelerate road and historic mining sites, increasing the already
sediment riffles and pool habitats in tributaries.

Alhough few earthen dams occur in the upper watershed, and the number of reported
diversions is low, the chief water demand occurs in the summer from creek side residential and
agricultural development. Increased water diversion resulting from residential development
within Salmon Creek could offset the current benefits of the relatively undisturbed hydraulic
regime. Water diversion in the tributaries could impact rearing juveniles. Flows in the
mainstem are already compromised due to the operation of the PUD water supply well, which
is low in the system, but does reduce water supply to lower Salmon Creek and the estuary (PCI
2006).

Threat and conditions analysis within the CAP workbook suggests summer rearing juveniles
and watershed processes are the targets most at risk in Salmon Creek watershed, though eggs
are at high risk if current and future threats are not addressed. The smolts lifestage may be the
most limiting steelhead production in Salmon Creek, as all smolts must out-migrate through an
estuary that has poor quality conditions. Alteration of estuarine, riparian, and floodplain
habitats and water quality is a result of landscape disturbance from historic adjacent land uses,
including logging, agriculture, livestock grazing, and the effects of residential development.

The watershed has high potential for habitat restoration, and many BMPs are available for the
primary existing land uses (i.e., Livestock, Roads, Residential and Agriculture) in the
watershed. Summer rearing conditions can be improved through pool and shelter development
throughout the watershed; however, the enhancement of winter rearing conditions is somewhat
hampered by the encroachment of roads or urban development to the stream. Decreasing
sediment sources and improving water quality would decrease turbidity and improve food
foraging and growth of winter rearing salmonids, while expanding riparian corridors for LWD
and decreasing erosion would improve conditions for all lifestages.

Recommendations include: enhancing habitat diversity in the estuary through woody debris
structures, restorating side channels and pond connectivity, maintaining beneficial freshwater
flows through water conservation/management of diversions, expanding erosion control and
riparian protections, implementing storm water management practices in the upper watershed,
and enhancing upstream rearing habitat to provide alternatives to poor quality estuarine
habitat. The recommendations also include continuing the biological and water quality
monitoring in the estuary for at least 5 more years, installing a USGS stream gage at the upper
end of the estuary and several additional flow monitors higher in the watershed, and
implementing community education programs on a variety of topics including water
conservation and erosion control BMPs.
Improve/Conserve Water Resources

Continuing and supporting studies being conducted to quantify water demand and supply and
identify water conservation projects and opportunities in cooperation with watershed
landowners is recommended. Exploring the benefits of simulated beaver dam structures
(beavers are no longer present), in providing year-round flow for rearing steelhead is also
recommended. Maintaining sufficient freshwater flows in upstream rearing habitats will

increase flows to the estuary, keep the sandbar open longer and moderate salinity, temperature
and dissolved oxygen.
Address Upslope/Instream Sediment Sources

Maintenance of existing private roads should be improved per the recommendations of Forest
and Ranch Roads (Mendocino RCD 1994). Maintenance on public roads should be increased and
should follow the standards of the Fishnet 4c Road Manual. Problem roads and active erosion
sites should be prioritized and addressed as part of a comprehensive sediment reduction plan
for the entire Salmon Creek basin. Goldridge RCD (2007) notes that instream sediment sources
are likely a large or a larger source of sediment yield as non-point sources from roads, primarily
due to impacts associated with cattle and dairy grazing, or as a result of incised channel
conditions from channel modification. An erosion control technique utilizing bio-engineering
methods to implement The Salmon Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Plan is
recommended.
Improve LWD Volume

Shelter ratings are low within all surveyed stream reaches of Salmon Creek. Due largely to an
absence of LWD, quality pool habitat is absent, and shelter components are comprised mainly
of undercut banks and overhanging vegetation. Where applicable, restoration efforts should
incorporate instream wood/boulder structures into degraded reaches along with bank erosion
measures to improve habitat complexity and shelter availability. Salmon Creek would benefit
from improved forest management practices, which would provide eventual LWD recruitment
and riparian composition and structure. Protection of riparian zones from timber harvest
would be most beneficial in providing a long term source of instream LWD, which provides
shelter for adult and juvenile fish.
Improve Habitat Complexity

Throughout the mainstem Salmon creek and its tributaries, the instream and floodplain habitat
needs to be improved through supplementation of LWD, boulders, and other channel forming
features to encourage more desirable pool/riffle ratios and develop primary pools. Expanding
opportunities for spawning and rearing habitat, such as structures for pool development and
enhancement and trapping of spawning gravels, is specifically recommended in Fay, Finley,
Tannery, and Thurston creeks.
Improve Water Quality/Water Temperature

An inventory of erosion sites was completed on 26 properties within the Salmon Creek
watershed in the spring of 2004. The properties assessed included large agricultural parcels,
small ruralresidential acreages, and urban streamside lots. The focus of the project was to

document sediment sources that have the potential to deliver material directly to the stream
network and provide a prioritized repair list for future funding and implementation projects.
The recommendations of this study should be implemented.

Existing riparian corridors should be protected, and where opportunity exists, riparian buffers
residential expansion should be discouraged except where General Plan elements are protective
enough to offset impacts to this largely undeveloped watershed. Additionally, planting the
riparian zone with native overstory and understory reaches specifically on Coleman Valley,
Nolan and Salmon Creek mainstem is recommended. Conservation easements to protect
riparian resources should be evaluated and implemented where refugia areas have been
identified. Restoration of riparian corridors with the establishment of conservation easements
from willing landowners would allow expansion of corridors through natural meandering and
active re-vegetation with native species appropriate to the area.
Improve Livestock Management

Improving distribution of livestock to reduce prolonged concentrated utilization of grassland
and riparian areas and to provide periods of rest for improved grassland is recommended.
Confining livestock out of riparian corridors in Salmon Creek and its tributaries is the highest
priority for the basin and would have the single largest voluntary impact. Where landowners
have fenced livestock, the practice has eliminated concerns for temperature and/or poor water
quality from livestock browsing and loafing--when or when and if fences are maintained.
Projects to limit access by livestock in any areas where livestock currently have access should be
implemented, either independently or as part of cooperative restoration projects.
Improve Water Quality

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has identified riparian vegetation,
channel protection and increased riparian zones along Salmon Creek as targeted nonpoint
source (NPS) pollution projects. Through a cooperative effort between several agencies, the
goal of this project has been to promote the implementation of needed NPS pollution controls
and to assist landowners with BMPs that will restore water quality. The main goal of this
project is to improve and protect water quality by helping landowners achieve Tier 1 voluntary
compliance with current and future NPS regulations (Goldridge RCD and PCI, 2007).

Literature Cited
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1964. Stream Survey: Salmon Creek. April 29,
1964.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1965. Stream Survey: Coleman Valley Creek.
August 3, 1965.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2004. Stream Inventory Report Salmon Creek.
84 pp.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. Stream Inventory Report Salmon
Creek.
Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. 1987. Draft Sonoma County Wetlands Enhancement Plan. Funded by
the State Coastal Conservancy.
Goldridge Resource Conservation District and Prunuske Chatham, Inc. (PCI), 2007. The Salmon
Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Plan CDFG Grant Agreement P0230439 84
pp.
Mendocino County Resource Conservation District June 1994. Handbook For Forest And Ranch
Roads. A Guide for planning, designing, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining and
closing wildland roads. 170 pp.
Prunuske Chatham Inc (PCI) 2006. Salmon Creek Estuary: Study Results and Enhancement
Recommendations 92 pp.

Salmon Creek CAP Viability Results
Current
Target Rating
Measurement
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
0% of streams/
stream average)
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 58
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km

50-80%
<50% Response >80% Response 50-80%
Floodplain Response
Velocity Refuge Reach Reach Not Defined Response Reach Fair
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Water Quality Turbidity maintains maintains maintains maintains maintains Poor
>1 spawner
<1 spawner per >1 spawner per
per IP-km to < low risk
IP-km to < low IP-km to < low
low risk spawner
Size Viability Density risk spawner risk spawner Fair
spawner density per
Spence (2008)
2 Eggs Condition Hydrology (Instantaneous Protocol: Risk Good
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 58
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% (0.85mm) 12-14%
Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) and >30% (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and and <30% (0.85mm) and Good
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
87% of streams/
Gravel Quality IP-km (>50%
Sediment (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream Good
(Embeddedness) stream average
scores of 1 & 2)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Juveniles Condition

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 89% of >90% of
90% of streams/
Percent Primary IP-km (>40%
Habitat Complexity (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average Good
Pools average primary
pool frequency)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
0% of streams/
stream average)
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 67
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
Hydrology (Instantaneous Protocol: Risk Good
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km 100% of IP-km Very Good
accessible*

Riparian
Canopy Cover stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; Good
Vegetation
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
87% of streams/
scores of 1 & 2)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP 75 to 89% IP
<50% IP km >90% IP km
km (<20 C km (<20 C
(<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT;
Temperature MWMT; <16 C MWMT; <16 C 50-74% IP-km
Water Quality <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT Fair
(MWMT) MWMT where MWMT where (>6 and <14 C)
where coho IP where coho IP
coho IP coho IP
overlaps) overlaps)
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Contaminants
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5 0.2 - 0.6
50-74% of 75-90% of
<50% of >90% of 75-90% of
Range Range

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Winter Rearing
Juveniles
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
87% of streams/
scores of 1 & 2)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Not
Specified
Properly
5 Smolts Condition Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent Functioning Poor
Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
0% of streams/
stream average)
NMFS Flow
Hydrology Passage Flows Protocol: Risk Very Good
Factor Score 33
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
No Evidence of
Contaminants
Smolt Smolt Smolt
Smolt
abundance abundance abundance
abundance to
produce low
Size Viability Abundance high risk moderate risk moderate risk Fair
risk spawner
spawner density spawner spawner density
density per
per Spence density per per Spence
Spence (2008)
(2008) Spence (2008) (2008)

>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of 0.248% of
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of 2.75% of
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of 25-15% of
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of 23% of
Landscape Patterns Urbanization watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 Poor
2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6 2.9
Transport Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile
0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1 4.0
Mile Mile Mile Mile

Salmon Creek CAP Threat Results
Summer Rearing Winter Rearing

Overall Threat
Threats Across Targets Adults Eggs Juveniles Juveniles Smolts Watershed Processes
Rank
1 Agriculture Low High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
2 Channel Modification Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
Disease, Predation and
3 Competition Low Not Specified Medium Low Low Low Low
Fire, Fuel Management and
5 Fire Suppression Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low
6 Fishing and Collecting Medium Not Specified Low Not Specified Medium Not Specified Medium
Livestock Farming and
7 Ranching Low High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Logging and Wood
8 Harvesting Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
9 Mining Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Medium Low
Recreational Areas and
10 Activities Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Low Low
11 Development Low Medium High Medium Medium High High
12 Roads and Railroads Medium High Medium Medium Medium High High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium Medium
Water Diversion and
14 Impoundments Medium Low High Low Medium Medium Medium
Threat Status for Targets and
Project Medium High High Medium Medium High High

Salmon Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
SlC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
1.1 Objective Estuary range
SlC-CCCS- Recovery
1.1.1 Action Estuary Increase the quality and extent of estuarine habitat
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, FishNet
4C, NMFS,
Private
Landowners,
RWQCB,
Implement the SCC Salmon Creek Enhancement Sonoma County,
SlC-CCCS- Plan by regaining as much of the historical capacity State Parks, Costs and duration are dependent on the specific
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary and area of the Salmon Creek Estuary as possible. 2 30 USFWS TBD mechanisms chosen to accomplish the task.
CA Coastal
Commission,
California
Restore estuarine wetlands and sloughs, and Coastal
SlC-CCCS- perimeter and planting native emergent and riparian CDFW, Private Cost based on treating 15% of 83 acres of
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary species to improve foraging and cover. 2 10 Landowners 291.00 291.00 582 estuarine habitat at a rate of $46,740/acre.
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
SlC-CCCS- Assess the need to dredge Salmon Creek Estuary to CDFW, NMFS,
1.1.1.3 Action Step Estuary increase capacity of estuarine habitat. 3 10 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Increase rate of lagoon formation and/or freshwater
1.1.2 Action Estuary conversion
CDFW, Gold
Restore estuary function by increasing in-stream Ridge RCD, Increasing flow within Salmon Creek will likely
SlC-CCCS- flow in Salmon Creek and tributaries that will provide NMFS, Private entail purchasing water rights upstream. The cost
1.1.2.1 Action Step Estuary greater freshwater input into the estuary. 2 30 Landowners TBD of purchasing water rights is unknown at this time.
California
Coastal
Conservancy, Cost based on installing a minimum of 3
RWQCB, continuous water quality monitoring stations at a
Improve estuarine water quality by identifying and Sonoma County, rate of $5,000/station. Cost does not account for
remediating upstream pollution sources which Sonoma County data management or maintenance. Additional
SlC-CCCS- contribute to poor water quality conditions in the Water Agency, cost may be needed for parameters such as
1.1.2.2 Action Step Estuary estuary 2 20 SWRCB TBD toxicity, nutrients, turbidity, etc.
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County,
Sonoma County
Water Agency,
SlC-CCCS- Evaluate alterations to river mouth dynamics and State Parks,
1.1.2.3 Action Step Estuary implement changes to restore natural function 2 10 USACE TBD Cost likely related to above action steps.
SlC-CCCS- Recovery
1.1.3 Action Estuary Improve the quality of each estuarine habitat zone
CDFW, Gold
Ridge RCD,
NMFS, Private
Landowners,
SlC-CCCS- Restore estuary function by reducing fine sediment Sonoma County Cost accounted through implementation of other
1.1.3.1 Action Step Estuary input from the upper watershed. 2 30 Water Agency 0 action steps (such as ROADS/RAILROADS)

Restore estuarine habitat and the associated Gold Ridge
SlC-CCCS- wetlands and sloughs by providing fully functioning RCD, Sonoma Costs related to increase physical extent of
1.1.3.2 Action Step Estuary habitat (CDFG 2004). 2 60 County TBD estuary habitat.
Monitor the habitat use of various life stages of CDFW, Gold
SlC-CCCS- steelhead in the Salmon Creek estuary and Ridge RCD, Cost based on estuary use/residence time model
1.1.3.3 Action Step Estuary associated wetlands. 3 10 NMFS 161.00 161.00 322 at a rate of $321,745/project
SlC-CCCS- Recovery
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
Restore estuary function in Salmon Creek Estuary by Sonoma County,
SlC-CCCS- improving complex habitat features and restoring USACE, Cost related to increasing physical extent of
1.1.4.1 Action Step Estuary historical flooding patterns where possible. 2 30 USFWS TBD estuary habitat.
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, County
Planning, NOAA
RC, Private
Develop Estuary Enhancement Projects to improve Landowners,
rearing habitat for juveniles and smolts (e.g. habitat RCD, Sonoma
SlC-CCCS- features such as LWD, vegetative cover, deeper County Water Cost related to increasing physical extent of
1.1.4.2 Action Step Estuary habitat, etc.) 2 15 Agency TBD estuary habitat.
SlC-CCCS- Monitor the effectiveness of LWD structures and CDFW, Gold
1.1.4.3 Action Step Estuary other restoration projects in the estuary 3 30 Ridge RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
SlC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Improve the quality and extent of freshwater lagoon
1.2.1 Action Estuary habitat (see WQ parameters)
CA Coastal
Commission,
SlC-CCCS- the historical tidal prism and other estuarine functions Conservancy, identified and cannot be accurately determined at
1.2.1.1 Action Step Estuary and implement improvements 3 10 CDFW TBD this time.
CDFW,
Minimize future encroachment of landuse RWQCB,
SlC-CCCS- (agricultural, residential and commercial) into Sonoma County,
SlC-CCCS- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
2.1 Objective Connectivity range
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain
Farm Bureau,
SlC-CCCS- Floodplain Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- NMFS, Public Cost for wetland monitoring estimated at
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity established in low gradient response reaches 2 10 Works, RCD 122.00 122.00 244 $243,170/project.

flood pulse event that initiates substantial beneficial Private
SlC-CCCS- Floodplain ecological processes when associated with Landowners, Cost for stream flow model estimated at
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity floodplain inundation (Williams et al. 2009). 3 10 Sonoma County 32.50 32.50 65 $65,084/project.

Improve conditions to re-create, and restore alcove,
backwater, or perennial pond habitats where channel
modification has resulted in decreased shelter, LWD
frequency, and habitat complexity. Develop and
implement site specific plans to improve these California
conditions to re-create, and restore alcove, Coastal Estimated costs based on similar costs in
SlC-CCCS- Floodplain backwater, or perennial pond habitats in lower Conservancy, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
2.1.1.3 Action Step Connectivity Salmon Creek. 2 10 NMFS, RCD 1,697 1,697 3,393 site, setting and geographic specific.
Support landowners and the Gold Ridge RCD in

developing projects to improve channel conditions
and restore natural channel geomorphology, Gold Ridge
SlC-CCCS- Floodplain including side channels and dense contiguous RCD, Private
2.1.1.4 Action Step Connectivity riparian vegetation (CDFG 2004). 2 60 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- Floodplain Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain
Design new development to allow streams to
meander in historical patterns, Protecting riparian
zones and their floodplains or channel migration CDFW, Gold
SlC-CCCS- Floodplain zones averts the need for bank erosion control in Ridge RCD,
2.2.1.1 Action Step Connectivity most situations. 3 5 NOAA RC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- Floodplain Minimize new development within riparian zones and CDFW, NMFS,
2.2.1.2 Action Step Connectivity the 100 year floodprone zones. 3 30 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
County Planning,
Land Trusts,
Encourage willing landowners to restore historical Private
SlC-CCCS- Floodplain floodplains or offchannel habitats through Landowners,
2.2.1.3 Action Step Connectivity conservation easements, etc. 3 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
3.1 Objective Hydrology range
SlC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, NFWF,
NMFS, Private
SlC-CCCS- Develop cooperative projects with private Landowners,
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology landowners to conserve summer flows 1 5 RCD TBD
Support the water conservation training conducted by Gold Ridge

the Occidental Arts and Ecology Center Water RCD, Private
SlC-CCCS- Institute, Gold Ridge RCD, and Salmon Creek Landowners,
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology Watershed Council. 3 20 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind

action, the reduction of water use affecting the
natural hydrograph, development of alternative water Gold Ridge
SlC-CCCS- sources, and implementation of diversion regimes RCD, Private
3.1.1.3 Action Step Hydrology protective of the natural hydrograph. 2 60 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Low in-stream flow should be addressed by
increasing summer baseflows during the low rainfall
seasons especially in reaches impacted by water
diversions and by increasing riparian protection and
restoration, erosion control, and employing best
management practices that encourage permeability Gold Ridge
and infiltration. (Gold Ridge Resource Conservation RCD, Private
SlC-CCCS- District & Prunuske Chatham, Inc., 2007; CDFG Landowners, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation flow
3.1.1.4 Action Step Hydrology 2004). 2 10 Sonoma County 32.50 32.50 65 model at a rate of $65,084/project.
SlC-CCCS- Recovery

Avoid and/or minimize the adverse effects of water
diversion on steelhead by establishing: a more Gold Ridge
natural hydrograph, by-pass flows, season of RCD, Private Stream flow model should identify flow levels
SlC-CCCS- diversion, and off-stream storage (BM-HU-04 in Landowners, necessary to maintain suitable habitat conditions
3.1.2.1 Action Step Hydrology CDFG 2004). 3 20 Sonoma County TBD for steelhead.
SlC-CCCS- Recovery
Private
Improve spawning success and egg survival through Landowners,
SlC-CCCS- improving channel configuration, sediment dynamics, Public Works, Cost based on implementation of other action
3.1.3.1 Action Step Hydrology and channel roughness and stability 2 20 RCD 0 steps.
California
Conservations
Corps, CDFW,
NOAA RC,
Develop floodplain enhancement and LWD projects Private
SlC-CCCS- in modified and incised channel areas of major Landowners,
3.1.3.2 Action Step Hydrology tributaries 2 10 Trout Unlimited 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
6.1 Objective Habitat Complexity range
SlC-CCCS- Recovery
6.1.1 Action Habitat Complexity Increase frequency of primary or staging pools
Increase pool frequency across 60% of watershed to
achieve optimal conditions (>40% of pools meet
primary pool criteria (>2.5 feet deep in 1st and 2nd CDFW, NOAA Cost based on treating 2 miles of stream at a rate
order streams; >3 feet in third order or larger RC, Private of $29,640/mile for placement of LWD. If ELJ
SlC-CCCS- streams)) in select reaches of Nolan, Tannery, Fay, Landowners, used for increasing pool frequency, cost would be
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity and Thurston Creeks 1 10 Trout Unlimited 30.00 30.00 60 $2,730,000 averaging 3 ELJ/mile.
Where feasible, design and engineer pool

enhancement structures to increase the number of CDFW, Gold
SlC-CCCS- pools (Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Ridge RCD, Cost accounted for to increase pool frequency
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity and Prunuske Chatham, Inc., 2007; CDFG 2004). 1 60 NOAA RC 0 across 60% in watershed.
SlC-CCCS- Recovery
6.1.2 Action Habitat Complexity Increase large wood frequency (BFW 0-10 meters)
CDFW, NOAA
SlC-CCCS- key LWD pieces/100 meters) in select reaches of Landowners, Cost related to increase frequency of primary or
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity Fay, Tannery, Finley, and Thurston Creeks 2 10 Trout Unlimited TBD staging pool habitat.
CDFW, NOAA
SlC-CCCS- Increase LWD frequency to optimal conditions (>2 RC,Private Cost based on treating 11 miles at a rate of
6.1.2.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity key LWD pieces/100 meters) in Salmon Creek 2 5 Landowners 275.00 275 $25,000/mile.
SlC-CCCS- Recovery
Increase shelters in 75% of watershed to optimal CDFW, NOAA
conditions (>80 pool shelter value) in select reaches RC, Private
SlC-CCCS- of Fay, Tannery, Finley, Thurston and Salmon Landowners, Cost related to increase pool frequency and LWD
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity Creeks 2 10 Trout Unlimited TBD placement activities.
SlC-CCCS- Promote growth of larger diameter trees where CalFire, CDFW,
6.1.3.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity appropriate. 3 20 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- Protect existing riparian areas to maintain LWD CDFW, Gold
6.1.3.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity supply and canopy. 2 20 Ridge RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- Recovery
6.1.4 Action Habitat Complexity Improve pool/riffle/flatwater ratio
Increase riffle frequency in 50% of watershed to

achieve optimal conditions (20% riffles) by converting
flatwater habitats (glides, runs, etc.) utilizing boulders CDFW, NOAA
SlC-CCCS- and log structures in select reaches of Coleman RC, Private Cost based on treating 6 miles of stream at a rate
6.1.4.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity Valley, Fay and Finley Creeks 1 5 Landowners 150.00 150 of $25,000/mile
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Improve frequency of primary pools, LWD, and
6.1.5 Action Habitat Complexity shelters

CDFW, NMFS,
Private
Investigate the feasibility of beaver re-location and re- Landowners,
SlC-CCCS- introductions to promote channel complexity, improve Sonoma Ecology Cost for beaver re-introduction estimated at
6.1.5.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity baseflows and provide rearing habitat 3 10 Center 5.00 5.00 10 $10,000/beaver family translocation.
7.1 Objective Riparian range
SlC-CCCS- Recovery
7.1.1 Action Riparian Increase tree diameter
CDFW, NOAA
Increase tree diameter within 25% of watershed to RC, Private
SlC-CCCS- achieve optimal riparian forest conditions (55 - 69% Landowners,
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian Class 5 & 6 tree) 3 20 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
Plant native riparian species and native CDFW, NOAA

conifers/hardwoods in the riparian zone within the RC, Private Estimated costs based on similar costs in
SlC-CCCS- southern portion of the watershed (Salmon Creek Landowners, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian mainstem) to increase overall tree diameter 3 20 RCD 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 100 site, setting and geographic specific.
Conduct conifer release to promote growth of larger Board of Estimated costs based on similar costs in
SlC-CCCS- diameter trees where appropriate throughout the Forestry, Private geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian watershed. 3 20 Landowners 22.06 22.06 22.06 22.06 88 site, setting and geographic specific.
SlC-CCCS- riparian buffers throughout the watershed (CDFG Land Trusts,
SlC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, NOAA
RC, Private
SlC-CCCS- Improve canopy cover in 25% of streams within the Landowners,
7.1.2.1 Action Step Riparian watershed 2 5 RCD TBD
CDFW, NOAA
Increase the average stream canopy to a minimum of RC, Private
SlC-CCCS- 80% within select reaches of Salmon, Nolan and Landowners,
7.1.2.2 Action Step Riparian Coleman Valley Creeks. 2 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Gold
Encourage the cultivation and availability of locally Ridge RCD,
SlC-CCCS- indigenous riparian plants for use in restoration and NRCS, Private
7.1.2.3 Action Step Riparian bank stabilization (CDFG 2004) 3 60 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
8.1 Objective Sediment range
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Improve instream substrate/food productivity
8.1.1 Action Sediment (impaired gravel quality and quantity)
Gold Ridge
Continue to implement erosion control projects that RCD, Private
SlC-CCCS- were assessed and inventoried in sediment Landowners, Cost based on remaining erosion control projects
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment assessment plans (CDFG 2004). 2 60 Sonoma County TBD to treat and recommendations.
Gold Ridge
Re-establish natural sediment delivery processes by RCD, NRCS,
assessing sediment delivery sources at the sub- Private
SlC-CCCS- watershed scale and prioritizing sediment reduction Landowners, Cost based on sediment assessment for 25% of
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment activities. 3 60 Sonoma County 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 71 total watershed acres at a rate of $12.62/acre.
Gold Ridge
RCD, NRCS,
Private
SlC-CCCS- Address sources from slides and gullies that deliver Landowners,
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment sediment and runoff to stream channels. 2 10 Sonoma County 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.

10.1 Objective Water Quality range
SlC-CCCS- Recovery
Increase the canopy by planting native species where CDFW, NMFS,
shade canopy is not at acceptable levels within NRCS, Private
SlC-CCCS- middle Salmon Creek, Nolan, and Coleman Valley Landowners,
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality Creeks. 2 10 RCD TBD Cost accounted for in other action steps.
Monitor instream water temperatures to determine

baseline conditions and judge the efficacy of CDFW, NMFS, Cost based on installing a minimum of 3 water
restoration actions. High priority streams include NRCS, Private temperature gauges at a rate of $200/gauge.
SlC-CCCS- tributary and mainstem reaches within Salmon and Landowners, Cost does not account for data management or
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality Walker Creeks (CDFG stream survey reports). 3 20 RCD 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 1 maintenance.
SlC-CCCS- Recovery
Cost for continuous water quality monitoring

NMFS, Private stations estimated at $5,000/station. Assume
SlC-CCCS- Install continuous water quality monitoring stations in Landowners, minimum of 3. Cost does not account for
10.1.2.1 Action Step Water Quality lower Salmon Creek 3 5 RWQCB 15.00 15 maintenance or data management.
NRCS, Private
SlC-CCCS- Work with livestock and ranch owners to implement Landowners,
10.1.2.2 Action Step Water Quality BMP's to control sediment and nitrates 3 30 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- Recovery
10.1.3 Action Water Quality Reduce turbidity and suspended sediment
Cost to upgrade stormwater discharge points

cannot be determined at this time, but it may be
significant. Turbidity data (NHI, 2010) indicated
elevated levels during the winter and spring
following seasonal rainfall events. Elevated
Disperse discharge from new or upgraded turbidity levels could injure gills, reduce feeding
commercial and residential areas into a spatially efficiency and adversely affect growth. Increased
distributed network rather than a few point rates of turbidity and temperature are likely the
discharges, which can result in locally severe erosion City Planning, result of land and water management practices in
SlC-CCCS- and disruption of riparian vegetation and instream County Planning, the watershed. Winter rearing juveniles are the
10.1.3.1 Action Step Water Quality habitat. 3 100 RWQCB TBD primary life-stage affected by high turbidity levels.
Implement education programs and modify policies
and procedures to improve riparian corridor
protection, maintain channel integrity, implement City Planning,
SlC-CCCS- alternatives to hard bank protection, and retain large County Planning,
10.1.3.2 Action Step Water Quality woody debris. 3 10 RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
those in the Fish Friendly Farming program Private
SlC-CCCS- (California Land Stewardship Institute), or other Landowners,
10.1.3.3 Action Step Water Quality cooperative conservation programs. 3 3 RCD, RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
11.1 Objective Viability range
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and

SlC-CCCS- reflect new habitat improvements and accessible
SlC-CCCS- Conduct habitat surveys to monitor change in key
11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability habitat variables 3 10 CDFW, NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind

To better understand changes in sedimentation,

monitoring in the basin should include: longitudinal
SlC-CCCS- profiles, cross-sections, V*, LWD volume and
11.1.1.3 Action Step Viability distribution, and embeddedness. 3 60 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- CDFW, NMFS,
11.1.1.4 Action Step Viability Develop smolt abundance estimates 1 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
SlC-CCCS- Trout Unlimited, Cost based on smolt outmigrant trapping at a rate
11.1.1.5 Action Step Viability Support operation of outmigrant traps 1 10 UC Extension 60.00 60.00 120 of $59,740/yr.
Use monitoring and trend information to adjust and
adapt recovery actions/strategies. Specific locations
to be monitored will be determined through
SlC-CCCS- implementation of he Coastal Salmonid Monitoring
11.1.1.6 Action Step Viability Plan. 2 TBD CDFW, NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Evaluate and conduct nutrient enrichment projects to CDFW, NMFS,

improve freshwater growth and increase smolt Private
SlC-CCCS- escapement utilizing available carcasses from Landowners, Cost based on treating 1 mile at a rate of
11.1.1.7 Action Step Viability hatcheries and other methods (e.g. salmon analogs). 1 5 RCD 20.00 20 $2,000/mile over 10 years.
12.1 Objective Agriculture range
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape
CDFW, Farm
Implement Best Management Practices such as Bureau, NMFS,
SlC-CCCS- (California Land Stewardship Institute), or other Landowners,
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, RCD,
SlC-CCCS- Streamline permit processing where landowners are SWRCB,
12.1.1.2 Action Step Agriculture conducting actions aligned with recovery priorities. 3 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind

incentive-based approaches to encourage increased Bureau, NMFS,
involvement and support existing landowners who NRCS, Private Soliciting cooperation not expected to cost much
SlC-CCCS- conduct operations in a manner compatible with Landowners, outside of already existing federal and state and
12.1.1.3 Action Step Agriculture salmon recovery priorities. 3 10 RCD 0 local salaries. Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
SlC-CCCS- Conduct outreach and education on agriculture Landowners,
12.1.1.4 Action Step Agriculture programs that benefit salmonids. 3 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
Improve education and awareness of agencies, NRCS, Private
SlC-CCCS- landowners and the public regarding salmonid Landowners,
12.1.1.5 Action Step Agriculture protection and habitat requirements. 3 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Farm
Incentive programs and incentive-based approaches Bureau, NMFS,
should be explored for landowners who conduct NRCS, Private Cost based on type and amount of incentives to
SlC-CCCS- operations in a manner compatible with steelhead Landowners, develop. Currently, incentive programs exist and
12.1.1.6 Action Step Agriculture and Chinook salmon recovery requirements. 3 10 RCD TBD should be explored and expanded.
CDFW, Farm
Encourage landowners to implement restoration Bureau, NMFS,
projects as part of their ongoing practices in priority NRCS, Private
SlC-CCCS- stream reaches and where habitat is in poor or fair Landowners,
12.1.1.7 Action Step Agriculture condition. 3 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian

Improve water temperature conditions for migrating

smolts and summer rearing juvenile salmonids CDFW, NMFS,
throughout 35% of watershed by increasing the NOAA RC,
canopy by planting native species where shade NRCS, Private
SlC-CCCS- canopy is not at acceptable levels within middle Landowners,
12.1.2.1 Action Step Agriculture Salmon Creek, Nolan, and Coleman Valley Creeks. 2 20 RCD TBD

baseline conditions and judge the efficacy of CDFW, NMFS, Cost for stream temperature gauges estimated at
restoration actions. High priority streams include NRCS, Private $500/gauge. Assume a minimum of 10. Cost
SlC-CCCS- tributary and mainstem reaches within Salmon and Landowners, does not account for maintenance or data
12.1.2.2 Action Step Agriculture Walker Creeks (CDFG stream survey reports). 2 5 RCD 5.00 5 management.

SlC-CCCS- currently occur, and enforce requirements of local RWQCB,
SlC-CCCS- Enforce requirements of local regulations and City Planning,

12.2.1.2 Action Step Agriculture riparian/setbacks. 3 5 Sonoma County
Cost based on amount and type of conservation
easements to re-establish or enhance riparian
Implement programs to purchase land/conservation corridors. Fair market value and landowner
SlC-CCCS- easements to encourage the re-establishment and/or Land Trusts, participation are main factors in the cost of this
12.2.1.3 Action Step Agriculture enhancement of natural riparian communities. 3 5 Sonoma County TBD action step.
Design new developments to avoid or minimize Private Stringent review by permitting agencies is
impacts to unstable slopes, wetlands, areas of high Landowners, expected to reduce costs associated with poorly
SlC-CCCS- habitat value, and similarly constrained sites that RCD, Sonoma planned and poorly located developments. Action
12.2.2.1 Action Step Agriculture occur adjacent to watercourses. 3 100 County, USACE 0 is considered In-Kind
Farm Bureau,
SlC-CCCS- environmentally sound agricultural growth and water County, UC
SlC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
13.1 Objective Modification range
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
CalTrans, Farm
Bureau, FEMA,
FishNet 4C, Gold
Ridge RCD, Costs may vary significantly depending on level of
NRCS, Private commitment from local government and private
Where feasible, remove obsolete bank stabilization Landowners, landowners. The majority of the costs would likely
SlC-CCCS- Channel structures from the channel which contribute to Public, Sonoma include local government and consultant staff
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification channel incision and reduced habitat complexity. 3 10 County TBD time.
SlC-CCCS- Channel property for potential function and conservation RCD, Sonoma model at a rate of $84,124 and $243,169/project,

CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
floodplains and meadows to extend the duration of Landowners,
SlC-CCCS- Channel the summer flow and provide refuge from high winter Sonoma County,
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification flows, (see FLOODPLAIN for specific actions). 2 30 USACE 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.

SlC-CCCS- Channel (e.g. carefully evaluate feasibility where critical CDFW, NMFS,
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
SlC-CCCS- Channel woody debris to ensure improved habitat at the CDFW, NMFS,
SlC-CCCS- Channel of removing instream large woody debris under high City Planning,
SlC-CCCS- Channel
13.2 Objective Modification Address inadequacies of regulatory mechanisms
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

SlC-CCCS- Channel habitat protection, and/or alternatives that minimize NMFS, Sonoma

ensure potential effects to salmonid habitat are fully
SlC-CCCS- Channel minimized or mitigated, and where possible, existing
13.2.1.2 Action Step Modification poor conditions should be remediated. 3 50 NMFS, USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- Channel enhance salmonid migration under high and low flow
Minimize new construction that will adversely affect City Planning,

SlC-CCCS- Channel watershed processes, particularly within the 100-year Sonoma County,
13.2.1.4 Action Step Modification flood prone zones. 3 50 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CalTrans, Farm
Bureau, FEMA,
FishNet 4C, Gold
Ridge RCD,
NRCS, Private
Develop a mitigation policy that requires In-Kind Landowners,
SlC-CCCS- Channel replacement of removed large woody debris at a 3:1 Public, Sonoma The majority of the costs would likely include local
13.2.1.5 Action Step Modification ratio. 3 10 County 0 government. Action is considered In-Kind
18.1 Objective Livestock range
SlC-CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and

Farm Bureau,
Gold Ridge
RCD, NRCS,
SlC-CCCS- Encourage riparian restoration to regain riparian Private
18.1.1.1 Action Step Livestock corridors damaged from livestock and other causes. 2 30 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NRCS, RCD,
SlC-CCCS- To minimize gully initiation, grazing should be kept at Private
NRCS, RCD,
SlC-CCCS- Where necessary, establish predetermined stream Private
18.1.1.3 Action Step Livestock crossings when herding cattle between pastures. 2 60 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Farm Bureau,
Gold Ridge
Address sediment and runoff sources from road RCD, NRCS,
SlC-CCCS- networks and other actions that deliver sediment and Private
18.1.1.4 Action Step Livestock runoff to stream channels. 2 20 Landowners 0 Cost accounted in ROADS/RAILROADS
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
Cost based on treating 1 mile (assume 1
SlC-CCCS- Aid landowners willing to fence off riparian areas with project/mile in 5% high IP) at a rate of $4.14/linear
18.1.2.1 Action Step Livestock development of offstream alternative water sources 2 5 NRCS, RCD 22.00 22 ft.
Farm Bureau,
Gold Ridge
Increase the use of water storage and catchment RCD, NRCS, Cost based on number and size of catchment
SlC-CCCS- systems that collect rainwater in the winter for use Private systems needed. Estimate for catchment system
18.1.2.2 Action Step Livestock during the dry summer and fall seasons. 1 30 Landowners TBD ranges from $100 - $20,000/system.

SlC-CCCS- operations should take first priority for riparian
18.1.3.1 Action Step Livestock fencing programs over steer operations. 2 60 NRCS, RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Encourage, develop and fund riparian restoration
SlC-CCCS- projects to regain riparian corridors damaged from
18.1.3.2 Action Step Livestock livestock and other causes. 2 10 NRCS, RCD TBD
NRCS, RCD,
SlC-CCCS- Manage rotational grazing to aid in the reduction of Private

Short term, seasonal and long term rest from grazing NRCS, RCD,
SlC-CCCS- in overgrazed areas would improve soil conditions for Private
18.1.3.4 Action Step Livestock native revegetation and land values as well. 3 60 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
18.2 Objective Livestock mechanisms
18.2.1 Action Livestock disturbance

SlC-CCCS- end of grazing season. Remove cattle from pasture Private
19.1 Objective Logging range
19.1.1 Action Logging quantity)

Board of
Forestry, CalFire,
Develop a Road Sediment Reduction Plan that CDFW, Private
SlC-CCCS- prioritizes problem sites and outlines implementation Landowners, Cost based on road inventory of 101 miles of
19.1.1.1 Action Step Logging and a timeline of necessary actions. 3 5 RCD 97.00 97 road network at a rate of $957/mile.
Board of
Forestry, CalFire,
Utilize BMP's to properly construct roads for CDFW, Private
SlC-CCCS- stormproofing and Minimize the construction of roads Landowners,
19.1.1.2 Action Step Logging in the riparian zone 3 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Board of
Prevent or minimize future sediment and runoff Forestry, CalFire,
sources from logging by utilizing BMP's that prevent CDFW, Private
SlC-CCCS- or minimize delivery of sediment and runoff to stream Landowners,
19.1.1.3 Action Step Logging channels. 3 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
CDFW, NMFS,
Acquire key large tracts of forestlands identified as a RCD, Sonoma
SlC-CCCS- priority by Federal, State, local government, and non- County, State Need to estimate where and how much land will
19.2.1.1 Action Step Logging governmental organizations 3 60 Parks TBD come available for purchase in the future.
Board of
Forestry, NMFS,
Private
Landowners,
SlC-CCCS- optimal levels of natural LWD recruitment of larger State Parks, US
Board of
Forestry, CDFW,
NMFS, Sonoma
SlC-CCCS- Conserve and manage forestlands for older forest County, State
SlC-CCCS- Minimize future conversion of forestlands to CalFire, County
19.2.2.1 Action Step Logging agriculture or other land uses. 3 25 Planning 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- steelhead priorities and recommend upgrading CalFire, CDFW,
Investigate opportunities to programmatically permit CalFire, NMFS,

SlC-CCCS- the forest certification program to authorize incidental Private
19.2.2.3 Action Step Logging take for landowners through Section 10(a)(1)(B). 3 100 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
22.1 Objective Development range
Residential
SlC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
Residential Identify areas at high risk of conversion, and develop Private

SlC-CCCS- /Commercial incentives and alternatives for landowners that Landowners,
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development discourage conversion. 3 10 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Residential Explore the use of conservation easements to CDFW, Land Cost for conservation easement are dependent
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial provide incentives for private landowners to preserve Trusts, Private upon fair market value, landowner participation,
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development riparian corridors 3 10 Landowners TBD and quantity and quality of easement.
Residential Reduce impacts of existing development in
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial floodplains/riparian zones by encouraging willing
22.1.1.3 Action Step Development landowners to restore these areas. 3 15 CDFW, RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Residential infrastructure and replacement with native vegetation Costs associated with policy development are
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial or flood tolerant land uses) for areas highly City Planning, expected to be minimal. Action is considered In-
22.1.1.4 Action Step Development susceptible to, or previously damaged from, flooding. 3 25 Sonoma County 0 Kind
Residential
SlC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
22.1.2 Action Development hydrology
Cost for incentives based on amount and type of
Residential Private incentive to provide. Currently, existing incentive
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial Encourage the use and provide incentives for rooftop Landowners, program are available and should be explored
22.1.2.1 Action Step Development water storage and other conservation devices 2 10 Sonoma County TBD and expanded.
funding of larger detention devices in key watersheds RWQCB,
Residential with ongoing channel degradation or in sub- Sonoma County, Investigating funding larger detention devices is
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial watersheds where impervious surface area > 10 Sonoma County not expected to cost much. Implementing the
22.1.2.2 Action Step Development percent. 3 25 Water Agency TBD devices will be much more expensive.
Residential
SlC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport
22.1.3 Action Development (road condition/density, dams, etc.)
Residential commercial and residential areas into a spatially City Planning,
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial distributed network rather than a few point RWQCB,
22.1.3.1 Action Step Development discharges. 3 20 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
SlC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Residential
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial Implement performance standards in Stormwater RWQCB,
22.2.1.1 Action Step Development Management Plans. 3 20 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind

continuous water quality monitoring stations at a
Private rate of $5,000/station. Cost does not account for
Residential Improve water quality where necessary by Landowners, data management or maintenance. Methods to
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial addressing residential and commercial pollutant Public Works, treat and reduce pollutants will depend upon the
22.2.1.2 Action Step Development sources. 2 10 RCD, RWQCB 7.50 7.50 15 type and amount being used.
Residential
SlC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
Residential Develop riparian setbacks/buffers where they do not
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial currently occur, and enforce requirements of local City Planning,
22.2.2.1 Action Step Development regulations where they do 3 20 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial Enforce requirements of local regulations and City Planning,
22.2.2.2 Action Step Development riparian/setbacks 3 20 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Board of
Forestry, CalFire,
Residential Discourage home building or other incompatible land CDFW, City
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial use in areas identified as timber production zones Planning,
22.2.2.3 Action Step Development (TPZ). 3 30 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Residential maintenance practices and evaluate, avoid, minimize Sonoma County,
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial and/or mitigate their impacts to rearing and migrating Sonoma County
22.2.2.4 Action Step Development steelhead. 3 5 Water Agency 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential
SlC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
Residential Dept. of Housing, Association of Bay Area
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial Governments and other government associations City Planning,
22.2.3.1 Action Step Development (CDFG 2004). 2 10 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
New development in all historic CCC steelhead and
Residential CC Chinook salmon watersheds should minimize RWQCB,
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial storm-water runoff, changes in duration, or Sonoma County,
22.2.3.2 Action Step Development magnitude of peak flow. 3 20 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
California
Department of
Mines and
Geology,
CalTrans,
Mendocino
County, NMFS,
Private
Residential Minimize new construction in undeveloped areas Landowners, Effective and consistent implementation of these
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial within the 100-year flood prone zone in all historical Public, Sonoma policies are anticipated to have little cost. Action
22.2.3.3 Action Step Development CCC steelhead watersheds. 3 100 County 0 is considered In-Kind
Residential
SlC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape
City Planning,
Residential Encourage infill and high density developments over Mendocino
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial dispersal of low density rural residential in County, Sonoma This action encourages implementation of many
22.2.4.1 Action Step Development undeveloped areas. 3 100 County 0 existing policies. Action is considered In-Kind
Work with counties to develop and implement
ordinances to restrict subdivisions by requiring a
Residential minimum acreage limit for parcelization in concert
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial with limits on water supply and groundwater recharge RCD, Sonoma
22.2.4.2 Action Step Development areas. 3 15 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Design new developments to avoid or minimize Private Stringent review by permitting agencies is
Residential impacts to unstable slopes, wetlands, areas of high Landowners, expected to reduce costs associated with poorly
SlC-CCCS- /Commercial habitat value, and similarly constrained sites that Santa Cruz planned and poorly located developments. Action
22.2.4.3 Action Step Development occur adjacent to watercourses 3 100 County, USACE 0 is considered In-Kind
23.1 Objective Roads/Railroads range

Assess and redesign transportation network to
SlC-CCCS- minimize road density and maximize transportation CalTrans, Cost based on road inventory of 101 miles of
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads efficiency. 3 10 Sonoma County 48.50 48.50 97 road network at a rate of $957/mile.
Private
Landowners,
SlC-CCCS- Assess roads in Nolan and Thurston Creeks to Public Works,
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads identify high priority and high sediment yield sources. 2 5 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Implement results of existing sediment source Private
surveys, and assess remaining watershed road Landowners,
SlC-CCCS- networks to eliminate high priority and high sediment Public Works,
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads yield sources. 2 5 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in SEDIMENT.

maintenance can be stored safely away from Private Cost based on number and size of adequate
SlC-CCCS- watercourses. Coordinate these efforts with all Landowners, spoils sites needed. Road assessment should
23.1.1.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads landowners in the watershed. 2 10 Public Works TBD identify this.
This is the only road parameter that received a

Reduce road densities by 10 percent over the next Private high or very high threat (density of roads in
SlC-CCCS- 10 years, prioritizing high risk areas in historical Landowners, riparian zone). Cost based for decommissioning
23.1.1.5 Action Step Roads/Railroads habitats or steelhead watersheds. 2 20 Sonoma County 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75 103 8.6 miles of road network at a rate $12,000/mile.
construction (e.g. Fishnet 4C, 2004; Weaver and Private
SlC-CCCS- Hagans, 1994; Sommarstrom et al., 2002; Oregon Landowners,
23.1.1.6 Action Step Roads/Railroads Department of Transportation, 1999). 3 20 Public Works 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Upgrade and decommission sites and road networks Private

SlC-CCCS- where appropriate. These actions include outsloping Landowners, Cost based on decommissioning 31 miles of road
23.1.1.7 Action Step Roads/Railroads roads, ditch relief culverts, and installing rolling dips. 3 10 Public Works 186.00 186.00 372 network at a rate of $12,000/mile.
Private New roads should be designed to prevent
SlC-CCCS- Prevent sediment sources on newly constructed Landowners, sediment entering waterways. Action is
23.1.1.8 Action Step Roads/Railroads roads. 3 20 Public Works 0 considered In-Kind

watercourses. High priority streams identified by Private
SlC-CCCS- CDFW habitat reports include Verde Canyon, Frink Landowners,
23.1.1.9 Action Step Roads/Railroads Canyon, and Salmon Creek (CDFG 2009). 3 10 Public Works 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and
Private
Landowners,
SlC-CCCS- increase the size of ditch relief culverts, or replace RCD, State
SlC-CCCS- 100-year flood flows and associated bedload and Public Works,
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads debris. 3 20 State Parks TBD Cost at a rate of $223,051/unit.
SlC-CCCS- accommodate 100-year flood flows and associated
23.1.2.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads bedload and debris. 3 20 Public Works 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Private
Landowners,
SlC-CCCS- Assess private and public road stream crossings for RCD, Trout
23.1.2.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads barrier potential and implement recommendations. 1 5 Unlimited 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
CDFW, Private
Prevent future barriers on newly constructed roads Landowners,
SlC-CCCS- utilizing NMFS Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at RCD, Trout
23.1.2.5 Action Step Roads/Railroads Stream Crossings (NMFS 2001a). 2 5 Unlimited 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Board of
Forestry,
CalTrans,
span or constructed with the minimum number of Landowners, Incorporating free span bridges into replacement
SlC-CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation Public Works, and new construction plans is unlikely to increase
23.1.2.6 Action Step Roads/Railroads and facilitate fish passage. 3 60 RCD 0 costs. Action is considered In-Kind

SlC-CCCS- improper road construction and maintenance on Cost to expand an existing program are expected
23.1.4 Action Roads/Railroads species composition and structure
Public Works, Similar existing programs could be modified and
SlC-CCCS- Discourage or eliminate unwanted vegetation and RCD, Water implemented at minimal cost. Action is
23.1.4.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads promote desirable (native) vegetation. 3 10 Agencies 0 considered In-Kind
City Planning,
County Planning,
SlC-CCCS- Utilize the Fishnet4c manual in training and FishNet 4C,
23.1.4.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads operations. 3 10 Public Works 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- Severe Weather Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
Work with CDFW, County of Sonoma, State Parks,

municipalities, and knowledgeable biologists to Cities, Sonoma
SlC-CCCS- Severe Weather develop severe weather emergency rules and adopt County, State
24.1.1.1 Action Step Patterns implementation agreements. 3 20 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Cities,
FEMA, Gold
Work with local governments to incorporate Ridge RCD, Outreach and education are ongoing, and
SlC-CCCS- Severe Weather protection of CCC steelhead in any flood NMFS, Sonoma additional costs are expected to be minimal.
24.1.1.2 Action Step Patterns management activity (CDFG 2004). 3 10 County, USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Board of
Forestry, CA
Coastal
Commission,
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
California
Department of
Mines and
Geology, CDFW,
CDFW Law
Enforcement,
City Planning,
Farm Bureau,
FEMA, NMFS,
NRCS, Public
Works, RWQCB,
State Parks,
SlC-CCCS- Severe Weather operations during droughts and floods while also USEPA, USGS,
CDFW, CDFW
Law
SlC-CCCS- Severe Weather depletion of summer base flows from unauthorized NMFS, NMFS
24.1.1.4 Action Step Patterns water uses. 3 20 OLE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- Severe Weather Address other natural or manmade factors affecting
24.2 Objective Patterns the species continued existence
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
Gold Ridge
Work with land owners or public agencies to acquire RCD, Private Cost based on amount of water to acquire to
SlC-CCCS- Severe Weather water that would be utilized to minimize effects of Landowners, minimize effects. Estimate for water purchase is
24.2.1.1 Action Step Patterns droughts. 3 20 Sonoma County TBD $155/acre ft./yr.
SlC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
25.1 Objective Impoundment range
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
25.1.1 Action Impoundment (impaired water flow)
CDFW, Gold
Ridge RCD,
Private
Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Landowners,
SlC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ water diversion (e.g., storage tanks for rural RWQCB,
25.1.1.1 Action Step Impoundment residential users). 2 5 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Gold Ridge
RCD, Private
Landowners,
RWQCB,
Sonoma County,
SlC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Promote the use of reclaimed water for agricultural or Sonoma County
25.1.1.2 Action Step Impoundment other uses. 3 10 Water Agency 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Promote water conservation by the public, water CDFW, Farm

SlC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ agencies, agriculture, private industry, and the Bureau, NRCS,
25.1.1.3 Action Step Impoundment citizenry. 3 20 Water Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Farm Promoting water conservation best practices is

SlC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Promote water conservation best practices such as Bureau, NRCS, not expected to result in additional costs. Action
25.1.1.4 Action Step Impoundment drip irrigation for vineyards. 3 20 Water Agencies 0 is considered In-Kind
Allow all "fisheries flows" (baseflows, and passage,
SlC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ attractant, and channel maintenance flows) to bypass
25.1.1.5 Action Step Impoundment diversion facilities. 3 10 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
migratory reaches for effects on the natural
SlC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ hydrograph and the supply of spawning gravel for Evaluation costs are expected to be minimal.
25.1.1.6 Action Step Impoundment recruitment downstream (CDFG 2004). 3 5 CDFW, USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
25.1.2 Action Impoundment and diversity
CDFW, NMFS,
Private Cost based on number and type of fish screens to
SlC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Adequately screen water diversions to prevent Landowners, install. Estimate for a fish screen is
25.1.2.1 Action Step Impoundment juvenile salmonid mortalities. 2 5 RCD, SWRCB TBD $53,465/screen.
Promote passive diversion devices designed to allow NMFS, RCD,

SlC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ diversion of water only when minimum streamflow RWQCB, Water
25.1.2.2 Action Step Impoundment requirements are met or exceeded (CDFG 2004). 3 30 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind

reservoirs, bypass flows protective of salmonids and
SlC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ their habitats, and avoidance of adverse impacts CDFW, RCD,
25.1.2.3 Action Step Impoundment caused by water diversion (CDFG 2004). 3 60 Water Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
25.2 Objective Impoundment mechanisms
SlC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
25.2.1 Action Impoundment hydrology

depletion of summer base flows from unauthorized CDFW Law
water uses. Coordinated efforts by Federal and Enforcement,
SlC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ State, and County law enforcement agencies to NMFS OLE,
25.2.1.1 Action Step Impoundment remove illegal diversions from streams. 3 5 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Encourage the SWRCB to adjudicate watersheds to CDFW, County

resolve over-allocation of water resources and Planning, RCD, Coordination costs are expected to be minimal,
SlC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ provide adequate funding to water masters to RWQCB, Water depending on what specific actions are proposed.
25.2.1.2 Action Step Impoundment enforce allocations. 2 5 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SlC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Improve compliance with existing water resource NMFS, RWQCB. associated costs are expected to be minimal.
25.2.1.3 Action Step Impoundment regulations via monitoring and enforcement. 3 15 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Walker Creek Population

Spawner Target: 2,300 adults

Few historical surveys dating back to the 1950s exist for Walker Creek, although angling reports
from California Department of Fish and Game/Wildlife (CDFG/CDFW) wardens indicate that
angling pressure (and presumably steelhead numbers) decreased from 1950s to the 1970s (Emig
1984, Kelley 1976, and Rich 1989). Kelley (1978) noted that for Walker Creek, the size of the
salmon and steelhead runs were limited by the amount and quality of available rearing area for
juvenile fish during their first summer and fall when the stream flows were low (Kelley, 1976
and 1978). The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) through its completion of the
Soulajule Reservoir on Arroyo Sausal Creek entered into agreement with CDFW to operate the
Soulajule Reservoir in a way that was expected to restore the salmon and steelhead runs in
Walker Creek. In 1976, MMWD estimated that the streamflow releases scheduled with the
Soulajule Project would produce an average spawning run of about 1200 adult salmon and
steelhead, although this estimate was based on a very rough model and an assumption that
significant stream improvement would occur (Kelley and Reineck, 1978). In 1984, CDFG
conducted a study that showed that steelhead abundance increased compared with populations
sampled prior to flow releases from the reservoir (Emig 1984). However, the success of the flow
augmentation program in restoring salmonid populations was questioned (Rich 1989, UCCE
1995).
More recently, steelhead have been documented in fair numbers and are noted as very
abundant (MMWD 2010) and occurring in all age classes through monitoring conducted by
MMWD as a result of adult coho salmon releases to Walker Creek from the Russian River
Captive Broodstock Program. While the focus of this program has been coho, juvenile steelhead
have been incidentally captured and enumerated, although adult counts can only be considered
anecdotal because the trapping timeline has only covered a portion of the steelhead adult
migration period (Coey per comm. 2011).
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Walker Creek 247

History of Land Use
Since European settlement, the land use has been almost exclusively agricultural, with beef and
dairy products produced, and potatoes, barley, and other grains grown in the watershed. From
the 1850s into the early 1870s, potatoes were loaded onto shallow barges in Keyes Creek
immediately downstream of the present Highway 1 Bridge (UCCE, 1995). Historic
sedimentation has been linked to the disturbance of the native grassland through cultivation,
change in species composition as introduced annual grasses gained dominance, and
concentrated livestock use (Zumwalt, 1972). The current small size of the channel at this
location, more suitable for a canoe than a barge, is dramatic evidence of significant watershed
change over the past 150 years (MMWD 2004). Mercury was mined at three sites in the Walker
Creek watershed after World War II. The largest mine, at the Gambonini Ranch near the
confluence of Salmon Creek and mainstem Walker Creek, closed in 1970. The severe storm of
January 1982 destabilized the mine site and sent massive amounts of mercury-laden sediment
into Walker Creek. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working with the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB), completed remediation of
the site in 2000.

The watershed contains a 220-acre shallow natural lake, Laguna Lake, which is officially
classified as a vernal pool. Laguna Lake is located at the top of Chileno Valley. The lake is used
extensively for migrating and breeding waterfowl like the wetlands at the mouth of Walker
Creek. The watershed has one major reservoir, Soulajule Reservoir, which is managed by
MMWD. Soulajule Reservoir is located at the top of Arroyo Sausal, and was constructed in 1968
and then enlarged in 1980. The enlarged reservoir was enlarged to restore salmonid runs with
summer releases ranging from 0.5 cfs to 5 cfs and winter releases up to 25 cfs depending upon
the availability of stored water (Kelley and Reineck, 1978). Today cattle, dairy and sheep
ranching are the predominant industry although vineyard development has spread into the
eastern edge of the watershed. The only concentrated development in the watershed occurs in
the small town of Tomales.
assistance from various Federal and state agencies (e.g., CDFW, NMFS and Marin Resource
Conservation District with the assistance of National Resource Conservation Service). Recently,
MMWD with the assistance of CDFW and Trout Unlimited has conducted some salmonid
population monitoring throughout the watershed where access is available. A systematic
habitat assessment of the entire watershed was conducted by the CDFW Watershed Restoration
Program in 2004.

Habitat surveys conducted by CDFG/CDFW (CDFG 2008) found the highest quality habitat
conditions in portions of Walker Creek mainstem, and upper Salmon Creek, although access for
surveys was not granted basin-wide. Shelter values, canopy levels, gravel embededdness and
stream temperature were noted as limiting factors for salmonids in most reaches of the
watershed. The following key attributes were rated Poor through the CAP process for
steelhead: Riparian Vegetation, Sediment, Sediment Transport, Velocity Refuge, Water Quality,
Habitat Complexity, and temperature. Adult density and smolt abundance also rated Poor, and
this rating is a reflection of the above habitat conditions and landscape context. Recovery
strategies will focus on improving these poor conditions as well as those needed to ensure
population viability and functioning watershed processes.
Current Conditions
CAP viability analysis. The Walker Creek Profile CAP Viability Table results are provided

Sixty seven percent (3 of 5) of streams met optimal criteria (>70 percent canopy averaged for the
stream). Specifically, Verde Canyon, Salmon and Chileno Creek rated Fair (50-69 percent
canopy), although the native structure of the riparian zone has been highly altered. Only 16
percent of the riparian zone is made up of small trees in the class of hardwood forest and
hardwood woodland species. In addition, large trees that provide bank stabilization and are
the source for future recruitment of LWD were found to be lacking in this watershed. The
surrounding forest, which was historically present, has been cleared for agricultural operations;
today the largest classes are in Herbaceous (50 percent), Hardwood Woodland (18 percent),
Hardwood Shrub (9 percent) and Agriculture (8 percent).

Walker Creek estuary has been highly altered from its natural state due to high sediment load
from erosive channel conditions due to grazing development, and the channelized and filled
conditions of the delta and estuary for agriculture. Summer dam releases have altered the
freshwater inflow to the estuary, and toxicity from mercury, copper, dairy waste and sewage

treated releases have altered the remaining water quality. Conditions for rearing of juvenile
steelhead to smolts are further complicated by warming temperatures into the summer months.
While channelization has occurred in the mainstem of Walker Creek, flooding frequently
occurs; however, the riparian zone is thin and agriculture encroaches upon the historic
floodplain. Road building, culverts, and grazing land development have led to severe channel
incision in lower middle and lower Walker Creek and lower portion of Chileno Creek. The lack
of large woody debris or access to refugia in the near stream floodplain impacts the winter
survival of juveniles throughout the Walker Creek watershed. Channel modification and
incision have removed the stream channel from its natural floodplain except at extreme flood
flows when salmonids can be flushed out to agricultural and grazing lands where they may
become trapped on the declining limb of the hydrograph. High density streamside roads limits
floodplain enhancement in some portions of the watershed.
Habitat Complexity: Large Wood & Shelter and Habitat Complexity: Percent Primary Pools
& Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratios
No streams met optimal criteria habitat complexity for pool depths, or shelter complexity for
any lifestage, within the watershed. Summer juvenile production is highly affected by the lack
of these habitat elements. Riffle habitats for spawning are specifically lacking and are of
particular concern in most of Walker Creek and its tributaries.

No streams within the Walker Creek watershed met optimal criteria (>50% scores 1 and 2) for
embededdness. All streams rated Poor except Salmon Creek, which rated Fair. Gravel
embededdness affects the survivability of incubating eggs through decreased oxygenation, and
the release of metabolic wastes from the redd. Sediment can also inhibit emergence of alevins
from the redd. Kelley (1976) found that streambed sedimentation contributed to the decline of
salmonid populations, and identified the accelerated runoff and intensification of the flash
characteristics of floods caused by overgrazing as underlying causes. Bratovich (1984) and Rich
(1989) identified embedded gravels and cobbles as a major factor in limiting salmonid
production.
Landscape Patterns: Agriculture, Timber Harvest & Urbanization

The GIS spatial analysis showed vegetation existing as only 8% in Agricultural production,
although 61% of the watershed is in grasslands habitats consisting of rangeland, dairy land, and
pasture. Grazing in the riparian zone is common, and much of the native forest habitat has been
converted to perennial grasslands. However, with little residential and commercial
development pressures, the % of impervious surfaces is very low, and the irreversibility of land

use impacts is low. The watershed has high potential for habitat restoration and many BMPs
exist for the existing land uses in the watershed, although residential and commercial
development remain Very High future threats if ranch and dairy lands are converted to homes,
particularly if accompanied by increased water development pressures.

Smolts and adults are the lifestages with bottlenecks to production in Walker Creek. Although
migration of adults is relatively unimpaired, the quantity and quality of spawning habitat are of
concern and limit growth of the population. The outmigration of smolts through adequate
rearing in the estuary is also of concern as discussed above. Summer rearing conditions can be
improved through pool and shelter development throughout the watershed; however, the
enhancement of winter rearing conditions is somewhat hampered by the existing channel
configuration and lack of floodplain. Decreasing sediment sources and improving water quality
would improve food foraging and growth of winter rearing salmonids, while expanding
riparian corridors for LWD and decreasing erosion would improve conditions for all lifestages.

Temperatures in Lower and Upper Walker Creek mainstem, and Salmon Creek exceeded
optimal conditions. Chileno and Frink Canyon Creeks hovered slightly below optimal
conditions at 16 and 14 degrees respectively. Temperatures in Lower and Upper Walker Creek
mainstem, Salmon Creek, and Chileno Creek and within the estuary also exceed optimal
conditions for smolting (CDFG 2004).

Walker Creek was listed by the RWQCB 303(d) listing for Siltation for Nutrients in 2007. High
siltation affects incubating eggs, and high nutrient loading can affect summer rearing conditions
through affecting temperature and levels of oxygen. Turbidity is also considered to be a
problem for winter rearing smolts affecting foraging ability for food and predator avoidance.
Other Conditions
Hydrology: Baseflow & Passage Flows, Passage/Migration: Mouth or Confluence & Physical
Barriers, Sediment Transport: Road Density, Hydrology: Redd Scour rated Fair for some
lifestages.
Threats

address Medium and Low threats when the strategy is essential to recovery efforts. The figures
and tables that display data used in this analysis are provided in Walker Creek CAP results.
Agriculture
The expansion of agricultural practices that have reduced riparian corridors and thereby the
recruitment of LWD, has taken place throughout the watershed. Recently, viticulture has
expanded into the eastern edge of the watershed. Though GIS spatial analysis showed
vegetation existing as only four percent in Agricultural production, 61 percent of the watershed
is in grasslands habitats consisting of rangeland, dairy land, and pasture. Grazing in the
riparian zone is common and much of the native forest habitat has been converted to perennial
grasslands. Water diversions supporting viticulture in these areas likely lower summer
baseflows, causing disconnected aquatic habitat and elevated instream temperatures. Also,
agriculture operations can encroach into adjacent riparian areas, which can increase sediment
delivery to the stream as well as impact shading and wood recruitment.
Channel modification has been the second largest impact to salmonid resources in Walker
Creek and its tributaries through the removal of floodplain and riparian resources. Less than 50
percent of stream channels are estimated to be connected to their floodplain; thus, winter
rearing is compromised when resident steelhead cannot find refugia from high velocities and
are flushed from headwater areas which have higher rearing potential to lower reaches which
have documented poor habitat conditions. Channel modification has led to channel incision,
over-steepened banks, high erosional forces and gravel embededdness, and ultimately loss of
riparian trees and width. While channelization has occurred in the mainstem of Walker Creek,
flooding frequently occurs; however, the riparian zone is thin and agriculture encroaches upon
the historic floodplain. Road building, culverts, and grazing land development have led to
severe channel incision in lower middle and lower Walker Creek and lower portions of Chileno
Creek.

Cattle and other livestock browsing have decreased under story riparian species which provide
habitat for terrestrial invertebrates which are food for rearing juvenile salmonids. Grazing and
loafing within riparian corridors have led to bank erosion and high gravel embededdness,
impacting spawning success and resulting egg incubation. Historic management converted
forestlands to grasslands, and current erosion from livestock grazing has taken its toll on the
adjacent riparian zone. GIS analysis of the riparian forest indicated 0% of the forest riparian
canopy is made up of large tree classes, while only 16% of the riparian is made up of small trees
in the class of hardwood forest and hardwood woodland species.

Residential pressures can result in increased road building, water development, the removal of
riparian, and reduced water quality. Although Walker Creek currently has a low % of
development, conversion of ranches, farms, and dairy lands to home tracts could greatly offset
the benefits of the land uses which remain in open space and have been relatively undisturbed
by the hydrologic regime.
Roads and Railroads

While road density is low within the Walker Creek watershed, streamside road density is high.
Road development has altered the natural flow of water and interrupted sediment transport,
often causing channel degradation below undersized culverts. Currently many existing roads
are not maintained adequately and this inadequate road maintenance contributes sediment
from surface erosion. Most culverts are undersized and this reduces the availability of
spawning gravel; increases channel incision, resulting in the risk of failing or causing flow
diversion down roads. Increased road building would accompany further development of the
basin. No watershed-wide road assessment or transportation plan exists for this basin. Most
other watersheds in Marin and adjacent Sonoma County have road/culvert assessments
completed and erosion correction/prevention plan recommendations.

The watershed experiences a Mediterranean-type climate and year-round flows are provided to
Arroyo Sausal and Walker Creek mainstem from Soulajule Reservoir via operation by MMWD.
Given that summer streamflows are already pressured by agricultural and some residential
development, long-lasting drought patterns could pose a significant threat to maintaining
changes to streams through the initiation or acceleration of natural processes respectively. For
Walker Creek, severe flooding could accelerate road and historic mining sites, increasing
sediment in riffles and pool habitats.

Although several earthen dams occur in the upper watershed, and the number of reported
diversions is low, the chief water demand occurs in the summer from creek-side residential and
agricultural development. Frost protection in the spring is also of concern, although less
documented or understood. Increased water diversion resulting from residential development
within Walker Creek could offset the current benefits of the relatively undisturbed hydraulic
regime. Water diversion in the tributaries could impact rearing juveniles. Flows in the mainstem

are already compromised due to the operation of the reservoir which has increased flows,
resulting in higher temperatures.

Threat and condition analysis within the CAP workbook suggests eggs, winter rearing
juveniles, and watershed processes are the factors most at risk in Walker Creek watershed,
while summer rearing habitat conditions could be most easily improved. Increased sediment
load, alteration of sediment transport processes, and reduced large wood quantity and
recruitment are a result of landscape disturbance from historic and current adjacent land uses
including agriculture, livestock grazing, and the effects of roads associated with these land uses.
Increased residential development and severe weather are future threats to existing habitat
conditions.

threats discussed above, although strategies that address other indicators may also be
developed where their implementation is critical to restoring properly functioning habitat
conditions within the watershed. Restoration actions should target addressing these issues
within high potential stream reaches.
Protect, Improve, and Expand Riparian Corridors and Refugia Areas

should be widened and/or floodplain areas lowered to benefit wintertime rearing.
Conservation easements to protect riparian resources should be evaluated and implemented
where refugia areas have been identified with willing landowners. Rural residential expansion
should be discouraged except where General Plan elements are protective enough to offset
impacts to this largely undeveloped watershed. Existing and future agricultural practices
should follow accepted BMPs, such as those of the Fish Friendly Farming program, to protect
and enhance salmonid resources and water quality.
Improving distribution of livestock to reduce prolonged concentrated utilization of grassland

and riparian areas and to provide periods of rest for improved grassland is recommended.
Confining livestock out of riparian corridors in Walker Creek and its tributaries is the highest
priority for the basin and would have the single largest voluntary impact. Where landowners
have fenced livestock, the practice has eliminated concerns for temperature and/or poor water
quality from livestock browsing and loafing, if fences are maintained. Riparian restoration
projects to limit access by livestock where livestock currently have stream access in any areas,

along with re-vegetation utilizing native species appropriate to the area, should be
implemented either independently or as part of a programmatic approach together with
Regional Conservation Districts (RCDs) or National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Priority subwatersheds would include Chileno Creek, Laguna Lake, and Keyes Creek.
Decrease Erosion
and Ranch Roads (Weaver and Hagans 1994). Maintenance on public roads should be increased
and follow the standards of the Fishnet 4c Road Manual. Problem roads and active erosion sites
entire Walker Creek basin. Instream sediment sources are likely as large or a larger source of
sediment yield as non-point sources from roads, primarily due to impacts associated with cattle
and dairy grazing, or as a result of incised channel conditions from channel modification.
Erosion control utilizing bio-engineering methods is recommended in association with livestock
management as discussed above.
Improve Shelter Ratings

Shelter ratings are Low within all surveyed stream reaches of Walker Creek. Due largely to an
absence of LWD, quality pool habitat is absent and shelter components are comprised mainly of
undercut banks and overhanging vegetation. Where applicable, restoration efforts should
incorporate instream wood/boulder structures into degraded reaches along with bank erosion
measures, to improve habitat complexity and shelter availability.

Expanding opportunities for spawning and rearing habitat, such as structures for pool
development and enhancement, and trapping of spawning gravels, is specifically recommended
throughout all stream reaches.

Estuarine residency has been shown to be highly tied to successful smoltification of juveniles
and improved return rate for adult salmonids. Implementation of positive changes for rearing
salmonids should be identified through an assessment of physical conditions and water quality
conditions of the estuary.
Improve Water Quality/Water Temperature

High mercury levels were found in fish collected from Tomales Bay (Whyte and Kirchner,
2000); thus, more investigation is needed to directly relate the mercury concentrations in
Tomales Bay sediments to the mercury in the fish tissue (MMWD 2010). Nonetheless, managing

the mercury-contaminated sediment within the Walker Creek system for the least possible
impact on downstream resources and human health is a critical issue for the Walker Creek
watershed. Planting trees to improve over story conditions and stream temperatures is
recommended for Walker Creek and its tributaries. Large-scale stream bank erosion on
mainstem Walker Creek upstream of the Highway 1 Bridge is needed.

Literature Cited
Bratovich, P.M. 1984. Walker Creek Survey. Memo to D. W. Kelley. D.W. Kelley and
Associates, October 12, 1984 (in Rich 1989)
Emig, J. 1984. Fish Population Survey, Walker Creek, Marin County, 1981
Inland Fisheries, Region 3 Anadromous Fisheries Branch, Administrative Report No. 84-
02-1984
Kelley, D. W. 1976. The possibility of restoring salmon and steelhead runs in Walker Creek,
Marin County. Rept. to Marin Municipal Water District, Corte Madera, 56 p.
Kelley, D. W ., and R. C. Reineck, Jr. 1978. Relationship between streamflow and salmonid
rearing habitat in Walker and Lagunitas creeks, Marin County. D. W. Kelley, Aquatic
Biologist, Rept. to Marin Municipal Water District, 19 p.
Kelley, D.W. 1978. Aquatic Biology. pp 30-37 in Raising Kent Lake, Focused Environmental
Impact Report. Prep. for Marin Municipal Water District, Corte Madera, California.
MMWD 2004. Marin County Watershed Management Plan, Marin County Community
Development Agency, Planning Division
MMWD 2010. Walker Creek Salmon Monitoring Program, Final Compilation Report
Submitted to: California Department of Fish and Game Fishery Restoration Grant
Program Grant No. P053414
Rich, A. 1989. Fishery Resources Habitat Surveys In Walker Creek, Marin County
Prepared for: Marin County Resource Conservation District, 1989
University of California Cooperative Extension. 1995. The Marin Coastal Watershed

Enhancement Project. Novato, California.
Whyte, D. C. and J. W. Kirchner. 2000. Assessing water quality impacts and cleanup
effectiveness in streams dominated by episodic mercury discharges. In The Science of
the Total Environment 260: 1-9.
Weaver W.E, and D.K Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads. A Guide for
planning, designing, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining and closing wildland
roads. 170 pp.

Zumwalt, Clerin. 1972. Consideration of Vegetation and Soils on the Tomales Bay Watershed
Tomales Bay Study Compendium of Reports

Walker Creek CAP Viability Results
Conservation Current Indicator Current

# Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good
Target Measurement Rating
50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of
<50% of streams/ >90% of streams/
Large Wood streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km 0.2% of streams/ IP-km
Habitat IP-Km (>6 Key IP-Km (>6 Key
1 Adults Condition Frequency (BFW 0-10 (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Pieces/100 Poor
Complexity Pieces/100 Pieces/100
meters) Pieces/100 Pieces/100 meters)
meters) meters)
meters) meters)
50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of
Large Wood streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km <50% of streams/ IP-km
Habitat IP-Km (>1.3 Key IP-Km (>1.3 Key
Frequency (BFW 10- (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Pieces/100 Poor
100 meters) Pieces/100 Pieces/100 meters)
meters) meters)
meters) meters)
<50% of streams/ 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of streams/
0% of streams/ IP-km
Habitat Pool/Riffle/Flatwater IP-Km (>40% streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km IP-Km (>40%
(>40% Pools; >20% Poor
Complexity Ratio Pools; >20% (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; Pools; >20%
Riffles)
Riffles) >20% Riffles) >20% Riffles) Riffles)
50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of
Habitat streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km 0% streams/ 0% IP-km
Shelter Rating IP-Km (>80 stream IP-Km (>80 stream Poor
Complexity (>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream average)
average) average)
average) average)
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk NMFS Flow Protocol: Risk
Hydrology Passage Flows Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Good
Factor Score 51- Factor Score 35- Factor Score 42
Factor Score >75 Factor Score <35
75 50
<50% of IP-Km or
Passage/Migration <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km 94% of IP-km Very Good
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km or
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km 94% of IP-km Very Good
accessible*
Riparian Tree Diameter (North 39% Class 5 & 6 40 - 54% Class 5 & 55 - 69% Class 5 & >69% Class 5 & 6 0% Class 5 & 6 across IP-
Poor
Vegetation of SF Bay) across IP-km 6 across IP-km 6 across IP-km across IP-km km
Quantity & <50% of IP-Km or
50% of IP-Km to 75% of IP-Km to <50% of IP-Km or <16 IP-
Sediment Distribution of <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km Poor
74% of IP-km 90% of IP-km Km accessible*
<50% Response 50-80% Response >80% Response
Floodplain 50% Response Reach
Velocity Refuge Reach Reach Reach Not Defined Poor
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of
streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km 50% to 74% of streams/
IP-Km maintains IP-Km maintains
Water Quality Turbidity maintains severity maintains severity IP-km maintains severity Fair
severity score of 3 severity score of 3
score of 3 or score of 3 or score of 3 or lower
or lower or lower
lower lower
IP-km to < low IP-km to < low low risk spawner
<1 Spawner per IP-km
Size Viability Density risk spawner risk spawner density per Poor
(Reference Spence)
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
2 Eggs Condition Hydrology (Instantaneous Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Good
Condition) Factor Score >75 Factor Score <35
75 50
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
Hydrology Redd Scour Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Fair
75 50
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% (0.85mm) 12-14% (0.85mm) <12% (0.85mm)
>17% (0.85mm) and
Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) and >30% and <30% and <30% and <30% Poor
>30% (6.4mm)
(6.4mm) (6.4mm) (6.4mm) (6.4mm)
50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of
streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km 0% of streams/ IP-km
Gravel Quality IP-Km (>50% IP-Km (>50%
Sediment (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream average Poor
(Embeddedness) stream average stream average
average scores of average scores of scores of 1 & 2)
scores of 1 & 2) scores of 1 & 2)
1 & 2) 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Impaired/non- Impaired but Unimpaired
3 Rearing Condition Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent Functioning Impaired but functioning Fair
functional functioning Condition
Juveniles Condition
50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of
Large Wood streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km 0.2% of streams/ IP-km
Frequency (Bankfull (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Pieces/100 Poor
Width 0-10 meters) Pieces/100 Pieces/100 meters)
meters) meters)
meters) meters)

50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of
Large Wood <50% of streams/ >90% of streams/
streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km <50% of streams/ IP-km
Habitat Frequency (Bankfull IP-Km (>1.3 Key IP-Km (>1.3 Key
(>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Pieces/100 Poor
Complexity Width 10-100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100
Pieces/100 Pieces/100 meters)
meters) meters) meters)
meters) meters)
51% to 74% of 75% to 89% of
Habitat Percent Primary IP-Km (>40% IP-Km (>40%
(>40% average (>40% average (>40% average primary Poor
Complexity Pools average primary average primary
primary pool primary pool pool frequency)
pool frequency) pool frequency)
frequency) frequency)
50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of
average) average)
average) average)
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
Flow Conditions Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk NMFS Flow Protocol: Risk
Hydrology Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Fair
(Baseflow) Factor Score 51- Factor Score 35- Factor Score 67
75 50
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
Hydrology (Instantaneous Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Good
Condition) Factor Score >75 Factor Score <35
75 50
Number, Condition 1.1 - 5 0.01 - 1
>5 Diversions/10
Hydrology and/or Magnitude of Diversions/10 IP Diversions/10 IP 0 Diversions 0.34 Diversions/10 IP-km Good
IP km
Diversions km km
<50% of IP-Km or
Passage at Mouth or 50% of IP-Km to 75% of IP-Km to 50% of IP-km to 74% of
Passage/Migration <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km Fair
Confluence 74% of IP-km 90% of IP-km IP-km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km or
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km 94% of IP-km Good
accessible*
IP-Km (>70% streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km IP-Km (>70% 67% of streams/ IP-km
Riparian average stream (>70% average (>70% average average stream (>70% average stream
Canopy Cover Fair
Vegetation canopy; >85% stream canopy; stream canopy; canopy; >85% canopy; >85% where
where coho IP >85% where coho >85% where coho where coho IP coho IP overlaps)
overlaps) IP overlaps) IP overlaps) overlaps)

Poor
50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of
streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km 0% of streams/ IP-km
Sediment (Food Gravel Quality IP-Km (>50% IP-Km (>50%
(>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream average Poor
Productivity) (Embeddedness) stream average stream average
average scores of average scores of scores of 1 & 2)
1 & 2) 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP km 75 to 89% IP km
<50% IP km (<20 C >90% IP km (<20 C
(<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT; 40% IP-km (<20 C
Water Quality <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT MWMT; <16 C MWMT Poor
where coho IP where coho IP where coho IP overlaps)
coho IP overlaps) coho IP overlaps)
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of
Water Quality Turbidity maintains severity maintains severity IP-km maintains severity Fair
score of 3 or score of 3 or score of 3 or lower
or lower or lower
lower lower
Size Viability Density <0.2 Fish/m^2 0.2 - 0.6 Fish/m^2 0.7 - 1.5 Fish/m^2 >1.5 Fish/m^2 0.2 - 0.6 Fish/m^2 Fair
<50% of Historical 50-74% of 75-90% of >90% of Historical
Viability Spatial Structure 72% of Historical Range Fair
Range Historical Range Historical Range Range
50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of
Winter Large Wood streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km 0.2% of streams/ IP-km
4 Rearing Condition Frequency (Bankfull (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Pieces/100 Poor
Juveniles Width 0-10 meters) Pieces/100 Pieces/100 meters)
meters) meters)
meters) meters)
50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of
Large Wood <50% of streams/ >90% of streams/
Habitat Frequency (Bankfull IP-Km (>1.3 Key IP-Km (>1.3 Key
(>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Pieces/100 Poor
Complexity Width 10-100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100
Pieces/100 Pieces/100 meters)
meters) meters) meters)
meters) meters)
0% of streams/ IP-km
Habitat Pool/Riffle/Flatwater IP-Km (>40% streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km IP-Km (>40%
(>40% Pools; >20% Poor
Complexity Ratio Pools; >20% (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; Pools; >20%
Riffles)
Riffles) >20% Riffles) >20% Riffles) Riffles)

<50% of IP-Km or
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km 94% of IP-km Very Good
accessible*
Poor
50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of
Sediment (Food Gravel Quality IP-Km (>50% IP-Km (>50%
(>50% stream (>50% stream IP-km (>50% stream Fair
Productivity) (Embeddedness) stream average stream average
average scores of average scores of average scores of 1 & 2)
1 & 2) 1 & 2)
<50% Response 50-80% Response >80% Response
Floodplain 50% Response Reach
Velocity Refuge Reach Reach Reach Not Defined Poor
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
Properly
Impaired/non- Impaired but Unimpaired
5 Smolts Condition Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent Functioning Impaired/non-functional Poor
functional functioning Condition
Condition
50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of
average) average)
average) average)
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
Hydrology Passage Flows Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Fair
75 50
<50% of IP-Km or
Passage/Migration <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km 94% of IP-km Very Good
accessible*
<50% IP-Km (>6 50-74% IP-Km (>6 75-90% IP-Km (>6 >90% IP-Km (>6 <50% IP-km (>6 and <14
Smoltification Temperature Poor
and <14 C) and <14 C) and <14 C) and <14 C) C)
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants

50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of
Water Quality Turbidity maintains severity maintains severity maintains severity score Poor
score of 3 or score of 3 or of 3 or lower
or lower or lower
lower lower
Smolt abundance Smolt abundance Smolt abundance
Smolt abundance which
which produces which produces to produce low
produces high risk
Size Viability Abundance high risk spawner moderate risk risk spawner Poor
spawner density per
density per spawner density density per
Spence (2008)
Spence (2008) per Spence (2008) Spence (2008)
>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of
<3% of Watershed
Watershed Landscape Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in 1% of Watershed in
6 Hydrology Impervious Surfaces in Impervious Very Good
Processes Context Impervious Impervious Impervious Impervious Surfaces
Surfaces
Surfaces Surfaces Surfaces
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of
Landscape >30% of Watershed in
Agriculture Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Poor
Patterns Agriculture
Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of
Landscape <15% of Watershed in
Timber Harvest Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Very Good
Patterns Timber Harvest
Timber Harvest Timber Harvest Timber Harvest Timber Harvest
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of
Landscape <8% of watershed 1% of watershed >1
Urbanization watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 Very Good
Patterns >1 unit/20 acres unit/20 acres
unit/20 acres unit/20 acres unit/20 acres
Riparian <25% Intact Historical
Species Composition Historical Species Historical Species Historical Species Historical Species Poor
Vegetation Species Composition
Sediment >3 Miles/Square 2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6 Miles/Square
Road Density 1.5 Miles/Square Mile Very Good
Transport Mile Miles/Square Mile Miles/Square Mile Mile
Sediment Streamside Road >1 Miles/Square 0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1 Miles/Square
3.6 Miles/Square Mile Poor
Transport Density (100 m) Mile Miles/Square Mile Miles/Square Mile Mile

Walker Creek CAP Threat Results

1 Agriculture Medium High High Medium Medium Medium High
2 Channel Modification Medium Medium Medium High High Medium High
3 Disease, Predation and Competition Low Not Specified Low Not Specified Low Not Specified Low
5 Fire, Fuel Management and Fire Suppression Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Medium High Medium High Medium High High
8 Logging and Wood Harvesting Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
9 Mining Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
11 Residential and Commercial Development Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
12 Roads and Railroads High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
14 Water Diversion and Impoundments Medium Low Medium Low Low Medium Medium
Threat Status for Targets and Project High High High High High High High

Walker Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
WkC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
WkC-CCCS- Recovery
Develop Estuary Enhancement Projects to improve MMWD,
rearing habitat for juveniles and smolts (eg. habitat Tomales Bay
WkC-CCCS- features such as LWD, vegetative cover, deeper Watershed Cost based on estuary use/residence time model
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary habitat, etc.) 2 5 Council 322.00 322 at a rate $321,745/project.
MMWD,
Maintain and improve estuarine biological, chemical, Tomales Bay
WkC-CCCS- and physical parameters necessary for high quality Watershed Cost based on treating 10% of total estuarine
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary rearing habitat for summer juveniles and smolts. 2 5 Council 482.00 482 habitat at a rate of $46,470/acre.
MMWD,
Tomales Bay
WkC-CCCS- Support a salmonid limiting factors assessment in Watershed Cost for estuary use/residence timing estimated
1.1.1.3 Action Step Estuary Keys Estero and Tomales Bay (CDFG 2004). 1 5 Council 273.00 273 at $273,217/project.
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, Marin
County, MMWD,
WkC-CCCS- Evaluate alterations to river mouth dynamics and NMFS, State
1.1.1.4 Action Step Estuary implement changes to restore natural function. 2 10 Parks, USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Recovery
1.1.2 Action Estuary Improve the quality of the estuarine habitat zones
CA Coastal
Commission,
California
Restore estuarine wetlands and sloughs, and Coastal
WkC-CCCS- perimeter and planting native emergent and riparian CDFW, Private Cost based on treating 6.5 acres (assume 5% of
1.1.2.1 Action Step Estuary species to improve foraging and cover. 2 10 Landowners 878 878 1,755 total estuarine habitat) at a rate of $272,120/acre.
Improve estuarine water quality by identifying and Marin County, Cost for continuous water quality monitoring
remediating upstream pollution sources which MMWD, stations estimated at $5,000/station. Assume
WkC-CCCS- contribute to poor water quality conditions in the SWRCB, minimum of 3 for lagoon. Cost does not account
1.1.2.2 Action Step Estuary estuary 2 10 RWQCB 7.50 7.50 15 for maintenance or data management.
Modify alterations to freshwater inflow and water
WkC-CCCS- quality (temperature, dissolved oxygen) and the CDFW, MMWD,
1.1.2.3 Action Step Estuary practice of artificial breaching. 2 12 NMFS, USACE TBD
WkC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
WkC-CCCS- Recovery
1.2.1 Action Estuary Reduce extent of estuarine shoreline development
CDFW, Marin
Minimize future encroachment of landuse County,
WkC-CCCS- (agricultural, residential and commercial) into RWQCB,
1.2.1.1 Action Step Estuary floodplain areas of the estuary. 3 50 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CA Coastal
Commission,
WkC-CCCS- the historical tidal prism and other estuarine functions Conservancy, identified and cannot be accurately determined at
1.2.1.2 Action Step Estuary and implement improvements. 3 10 CDFW TBD this time.
WkC-CCCS- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or

WkC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain

Encourage willing landowners to restore historical
WkC-CCCS- Floodplain floodplains or offchannel habitats through Marin RCD,
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity conservation easements, etc. 2 10 MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Marin County,
MMWD,
Promote restoration projects designed to create or Tomales Bay Estimated costs based on similar costs in
WkC-CCCS- Floodplain restore alcove, backchannel, ephemeral tributary, or Watershed geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity seasonal pond habitats 2 10 Council 1,527 1,527 3,054 site, setting and geographic specific.


flood pulse event that initiates substantial beneficial Marin County,
WkC-CCCS- Floodplain ecological processes when associated with Private Cost for stream flow model estimated at
2.1.2.1 Action Step Connectivity floodplain inundation (Williams et al. 2009). 3 10 Landowners 32.50 32.50 65 $65,084/project.
WkC-CCCS- Floodplain Delineate reaches possessing both potential winter Marin RCD, Cost for wetland restoration monitoring estimated
2.1.2.2 Action Step Connectivity rearing habitat and floodplain areas. 2 10 MMWD 122.00 122.00 244 at $243,169/project.
Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re-
established in low gradient response reaches of
Walker Creek. Develop and implement site specific
plans to improve these conditions to re-create, and Farm Bureau,
WkC-CCCS- Floodplain restore alcove, backwater, or perennial pond NMFS, Public
2.1.2.3 Action Step Connectivity habitats. 2 20 Works, RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
Support landowners and the Marin RCD in Marin County,

developing projects to improve channel conditions MMWD,
and restore natural channel geomorphology, Tomales Bay
WkC-CCCS- Floodplain including side channels and dense contiguous Watershed
2.1.2.4 Action Step Connectivity riparian vegetation (CDFG 2004). 2 40 Council 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Floodplain Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

Set-back existing levees in strategic areas to Cost based on treating 0.7 miles (assume 1%
WkC-CCCS- Floodplain increase flood-flow detention and promote flood- high IP) at a rate of $39.8/ft for levee setback and
2.2.1.1 Action Step Connectivity tolerant land uses. 3 10 MMWD 92.50 92.50 185 $37,698/breach.
WkC-CCCS- Recovery
Monitor, identify problems, and prioritize needed
changes to water diversion on current or potential
WkC-CCCS- steelhead streams that go dry in some years (CDFG
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology 2004). 2 60 MMWD, SPAWN 0 Cost accounted for in stream flow model.

natural hydrograph, development of alternative water Marin County,
WkC-CCCS- sources, and implementation of diversion regimes Marin RCD,
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology protective of the natural hydrograph. 2 30 MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
To improve connectivity of surface flows with
groundwater reduce aggradation and overall
WkC-CCCS- sediment load at the watershed scale by treating
3.1.1.3 Action Step Hydrology roads and sources of mass wasting. 3 10 Marin RCD 0 Cost accounted for in ROADS/RAILROADS

Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Marin County, Cost difficult to determine because of landowner
WkC-CCCS- water diversion (e.g. storage tanks for rural Marin RCD, participation. Estimate for off-channel storage is
3.1.1.4 Action Step Hydrology residential users). 2 30 MMWD TBD $5,000/site.
Cost based on type and amount of incentives to

Provide incentives to water rights holders willing to provide and participation from landowners.
convert some or all of their water right to instream Estimate for water purchase/lease is $155/ac.
WkC-CCCS- use via petition change of use and California Water DWR, NMFS, ft./year. Currently, incentive programs exist and
3.1.1.5 Action Step Hydrology Code 1707 (CDFG 2004). 3 10 SWRCB TBD should be explored and expanded upon.
WkC-CCCS- Recovery
3.1.2 Action Hydrology Improve passage flows
Continue to assess the release of water from
WkC-CCCS- Soulejule Reservoir to develop the optimum flow CDFW, MMWD,
3.1.2.1 Action Step Hydrology release for steelhead (CDFG 2004). 2 60 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Manage reservoirs and dam releases to maintain

suitable rearing temperatures and migratory flows in
WkC-CCCS- downstream habitats (e.g., pulse flow programs for CDFW, MMWD,
3.1.2.2 Action Step Hydrology adult upstream migration and smolt outmigration). 2 60 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
5.1 Objective Passage range
WkC-CCCS- Recovery
WkC-CCCS- Evaluate the feasibility of bypassing large dams

5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage (CDFG 2004) in the watershed. 3 20 MMWD, NMFS TBD Evaluate truck and trap operations
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Improve frequency of primary pool, LWD, and

CDFW, Marin
WkC-CCCS- Conduct habitat assessment in Keys Creek, RCD, Private
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity according to CDFW's protocols. 2 5 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Marin
WkC-CCCS- Utilize recommendations to prioritize reaches for RCD, Private
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity habitat improvement. 2 5 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Recovery
6.1.2 Action Habitat Complexity Improve pool/riffle/flatwater ratio
CDFW, Marin
RCD, NOAA RC, Cost based on treating 3.6 (assume 1 project/mile
Private in 50% High IP) at a rate of $29,640/mile. This
WkC-CCCS- Increase the frequencies of riffles in 55% of the Landowners, action step should be coordinated with similar
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity streams within the watershed. 2 10 RCD 53.50 53.50 107 action steps to reduce cost and redundancy.
CDFW, Marin
Increase riffle frequency to 20% by converting RCD, NOAA RC,
flatwater habitats (glides, runs, etc.) utilizing boulders Private
WkC-CCCS- and log structures in select reaches of Chilen, Landowners,
6.1.2.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity Salmon and Walker Creek. 2 5 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
WkC-CCCS- Recovery
6.1.3 Action Habitat Complexity Improve large wood frequency
CDFW, Marin
RCD, MMWD, Cost based on treating 3.6 miles (assume 1
Increase large wood frequency in 75% of streams NOAA RC, project/mile in 50% High IP) at a rate of
WkC-CCCS- within the watershed to improve conditions for adults, Private $29,640/mile. Cost may be reduced if done in
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity and winter/summer rearing juveniles. 2 10 Landowners 53.50 53.50 107 concert with increase frequencies of riffles.

CDFW, Marin
RCD, MMWD,
Increase LWD frequency to optimal conditions (>2 NOAA RC,
WkC-CCCS- key LWD pieces/100 meters) in middle and upper Private
6.1.3.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity reaches of Walker Creek. 2 10 Landowners 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
CDFW, Marin
WkC-CCCS- Modify MMWD's multi-agency MOU for Large RCD, MMWD,
6.1.3.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity Woody Debris to include Walker Creek. 2 1 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Marin
RCD, MMWD,
NOAA RC,
Increase LWD frequency to optimal conditions (>6 Private
WkC-CCCS- key LWD pieces/100 meters) in all reaches of Landowners,
6.1.3.4 Action Step Habitat Complexity Chileno, Salmon and Verde Canyon. 2 10 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
WkC-CCCS- Recovery
6.1.4 Action Habitat Complexity Improve frequency of primary pools
CDFW, Marin
Increase primary pool frequency in 75% of streams RCD, NOAA RC, Cost for this action step is accounted for in other
WkC-CCCS- within the watershed to improve conditions for Private action steps above. Increasing primary pools is
6.1.4.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity adults, and summer/winter juveniles. 2 10 Landowners 0 part of LWD placement and increase riffles.

conditions (>40% of pools meet primary pool criteria CDFW, Marin
(>2.5 feet deep in 1st and 2nd order streams; >3 feet RCD, NOAA RC,
WkC-CCCS- in third order or larger streams)) in all reaches of Private
6.1.4.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity Chileno, Verde Canyon, and Walker Creek. 2 10 Landowners 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
WkC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, Marin
Increase shelters in 75% of streams across the RCD, NOAA RC,
WkC-CCCS- watershed to improve conditions for adults, and Private Cost accounted for in increase pools, riffles, and
6.1.5.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity winter/summer rearing juveniles. 2 20 Landowners 0 LWD frequency.
CDFW, Marin
Increase shelters to optimal conditions (>80 pool RCD, NOAA RC,
WkC-CCCS- shelter value) in all reaches of Chileno, Salmon, Private
6.1.5.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity Verde Canyon and Walker Creeks. 2 10 Landowners 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
WkC-CCCS- Recovery
Assess riparian canopy, extent of exotic vegetation
(e.g., Arundo donax, etc.), and prioritize, develop and
WkC-CCCS- implement riparian habitat projects using native
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian vegetation. 1 20 Marin RCD TBD
Support grazing practices that minimize impacts to
WkC-CCCS- riparian and instream habitat: livestock exclusion, Marin RCD,
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian rotational grazing, etc. 1 60 RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Increase the width of riparian corridors to 100' to City Planning,
WkC-CCCS- allow multi-age stands of native trees and shrubs, Land Trusts,
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian and eventual recruitment of LWD. 3 50 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- riparian buffers throughout the watershed (CDFG Land Trusts,
7.1.1.4 Action Step Riparian 2004). 2 30 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Recovery

CDFW, NOAA
Increase tree diameter within 55% of watershed to RC, Private
WkC-CCCS- achieve optimal riparian forest conditions (55 - 69% Landowners,
7.1.2.1 Action Step Riparian Class 5 & 6 tree). 3 30 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
Improve the structure and composition of riparian CDFW, NOAA
areas to provide shade, large woody debris input, RC, Private
WkC-CCCS- nutrient input, bank stabilization, and other steelhead Landowners,
7.1.2.2 Action Step Riparian needs. 2 20 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
Plant native riparian species and native

conifers/hardwoods throughout riparian zones within CDFW, NOAA
the northern (Chileno and Keys Creek) and eastern RC, Private
WkC-CCCS- (Walker and Salmon Creek) portions of the Landowners,
7.1.2.3 Action Step Riparian watershed to increase overall tree diameter. 1 20 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
Encourage programs to purchase land/conservation
WkC-CCCS- easements to re-establish and enhance natural Marin RCD,
7.1.2.4 Action Step Riparian riparian communities. 3 10 MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Improve instream gravel quality and distribution for

8.1.1 Action Sediment macro-invertebrate production (food)
Marin County,
Marin RCD,
Reduce embeddness levels to the extent that 75% to Private
WkC-CCCS- 90% of streams within the watershed meet optimal Landowners, Habitat typing analysis should identify areas with
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment criteria (>50% stream average scores of 1 & 2). 2 20 RCD TBD high embeddness.
Conduct instream and upslope sediment source Marin County,

surveys in upper Walker Creek and sub-watersheds Marin RCD,
(Salmon and Key Creeks) to identify existing sources Private Cost for erosion assessment estimated at
WkC-CCCS- of high sediment yield using accepted protocols and Landowners, $14.39/acre (assume 25% of total watershed
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment implement recommendations. 2 10 RCD 86.50 86.50 173 acres).
CDFW, Marin
County, Marin
Implement recommendations of completed sediment RCD, Private
WkC-CCCS- source surveys in the watershed (See ROADS for Landowners,
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment specific actions). 2 5 RCD TBD
Fence riparian areas from grazing (using fencing CDFW, Marin
WkC-CCCS- standards that allow other wildlife to access the RCD, NOAA RC,
8.1.1.4 Action Step Sediment stream). 1 20 NRCS 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.

incentive-based approaches to encourage and
WkC-CCCS- support landowners who conduct operations in a Marin RCD,
8.1.1.5 Action Step Sediment manner compatible with steelhead recovery priorities. 1 60 NMFS, NRCS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Recovery
8.1.2 Action Sediment Improve instream gravel quantity
Cost difficult to determine at this time. Information

Marin RCD, from habitat typing will identify areas deficient in
WkC-CCCS- Increase the quantity and distribution of spawning MMWD, suitable spawning substrate. Estimate for
8.1.2.1 Action Step Sediment gravels in 50% of streams within the watershed. 1 20 RWQCB TBD spawning gravel is $38/cu. yd.
Implement high priority steelhead enhancement
projects for the reduction of sediment delivery and
the restoration of riparian corridors as listed in the Marin RCD,
WkC-CCCS- Walker Creek Enhancement Plan (Prunuske MMWD,
8.1.2.2 Action Step Sediment Chatham Inc. 2001, CDFG 2004). 1 20 RWQCB 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.

CDFW, NMFS,
Develop habitat enhancement projects to establish NOAA RC,
additional riffle habitat and import spawning gravel Private
from mining operations in the Russian River basin to Landowners,
WkC-CCCS- select reaches of Chileno, Salmon, Verde Canyon, RCD, Trout
8.1.2.3 Action Step Sediment Frink Canyon and Walker Creeks. 1 5 Unlimited 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
Marin RCD, Cost based on treating 3.6 miles (assume 1
WkC-CCCS- Place instream structures to improve gravel retention MMWD, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
8.1.2.4 Action Step Sediment and habitat complexity. 2 10 RWQCB 53.50 53.50 107 $29,640/mile.
WkC-CCCS- Recovery

baseline conditions and judge the efficacy of CDFW, NMFS,
restoration actions. High priority streams include NRCS, Private
WkC-CCCS- tributary and mainstem reaches within Salmon and Landowners,
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality Walker Creeks (CDFG stream survey reports). 2 10 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in action step below.
Cost for stream temperature gauges estimated at

$500/gauge. Assume minimum of 10. Cost does
not account for maintenance or data
CDFW, NMFS, management. This action step relies on
Improve water temperature conditions for migrating NRCS, Private implementation of other action steps such as
WkC-CCCS- smolts and summer rearing juvenile salmonids Landowners, reducing surface water diversions during low-flow
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality throughout 35% of watershed. 1 10 RCD 2.50 2.50 5 summer months and increasing riparian canopy.
CDFW, NMFS, This action step relies on implementation of other
NRCS, Private action steps such as reducing surface water
WkC-CCCS- Reduce temperature levels within lower and upper Landowners, diversions during low-flow summer months and
10.1.1.3 Action Step Water Quality Salmon and Walker Creeks. 1 25 RCD TBD increasing riparian canopy.
CDFW, NMFS, This action step relies on implementation of other
Reduce water temperatures in Chileno and Frink NRCS, Private action steps such as reducing surface water
WkC-CCCS- Canyon Creek by identifying potential summer Landowners, diversions during low-flow summer months and
10.1.1.4 Action Step Water Quality rearing areas that need enhancement. 1 RCD TBD increasing riparian canopy.
CDFW, NMFS,
Rehabilitate or restore riparian corridor conditions NRCS, Private
WkC-CCCS- within all current and potential high value habitat Landowners,
10.1.1.5 Action Step Water Quality summer rearing areas. 1 20 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
CDFW, NMFS,
Develop site-specific recommendations, including NRCS, Private
WkC-CCCS- incentives, to remedy high temperatures and Landowners, Cost difficult to determine without temperature
10.1.1.6 Action Step Water Quality implement (CDFG 2004). 2 3 RCD TBD monitoring data.
Investigate the potential to reduce water temperature
WkC-CCCS- within Walker Creek by releasing water from Walker CDFW, MMWD,
10.1.1.7 Action Step Water Quality Creek Dam. 2 10 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Plant native vegetation to promote streamside NOAA RC,
shade: increase the canopy by planting native NRCS, Private
WkC-CCCS- species where shade canopy is not at acceptable Landowners,
10.1.1.8 Action Step Water Quality levels. 1 20 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
WkC-CCCS- Recovery
Cost partially accounted for in water quality

NMFS, Private monitoring stations. Recommendations to treat
WkC-CCCS- Identify and provide solutions for point and non-point Landowners, point and non-point source of pollution vary widely
10.1.2.1 Action Step Water Quality sources contributing to toxicity and turbidity. 2 10 RWQCB TBD depending upon the type and amount of pollutant.

Cost for continuous water quality monitoring
stations estimated at $5,000/station. Assume a
minimum of 5 strategically placed in watershed.
Cost does not account for maintenance or data
NMFS, Private management. This action step should be in
WkC-CCCS- Install continuous water quality monitoring stations in Landowners, concert with estuary continuous water quality
10.1.2.2 Action Step Water Quality lower Walker and within Salmon Creeks 3 5 RWQCB 25.00 25 monitoring.
CDFW, CDFW
Law
Enforcement,
NMFS, NMFS
WkC-CCCS- Implement recommendation to restore the Gambioni OLE, RWQCB,
10.1.2.3 Action Step Water Quality Mine 2 5 USEPA TBD Costs are site-specific.
NRCS, Private
WkC-CCCS- Work with livestock and ranch owners to implement Landowners,
10.1.2.4 Action Step Water Quality BMP's to control sediment and nitrates 3 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Recovery
Conduct sediment source surveys to identify existing
sources of high sediment yield using accepted CDFW, Marin
protocols and develop and implement County, Marin
WkC-CCCS- recommendations to address sources of detrimental RCD, MMWD, Cost for sediment assessment estimated at
10.1.3.1 Action Step Water Quality sediment input. 3 10 NMFS 39.00 39.00 78 $14.39/acre.
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and

WkC-CCCS- reflect new habitat improvements and accessible
WkC-CCCS- Conduct habitat surveys to monitor change in key

11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability habitat variables 3 10 CDFW, NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
To better understand changes in sedimentation,

monitoring in the basin should include: longitudinal
WkC-CCCS- profiles, cross-sections, V*, LWD volume and Marin RCD,
11.1.1.3 Action Step Viability distribution, and embeddedness. 2 60 MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- CDFW, MMWD,

11.1.1.4 Action Step Viability Develop smolt abundance estimates 1 10 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, MMWD,
NMFS, Trout
WkC-CCCS- Unlimited, UC Cost based on outmigrant trapping at a rate of
11.1.1.5 Action Step Viability Support MMWD in operation of outmigrant traps 1 10 Extension 340.50 340.50 681 $68,103/project.
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

12.1.1 Action Agriculture connectivity (impaired quality & extent)
Farm Bureau,
NRCS, Private
WkC-CCCS- Minimize agricultural activities from within 100 feet of Landowners,
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture the edge of the stream. 2 50 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NRCS, Private Cost based on number of off-channel storage
Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Landowners, sites needed to reduce impacts to spring and
WkC-CCCS- water diversion during the spring and summer (e.g. RCD, UC summer flows. Estimate for off-channel storage
12.1.1.2 Action Step Agriculture diversion during winter high flow). 2 10 Extension TBD is $5,000/site.

WkC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed

12.1.2 Action Agriculture hydrology
WkC-CCCS- or micro-sprayers) which eliminate or minimize water Landowners,
12.1.2.1 Action Step Agriculture use. 3 60 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
WkC-CCCS- runoff to stream channels (see Roads for specific Landowners,
12.1.3.1 Action Step Agriculture actions/areas). 3 60 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in ROADS/RAILROADS
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
WkC-CCCS- Assess the effectiveness of erosion control Landowners,
12.1.3.2 Action Step Agriculture measures throughout the winter period. 3 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- participating in sediment reduction planning and Landowners,
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian


WkC-CCCS- sediment source reduction, riparian habitat, forest Landowners, Cost of completing Farm Conservation Plan
12.1.4.1 Action Step Agriculture health, and restoration. 3 10 RCD 100 estimated at approximately $100,000 per plan.
CDFW, Private
Landowners,
WkC-CCCS- Re-establish native plant communities in riparian RCD, UC
12.1.4.2 Action Step Agriculture zones to increase stream canopy to 80%. 1 20 Extension TBD Costs are site-specific.
WkC-CCCS- corridors to provide future recruitment of large wood Landowners, Costs will vary depending on methods
12.1.4.3 Action Step Agriculture and other shelter components. 2 50 RCD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
WkC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory



WkC-CCCS- currently occur, and enforce requirements of local Marin County,
12.2.1.1 Action Step Agriculture regulations where they do. 3 10 RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

WkC-CCCS- land conversions to discourage conversions to Forestry, CDFW,
12.2.1.2 Action Step Agriculture agriculture. 3 50 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape

Design new developments to avoid or minimize Marin County,
impacts to unstable slopes, wetlands, areas of high Private
WkC-CCCS- habitat value, and similarly constrained sites that Landowners,
12.2.2.1 Action Step Agriculture occur adjacent to watercourses. 3 60 RCD, USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Farm Bureau,
Marin County,
WkC-CCCS- environmentally sound agricultural growth and water County, UC
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed

12.2.3 Action Agriculture hydrology
Pursue opportunities to acquire or lease water, or

acquire water rights from willing sellers, for steelhead
and Chinook salmon recovery purposes. Develop CDFW,
incentives for water right holders to dedicate MCRRFCD,
WkC-CCCS- instream flows for the protection of steelhead and MMWD,
12.2.3.1 Action Step Agriculture Chinook salmon (Water Code 1707). 2 10 RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, RCD,
WkC-CCCS- Streamline permit processing where landowners are SWRCB,
12.2.3.2 Action Step Agriculture conducting actions aligned with recovery priorities. 3 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

Evaluate undeveloped and developed floodplain
WkC-CCCS- Channel property for potential function and conservation Marin County, Cost for wetland monitoring estimated at
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification easement and/or acquisition potential. 3 10 RCD 122.00 122.00 244 $243,169/project.

backwater, or perennial pond habitats in lower
Walker Creek or other areas where channel CDFW, NOAA
modification has resulted in decreased shelter, LWD RC, Private
WkC-CCCS- Channel frequency, and habitat complexity, (See Landowners,
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification FLOODPLAIN for specific actions/criteria). 2 20 USACE 0 Cost accounted for in above actions steps.

WkC-CCCS- Channel (e.g. carefully evaluate feasibility where critical CDFW, NMFS,
Evaluate undeveloped and developed floodplain Cost partially accounted for in above action step.
WkC-CCCS- Channel property for potential function and conservation Marin County, Cost based on riparian restoration model at a rate
13.1.1.4 Action Step Modification easement and/or acquisition potential. 3 5 RCD 85.00 85 of $$84,124/project.
CDFW, Marin
County, NOAA
Conduct rehabilitation activities that restore channels, RC, NRCS,
floodplains and meadows to extend the duration of Private
WkC-CCCS- Channel the summer flow and provide refuge from high winter Landowners,
13.1.1.5 Action Step Modification flows. 2 20 USACE 0 Costs accounted for in other actions
WkC-CCCS- Channel enhance steelhead migration under high and low flow
WkC-CCCS- Channel Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

WkC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

WkC-CCCS- Channel habitat protection, and/or alternatives that minimize Marin County,
13.2.1.1 Action Step Modification impacts to salmonid habitat. 3 60 NMFS, USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Minimize additional channel modification or utilize

WkC-CCCS- Channel BMP's described in Diversity Stratum level actions to Marin County,
13.2.1.2 Action Step Modification address flood control or bank stabilization issue. 3 60 NMFS, USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Channel woody debris to ensure improved habitat at the CDFW, NMFS,
processes to minimize new construction of
permanent infrastructure that will adversely affect
watershed processes, particularly within the 100-year City Planning,
WkC-CCCS- Channel flood prone zones in all historical CCC steelhead Marin County,
13.2.1.4 Action Step Modification watersheds. 3 10 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Assess riparian canopy, extent of exotic vegetation
(e.g., Arundo donax, etc.), and prioritize, develop and
WkC-CCCS- implement riparian habitat projects using native Cost based on riparian restoration model at a rate
18.1.1.1 Action Step Livestock vegetation. 2 5 Marin RCD TBD of $84,124/project.
Support grazing practices that minimize impacts to
WkC-CCCS- riparian and instream habitat: livestock exclusion, Marin RCD,
18.1.1.2 Action Step Livestock rotational grazing, etc. 2 60 RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Cities, County
Increase the width of riparian corridors to 100' to Planning, Private
WkC-CCCS- allow multi-age stands of native trees and shrubs, Landowners,
18.1.1.3 Action Step Livestock and eventual recruitment of LWD. 2 50 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Promote streamside conservation measures, City Planning,

including conservation easements, setbacks, and Land Trusts,
WkC-CCCS- riparian buffers throughout the watershed (CDFG Marin County,
18.1.1.4 Action Step Livestock 2004). 3 60 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Improve the structure and composition of riparian
areas to provide shade, large woody debris input, Private
WkC-CCCS- nutrient input, bank stabilization, and other CCC Landowners,
18.1.1.5 Action Step Livestock steelhead needs. 3 30 RCD TBD Cost likely accounted for in above action step.
Encourage programs to purchase land/conservation
WkC-CCCS- easements to re-establish and enhance natural Marin RCD,
18.1.1.6 Action Step Livestock riparian communities. 3 10 MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Develop a watershed wide program with Marin RCD
to identify riparian corridors subject to livestock
grazing, and develop and implement livestock
WkC-CCCS- exclusion measures to protect and improve riparian Marin RCD,
18.1.1.7 Action Step Livestock resources. 1 30 NMFS, NRCS 0 Costs accounted for in other actions

WkC-CCCS- operations should take first priority for riparian Marin RCD, Cost based on treating 0.4 miles (assume 1
18.1.1.8 Action Step Livestock fencing programs over steer operations. 1 5 NRCS 8.80 9 project/mile in 5% high IP) at a rate of $4.14/ft.
Cost accounted for in above action step. Cost
may be higher if greater participation from
WkC-CCCS- Aid landowners willing to fence off riparian areas with Marin RCD, landowners. Estimate for off-stream water
18.1.1.9 Action Step Livestock development of offstream alternative water sources. 1 30 NRCS 0 sources is $5,000/site.
Develop and fund riparian restoration and bank
WkC-CCCS- stabilization projects to regain riparian corridors Marin RCD,
18.1.1.10 Action Step Livestock damaged from livestock and other causes. 2 30 NRCS 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.

Marin RCD,
WkC-CCCS- Manage rotational grazing to aid in the reduction of NRCS, Private
WkC-CCCS- Recovery (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Marin RCD,
WkC-CCCS- Where necessary, establish predetermined stream NRCS, Private This action step should be coordinated with
18.1.2.1 Action Step Livestock crossings when herding cattle between pastures. 2 60 Landowners TBD riparian exclusion fencing.

Short term, seasonal and long term rest from grazing Marin RCD,
WkC-CCCS- in overgrazed areas would improve soil conditions for NRCS, Private
18.1.2.2 Action Step Livestock native revegetation and land values as well. 3 60 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Marin RCD,
WkC-CCCS- To minimize gully initiation, grazing should be kept at NRCS, Private
18.1.2.3 Action Step Livestock relatively low intensities on steeper slopes. 3 60 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind

with 1000 lbs RDM (residual dry matter)/acre left at Marin RCD,
WkC-CCCS- end of grazing season. Remove cattle from pasture NRCS, Private
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

Cost difficult to determine because of landowner

Increase the use of water storage and catchment Marin RCD, participation. Cost for water storage and
WkC-CCCS- systems that collect rainwater in the winter for use NRCS, Private catchment system can range from $100-$50,000
18.1.3.1 Action Step Livestock during the dry summer and fall seasons. 2 60 Landowners TBD depending upon size and complexity of system.
WkC-CCCS- modification or curtailment of the species habitat or
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

Board of
Forestry, Marin
County, NMFS,
Encourage forest management which allows for Private
WkC-CCCS- optimal levels of natural LWD recruitment of larger Landowners, US Recruitment of LWD to the stream is critical.
19.1.1.1 Action Step Logging older trees into stream channels. 3 60 EPA 0 Action is considered In-Kind

19.1.2 Action Logging species composition and structure
Board of
Forestry, CDFW,
WkC-CCCS- Conserve and manage forestlands for older forest Marin County,
19.1.2.1 Action Step Logging stages. 3 60 NMFS, USEPA 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/ Address the present or threatened destruction,
WkC-CCCS- Commercial modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
Residential/
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
Residential/ Develop riparian setbacks/buffers where they do not

WkC-CCCS- Commercial currently occur, and enforce requirements of local City Planning,
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development regulations where they do. 3 30 County Planning 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Residential/ Reduce impacts of existing development in
WkC-CCCS- Commercial floodplains/riparian zones by encouraging willing
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development landowners to restore these areas. 3 15 CDFW, RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Land Trusts,
Residential/ Explore the use of conservation easements to Private
WkC-CCCS- Commercial provide incentives for private landowners to preserve Landowners,
22.1.1.3 Action Step Development riparian corridors. 3 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/ Private
WkC-CCCS- Commercial Utilize native plants when landscaping and Landowners, UC
22.1.1.4 Action Step Development discourage the use of exotic invasives. 3 50 Extension 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
Residential/ maintenance practices and evaluate, avoid, minimize
WkC-CCCS- Commercial and/or mitigate their impacts to rearing and migrating County Planning,
22.1.2.1 Action Step Development salmonids. 3 50 MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
New development in all historic CCC steelhead
Residential/ watersheds should mimimize increase in storm-water County Planning,
WkC-CCCS- Commercial runoff, changes in duration, or magnitude of peak RWQCB,
22.1.2.2 Action Step Development flow. 3 50 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
funding of larger detention devices in key watersheds Costs depend on extents and type of mitigation
Residential/ with ongoing channel degradation or in sub- County Planning, and/or detention proposed, and cannot be
WkC-CCCS- Commercial watersheds where impervious surface area > 10 RWQCB, Water determined at this time.
22.1.2.3 Action Step Development percent. 3 25 Agencies TBD
County Planning, Cost based on amount and type of incentives to

Residential/ Private provide for rooftop water storage devices.
WkC-CCCS- Commercial Encourage the use and provide incentives for rooftop Landowners, Estimate for some types of rooftop storage range
22.1.2.4 Action Step Development water storage and other conservation devices. 2 20 Water Agencies TBD from $500-25,000/station.
Residential/
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape
Identify areas at high risk of conversion from forest to
Residential/ rural residential, etc. and develop incentives and County Planning,
WkC-CCCS- Commercial alternatives for landowners that discourage Private
22.1.3.1 Action Step Development conversion. 3 20 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Board of
Forestry, CalFire,
Residential/ Discourage home building or other incompatible land CDFW, City
WkC-CCCS- Commercial use in areas identified as timber production zones Planning, County
22.1.3.2 Action Step Development (TPZ). 3 25 Planning 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/
WkC-CCCS- Commercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
Residential/
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
Residential/ Dept. of Housing, Association of Bay Area
WkC-CCCS- Commercial Governments and other government associations County Planning,
22.2.1.1 Action Step Development (CDFG 2004). 3 20 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/
WkC-CCCS- Commercial Implement performance standards in Stormwater County Planning,
22.2.1.2 Action Step Development Management Plans. 3 20 RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Residential/
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape

Residential/ infrastructure and replacement with native vegetation Costs associated with policy development are
WkC-CCCS- Commercial or flood tolerant land uses) for areas highly City Planning, expected to be minimal. Action is considered In-
22.2.2.1 Action Step Development susceptible to, or previously damaged from, flooding. 3 25 County Planning 0 Kind
California
Department of
Mines and
Geology,
CalTrans, City
Planning, County
Modify Federal, State, local processes, and County Planning, NMFS,
Residential/ General Plans, to minimize new construction in Private Effective and consistent implementation of these
WkC-CCCS- Commercial undeveloped areas within the 100-year flood prone Landowners, policies are anticipated to have little cost. Action is
22.2.2.2 Action Step Development zone. 3 60 Public, Federal 0 considered In-Kind.
Work with counties to develop and implement
ordinances to restrict subdivisions by requiring a
Residential/ minimum acreage limit for parcelization in concert Costs associated with development and
WkC-CCCS- Commercial with limits on water supply and groundwater recharge County Planning, implementation of ordinances is difficult to
22.2.2.3 Action Step Development areas. 3 15 RCD 0 determine. Action is considered In-Kind
Design new developments to avoid or minimize County Planning, Stringent review by permitting agencies is
Residential/ impacts to unstable slopes, wetlands, areas of high Private expected to reduce costs associated with poorly
WkC-CCCS- Commercial habitat value, and similarly constrained sites that Landowners, planned and poorly located developments. Action
22.2.2.4 Action Step Development occur adjacent to watercourses. 3 60 USACE 0 is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
Private
Assess roads in Salmon Creek, Walker Creek and Landowners,
WkC-CCCS- Keys Creek to identify high priority and high sediment Public Works,
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads yield sources. 2 10 RCD 12.00 12.00 24
Develop a Road Sediment Reduction Plan that
prioritizes sites and outlines implementation and a
timeline of necessary actions. Begin with a road CDFW, Marin
WkC-CCCS- survey focused on inner gorge roads followed by County, NMFS, Cost based on road inventory of 116 miles of
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads roads in other settings. 2 5 NRCS 127.00 127 road network at a rate of $1,090/mile
Marin County, Cost based on amount and type of prescriptions

Marin RCD, to disconnect roads and trails to watercourses.
WkC-CCCS- Reduce the hydrologic connectivity of roads and MMWD, Private Estimate for some prescriptions range from
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads trails to adjacent crossings across watercourses. 3 60 Landowners TBD $3,531 - $7,000/mile (Jahren et al 2005).
Restoration projects that upgrade or decommission
high risk roads in high priority areas should be
WkC-CCCS- considered an extremely high priority for funding CDFW, NMFS,
23.1.1.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads (e.g., PCSRF). 2 60 RWQCB, WCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
watercourses. High priority streams identified by
CDFG habitat reports include Verde Canyon, Frink NRCS, Private
WkC-CCCS- Canyon, and Salmon Creek Landowners, Cost based on treating 3 miles of riparian road at
23.1.1.5 Action Step Roads/Railroads (http://coastalwatersheds.ca.gov/). 2 10 Public Works 18.00 18.00 36 a rate of $12,000/mile.


WkC-CCCS- watercourses. Coordinate these efforts with all Landowners, Cost based on road assessment identifying
23.1.1.6 Action Step Roads/Railroads landowners in the watershed. 3 20 Public Works TBD number and type of adequate spoils sites needed.

maintenance, management (e.g. Fishnet 4C, 2004; Private
WkC-CCCS- Weaver and Hagans, 1994; Sommarstrom et al., Landowners,
23.1.1.7 Action Step Roads/Railroads 2002; Oregon Department of Transportation, 1999). 3 50 Public Works 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Private
Landowners,
WkC-CCCS- increase the size of ditch relief culverts, or replace RCD, State
Private
Upgrade and decommission sites and road networks Landowners,
WkC-CCCS- where appropriate. These actions include outsloping Public Works,
23.1.1.9 Action Step Roads/Railroads roads, ditch relief culverts, and installing rolling dips. 2 10 RCD 0 Costs accounted for in other actions
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

CDFW, Private
Landowners,
WkC-CCCS- Assess private and public road stream crossings for RCD, Trout
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads barrier potential and implement recommendations. 2 5 Unlimited 0 Cost accounted for in road assessment.
culverts, fills, and other crossings) to accommodate Landowners, Cost based on treating 4 crossings (assume
WkC-CCCS- 100-year flood flows and associated bedload and Public Works, upgrade to bottomless arch) at a rate of
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads debris. 2 10 State Parks 446.00 446.00 892 $223,051/unit.
WkC-CCCS- accommodate 100-year flood flows and associated
23.1.2.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads bedload and debris. 3 50 Public Works 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City Planning,
Prevent future barriers on newly constructed roads County Planning,
WkC-CCCS- utilizing NMFS Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Private
23.1.2.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads Stream Crossings (NMFS 2001a). 3 25 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Board of
Forestry,
CalTrans,
span or constructed with the minimum number of Landowners, Incorporating free span bridges into replacement
WkC-CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation Public Works, and new construction plans is unlikely to increase
23.1.2.5 Action Step Roads/Railroads and facilitate fish passage. 3 60 RCD 0 costs. Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape

Conduct outreach and education regarding the
WkC-CCCS- adverse effects of roads, and the types of best
23.1.3.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads management practices protective of salmonids. 2 5 CDFW, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind

WkC-CCCS- improper road construction and maintenance on Cost to expand an existing program are expected
23.1.3.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads salmonids and their habitats. 2 5 CDFW, RCD 0 to be minimal.
Action is considered In-Kind

WkC-CCCS- Severe Weather Address other natural or manmade factors affecting

WkC-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality

24.1.1 Action Patterns (impaired stream temperature)
Maintain canopy levels at desirable levels in all CDFW, NOAA
streams and restore canopy levels to desirable levels RC, Private
WkC-CCCS- Severe Weather in high value habitat areas (See WATER QUALITY Landowners,
24.1.1.1 Action Step Patterns for specific actions/areas. 1 25 Trout Unlimited TBD
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

Board of
Forestry, CA
Coastal
Commission,
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
California
Department of
Mines and
Geology,
CalTrans,
CDFW, CDFW
Law
Enforcement,
City Planning,
Farm Bureau,
FEMA, NMFS,
NRCS, Public
Works, RWQCB,
State Parks,
WkC-CCCS- Severe Weather operations during droughts and floods while also USEPA, USGS,
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to the estuary

24.1.3 Action Patterns (impaired quality and extent)
Evaluate and prepare contingency plans to breach

estuary sandbars to facilitate adult upmigration when
WkC-CCCS- Severe Weather instream flows are adequate for passage and
24.1.3.1 Action Step Patterns spawning if sandbar remains closed by mid-January. 2 15 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind

assure adequate and proper consideration is given to
fish needs. Develop agreements, which will minimize
WkC-CCCS- Severe Weather water-use conflicts and impacts on fish and wildlife CDFW, MMWD,
24.1.3.2 Action Step Patterns resources during drought conditions. 2 60 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Manage reservoirs and dam releases to maintain
suitable rearing temperatures and migratory flows in
downstream habitats and the estuary (e.g., pulse flow
WkC-CCCS- Severe Weather programs for adult upstream migration and smolt CDFW, MMWD,
24.1.3.3 Action Step Patterns outmigration). 2 60 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Severe Weather Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory


WkC-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

Work with CDFW, County and knowledgeable
biologists to develop severe weather emergency
rules that consider the lifehistory requirements of
salmonids and adopt implementation agreements
regarding contingency efforts during drought
WkC-CCCS- Severe Weather conditions. USACE, Water
24.2.1.1 Action Step Patterns 2 15 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Costs are expected to be minimal as some of
Implement water conservation strategies that provide these efforts will be part of existing programs,
for drought contingencies without relying on CDFW, however some technical assistance may be
WkC-CCCS- Severe Weather interception of surface flows or groundwater RWQCB, Water necessary from a variety of agencies. Action is
24.2.1.2 Action Step Patterns depletion. 3 10 Agencies 0 considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Water Diversion modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
25.1 Objective /Impoundment range
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

CDFW, Marin
County, MMWD,
Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Private
WkC-CCCS- Water Diversion water diversion (e.g., storage tanks for rural Landowners, Costs are minimal to promote. Action is
25.1.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment residential users). 2 20 RCD, RWQCB 0 considered In-Kind
CDFW, Farm Promoting water conservation best practices is

WkC-CCCS- Water Diversion Promote water conservation best practices such as Bureau, NRCS, not expected to result in additional costs. Action
25.1.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment drip irrigation for vineyards. 3 20 Water Agencies 0 is considered In-Kind
Costs associated with promoting use of reclaimed
WkC-CCCS- Water Diversion Promote the use of reclaimed water for agricultural or CDFW, RCD, water is expected to be minimal. Action is
25.1.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment other uses. 3 60 Water Agencies 0 considered In-Kind
CDFW, County
Planning, RCD, Costs associated with promoting conjunctive use
WkC-CCCS- Water Diversion Promote conjunctive use of water with water projects RWQCB, Water of water is expected to be minimal. Action is
25.1.1.4 Action Step /Impoundment whenever possible. 3 60 Agencies 0 considered In-Kind
migratory reaches for effects on the natural
WkC-CCCS- Water Diversion hydrograph and the supply of spawning gravel for Evaluation costs are expected to be minimal.
25.1.1.5 Action Step /Impoundment recruitment downstream (CDFG 2004). 3 5 CDFW, USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,

Cost based on amount and type of fish screens

WkC-CCCS- Water Diversion Adequately screen water diversions to prevent needed to prevent juvenile salmonid mortalities.
25.1.2.1 Action Step /Impoundment juvenile salmonid mortalities. 2 10 CDFW, NMFS TBD Estimate for fish screen is $60,950/screen.
Promote passive diversion devices designed to allow NMFS, RCD,

WkC-CCCS- Water Diversion diversion of water only when minimum streamflow RWQCB, Water
25.1.2.2 Action Step /Impoundment requirements are met or exceeded (CDFG 2004). 3 30 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind

reservoirs, bypass flows protective of salmonids and Costs associated with promoting conjunctive use
WkC-CCCS- Water Diversion their habitats, and avoidance of adverse impacts CDFW, RCD, of water is expected to be minimal. Action is
25.1.2.3 Action Step /Impoundment caused by water diversion (CDFG 2004). 3 60 Water Agencies 0 considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to the estuary

25.1.3 Action /Impoundment (impaired quality and extent)

Upgrade the existing water rights information system
WkC-CCCS- Water Diversion so that water allocations can be readily quantified by CDFW, NMFS,
25.1.3.1 Action Step /Impoundment watershed. 3 10 RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Cost based on implement 3 continuous water

County Planning, quality monitoring stations at a rate of $5,000/site.
WkC-CCCS- Water Diversion Identify upstream pollution sources which contribute SWRCB, Water Cost does not account for data management or
25.1.3.2 Action Step /Impoundment to poor water quality conditions in the estuary. 2 5 Agencies 15.00 15 maintenance.
WkC-CCCS- Water Diversion Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

WkC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

CDFW, County
Request that SWRCB review and/or modify water Planning, RCD, Coordination costs are expected to be minimal,
WkC-CCCS- Water Diversion use based on the needs of salmonids and authorized RWQCB, Water depending on what specific actions are proposed.
25.2.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment diverters (CDFG 2004). 2 5 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WkC-CCCS- Water Diversion Improve compliance with existing water resource NMFS, RWQCB, associated costs are expected to be minimal.

CCC Steelhead DPS Rapid Assessment Profile:
North Coastal Diversity Stratum Populations
Estero Americano
Role within DPS: Independent Population
Spawner Density Target: 210-423
Drakes Bay Tributaries

Role within DPS: Dependent Population
Spawner Density Target: N/A
Current Intrinsic Potential: N/A
Pine Gulch
Spawner Density Target: 56-114 adults
Redwood Creek (Marin County)


There has been no sampling or recent documentation of steelhead in Estero Americano; however,
infrequent sampling in Drakes Bay tributaries has documented low to moderate numbers of
juvenile steelhead. Ongoing annual monitoring by the National Park Service (NPS) in Pine Gulch
and Redwood Creek has documented moderate numbers of multiple life stages of steelhead.
There is a paucity of information on the abundance of steelhead in the small tributaries to Drakes
Bay; however, juvenile steelhead have been observed in East Schooner Creek, Home Ranch Creek,
Glenbrook Creek, Muddy Hollow Creek, Laguna Creek, Coast Camp Creek, and Coast Creek
(Brannon Ketchum and Michael Reichmuth, NPS, personal communications, 2013). During the
past decade, the NPS has completed several projects designed to enhance the steelhead
populations in these streams, including the replacement of culverts with bridges on East Schooner
Creek, Home Ranch Creek, and Laguna Creek, restoration of the Estero de Limantour, removal
of the Muddy Hollow dam, and riparian fencing on Home Ranch Creek.

The NPS reports that steelhead habitat extends from the mouth of Pine Gulch Creek upstream
approximately 6.1 miles on the mainstem, and that the creeks two largest tributaries, McCurdy
Creek and McCormick Creek, also provide steelhead habitat (NPS 2005). NPS (2011) reports that
average densities of young-of-year steelhead in pool, riffle, and flatwater habitats of Pine Gulch
Creek were 0.32, 0.30 and 1.12 fish/m2 during the years 2005-2007, and were 0.45, 0.32 and 0.08
fish/m2 in 2008 (NPS 2011). Although the Park Service does not report densities of older (age 1+)
steelhead, NPS (2011) states that at six study sites in 2008, a total of 355 young-of-year and 72 age
1+ steelhead were caught.
NPS (2011) reports that average densities of young-of-year steelhead in pool, riffle, and flatwater
habitats of Redwood Creek were 0.39, 0.09 and 0.25 fish/m2 during the years 2005-2007, and were
0.47, 0.05 and 0.43 fish/m2 in 2008 (NPS 2011). Although the Park Service does not report densities
of older (age 1+) steelhead, NPS (2011) states that at six study sites in 2008, a total of 566 young-
of-year and 105 age 1+ steelhead were caught.
History of Land Use

Agriculture has been occurring within Estero Americano watershed since European colonization
(Gold Ridge RCD 2007). Land within the watershed was cleared of native vegetation and used
for cultivated crops, with potatoes being the primary crop through the late 1800s and early 1900s,
resulting in erosion and sediment filling the creek channels and the Estero (estuary/lagoon) (Gold
Ridge RCD 2007). Production of potatoes transitioned into barley and wheat, and to hay in the
1970s (Gold Ridge RCD 2007).

Today there are only a few small scale hay fields with 80 percent of the land currently being used
for pasture and rangeland grazing. The land is mostly comprised of small multigenerational
family run dairies and livestock ranches (Gold Ridge RCD 2007). Annual grasslands and
agriculture are the primary vegetation cover within the watershed, with about 73 percent cover
as annual grassland and 17 percent as agriculture (CA Department of Forestry 2002). The Gold
Ridge RCD and Marin County RCD along with NRCS are working with ranch operators in the
watershed to implement best management practices to reduce impacts related to ranchland
management. As such, the Gold Ridge RCD has developed The Estero Americano Watershed
Management Plan and Estero Americano Dairy Enhancement Program.
NPS (2004) reports that the Drakes Bay watersheds are part of a system of ranches that date to
the 19th century and primarily specialized in dairying, cheese, and butter production, although

some moved into beef cattle ranching and artichoke farming. NPS (2004) indicates that these
ranches were connected by a road that crossed several of the tributaries entering Drakes Bay as
well as a second road that follows the current path of the Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. Ranches
in the Drakes Estero watershed also shipped goods from docks on Schooner Bay, Limantour Bay,
and below Drakes Head Ranch (NPS 2004). Since the mid-1960s, the area has been managed
primarily as parkland, although the existing ranch on Home Ranch Creek has continued
operations.
Except for its lowermost 2 miles, the Pine Gulch Creek watershed is entirely within the Point
Reyes National Seashore and is essentially managed as wilderness (Brannon Ketchum, National
Park Service, personal communication, 2013). The lowermost 2 miles of Pine Gulch Creek is
privately owned and bordered by five small organic farms. About 50 percent of the watershed is
conifer forest; about 22 percent is hardwood woodland; and the remainder of the vegetation cover
is comprised of shrubs, grassland, and agriculture (CA Department of Forestry 2002).
The Redwood Creek watershed is primarily publicly owned, except for 5 percent of the watershed
including roads (managed by the California Department of Transportation, Marin County, and
local service districts) and private properties in the communities of Muir Beach, Muir Woods
Park, and Green Gulch Farm (Stillwater Sciences 2010). About 32 percent of the watershed is
shrubs; 31 percent is conifer forest; 16 percent is hardwood woodland; and the remainder of the
vegetation cover is comprised mostly of grassland (CA Department of Forestry 2002). The
majority of the Redwood Creek watershed is located on NPS and California State Parks land,
where recreational activities are the primary land use. Development within the Redwood Creek
watershed is primarily associated with recreational facilities including parking lots, roads,
recreational trails, visitor buildings, and toilet facilities serviced by septic systems. Agricultural
development has increased sediment delivery into lower Redwood Creek.
Conditions
Current impaired conditions result directly or indirectly from human activities, and are expected
to continue until restored and/or the threat acting on the conditions is abated. Using a Rapid
Assessment Protocol and existing data, NMFS staff rated 12 potential habitat related conditions
to determine their effect on five lifestages of steelhead (adult, eggs, summer rearing juveniles,
winter rearing juveniles, and migratory smolts) in Estero Americano, Drakes Bay, Pine Gulch
Creek and Redwood Creek (See North Coastal Diversity Stratum Rapid Assessment Stresses
Results). The steelhead populations in these streams face markedly different habitat conditions.
Estero Americano has a general lack of stream habitat complexity and impaired gravel quality
due to sedimentation and water diversions for small domestic use and agricultural irrigation that

appreciably diminish streamflow and the quality of steelhead habitat. Through NPS restoration
activities, the tributaries entering Drakes Bay are now effectively without significant
anthropogenic habitat conditions. However, because of their small size, the Drakes Bay streams
contain only modest amounts of steelhead habitat, and the geology and vegetation of the
Glenbrook Creek, Muddy Hollow Creek and Laguna Creek watersheds appear to support
relatively low numbers of deep pools, limited large woody debris, and relatively sandy
substrates. The lowermost two miles of Pine Gulch Creek has impaired summer streamflow due
to the cumulative water diversions from bordering agricultural operations. Although mostly in
park lands, Redwood Creek has areas with modified channels that lack stream habitat complexity
mostly due to roads, recreational trails, and levees. There were no conditions that rated Poor for
their effects to steelhead life history stages for the North Coastal Diversity Stratum; however,
those conditions that rated as Fair are identified and discussed in the next section.
Conditions Rated Fair

Since there were not conditions rated Poor, conditions rated as Fair are discussed below and are
presented in North Coastal Diversity Stratum Rapid Assessment Stresses Results. The following
discussion focuses on those conditions that rated as Fair for their effects to steelhead life history
stages for the North Coastal Diversity Stratum. These were: (1) Riparian Vegetation:
Composition, Cover & Tree Diameter; (2) Estuary: Quality & Extent; (3) Hydrology: Baseflow &
Passage Flows; (4) Passage/Migration: Mouth or Confluence & Physical Barriers; (5) Habitat
Complexity: Percent Primary Pools & Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratios; (6) Habitat Complexity: Large
Wood & Shelter; (7) Sediment: Gravel Quality & Distribution of Spawning Gravels; and (8)
Viability: Density, Abundance & Spatial Structure. Recovery strategies will focus on improving
these conditions as well as those needed to ensure population viability and functioning
watershed processes.

Riparian conditions within the Estero Americano watershed are in a degraded state with an
estimated 45 percent of streams with minimal vegetation, 22 percent with partial vegetation, and
32 percent abundantly vegetated based on Gold Ridge RCDs assessment (Gold Ridge RCD 2007).
Loss of high quality riparian vegetation can expose a stream to increased solar radiation, thereby
increasing water temperatures beyond the tolerance of summer rearing juvenile steelhead. Low
quality riparian vegetation can also reduce the supply of potential large woody debris that plays
an important role in creating rearing (summer and winter) habitat for juvenile steelhead and
temporary holding areas for adult fish.

Riparian conditions in the Drakes Bay tributaries are essentially unimpaired except near road and
trail crossings. Pine Gulch and Redwood creeks riparian conditions are generally not altered to
a level that poses more than a minor effect to steelhead.

Out of the four populations, the estuary in Estero Americano is currently impaired and lacks
conditions suitable for steelhead. Severe erosion in the Estero Americano watershed has filled in
large areas of the estuary, significantly reducing available estuarine habitat and the amount of
tidal marsh habitat (Gold Ridge RCD 2007). Agricultural runoff from dairies and livestock
ranches has resulted in elevated ammonia levels and anoxic conditions (Gold Ridge RCD 2007).
The Estero Americano estuary is on the RWQCB Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of water
quality impaired segments for Nutrients and Sedimentation/siltation. High siltation affects
incubating eggs, and high nutrient loading can affect summer rearing conditions through
affecting temperature and levels of oxygen. Turbidity is also considered to be a problem for
winter rearing smolts affecting foraging ability for food and predator avoidance. Additionally,
all streams in the watershed are now mostly intermittent in summer months causing high salinity
levels within the estuary due to the lack of freshwater input, and elevated ammonia levels and
anoxic conditions due to agricultural runoff from dairies and livestock ranches (Gold Ridge RCD
2007).
Pine Gulch and the Drakes Bay tributaries estuary conditions are generally not altered to a level
that poses more than a minor effect to steelhead. Redwood Creek estuary conditions are
improving due to restoration activities implemented by NPS, including the Big Lagoon and
Banducci property restoration projects.

During summer, streamflows are exceedingly low or non-existent in Estero Americano, and all
streams within the watershed are intermittent in most years except for Ebabias Creek (Gold Ridge
RCD 2007). Because most of the Pine Gulch Creek watershed is within the protected Point Reyes
National Seashore, its hydrology is largely unimpaired. However, in the downstream-most three
km segment of Pine Gulch, several agricultural operations can cumulatively divert streamflow at
a rate that can exceed the entire summertime streamflow, and these operations routinely cause
extensive and unnatural variation in daily flows during the low flow season (NPS 2005, NMFS
2013). Although Redwood Creek is mostly in park lands, water is diverted directly from
Redwood Creek and tributaries, including Green Gulch Creek for municipal and agricultural
purposes (Stillwater Sciences 2010). The Muir Beach Community Services District operates a well
on the Redwood Creek floodplain near the Banducci property (Stillwater Sciences 2010), resulting
in a decrease in flows downstream of the well (J. McKeon, NMFS, personal communication, 2013).

During sampling by Smith (2003) from 1992-2003 at Redwood Creek, the stream was dry or
intermittent downstream of the Muir Beach Services District well by late summer in about half
the years, and the impacts (dry or intermittent with insufficient flow to maintain good dissolved
oxygen levels) extended downstream to Muir Beach in many years. There are no hydrologic
conditions in the tributaries to Drakes Bay.
Passage/Migration: Mouth of Confluence and Physical Barriers

Estero Americano and tributaries have impaired passage and migration conditions due to the
sedimentation of creek channels and lack of flows that affect adult steelhead, juvenile steelhead
and smolts.
Habitat Complexity: Percent Primary Pools &Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratios Complexity &

Pool/Riffle Ratios
Estero Americano and tributaries have altered pool complexity and pool/riffle ratios due to the
sedimentation, lack of riparian habitat and lack of flows that affect adult steelhead, juvenile
steelhead and smolts. Adequate numbers of pools with adequate shelter are specifically lacking
and are of particular concern in Estero Americano and its tributaries.

Estero Americano and tributaries have reduced large wood and shelter due to the sedimentation
of creek channels and lack of riparian habitat that primarily affects adult steelhead, rearing
juveniles and smolts. The existing low level of instream cover directly reduces the quality of
rearing habitat for juvenile steelhead. Channel simplification due to sedimentation and the loss
of riparian habitat and large woody debris has also created high velocity flume-like environments
within creek channels during runoff events. Such high velocity conditions probably limit the
number of days that adult steelhead can migrate up these creeks.

Estero Americano and tributaries have impaired gravel quality and quantity due to the
sedimentation of creek channels and lack of riparian habitat that primarily affects adult steelhead,
rearing juveniles, and smolts.

Estero Americano and its tributaries currently do not support a population of steelhead due to
impaired riparian, instream, and estuary habitat conditions, including lack of summer flows that

affect water temperature and quality. All populations are likely reduced from historic levels,
although small populations persist in several of the streams.
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that rate as High (See North Coastal Diversity
Stratum Rapid Assessment Threats Results). Recovery strategies will focus on ameliorating High
threats; however, some strategies may address other threat categories when the strategy is
Agriculture
Although cultivated crops were more widespread throughout the Estero Americano watershed
historically, today there are only a few small scale hay fields (Gold Ridge RCD 2007).
Agricultural operations in the lowermost 3 km of Pine Gulch Creek do not appear to have
significantly affected the creeks habitat, except for the significant diversion of water during
summertime. Periodically the landowners erect wire fences across the creek to restrict deer access
to their properties. These fences do not pose a problem during summer months; however, they
can contribute to debris jams and potential injury to migrating adult steelhead during the
wintertime (M. Reichmuth, NPS, personal communication, 2013). NPS staff periodically requests
that landowners remove these fences during winter and early spring. Agriculture was more
predominant within Redwood Creek watershed in the 1800s and early 1900s (Stillwater Sciences
2010). Green Gulch Farm was established in 1972 on land that had been previously operated as
a ranch located along Green Gulch Creek, a tributary to lower Redwood Creek (Stillwater
Sciences 2010). The farm relies on Green Gulch Creek, its tributaries, and several springs for
drinking water and irrigation (Stillwater Sciences 2010).
Channel modification (e.g., floodplain and riparian removal) has impacted steelhead resources
mostly in Estero Americano due to sedimentation from livestock farming and historical
agricultural activities. Simplification of streams through bank revetment and channel
straightening disconnect streams from their floodplain. As a result, complex riffle-pool habitats
needed by summer-rearing juvenile steelhead are lost. Likewise, winter rearing habitat is
compromised when steelhead cannot find refugia from high velocities and are flushed from
headwater reaches into marginal downstream habitat. Low velocity holding pools needed by
migrating adult steelhead are also lost. In many areas, channel modification has caused channel
incision, over-steepened banks, high erosional forces and gravel embeddedness, and ultimately
loss of riparian trees.

Livestock grazing is known to adversely affect salmon and trout populations especially if cattle
have access to and utilize riparian areas in large numbers for prolonged periods (Ballard and
Krueger 2005). Depending on the period of time, and the numbers of animals utilizing these
areas, cattle may adversely affect steelhead by disrupting spawning or feeding behaviors,
trampling or smothering redds, and crushing individual juvenile salmonids. Armour et al. (1991)
state that livestock grazing can affect the riparian environment by changing and reducing
vegetation or by eliminating riparian areas through channel widening, channel aggradation or
lowering the water table. Moreover, they report that the most apparent effects of livestock
grazing on fish habitat are the reductions of shade, cover, and terrestrial food supply, and
resultant increases in stream temperature and sedimentation through bank degradation and soil
erosion.
Today there are only a few small scale hay fields, with 80 percent of the land currently being used
for pasture and rangeland grazing; mostly comprised of small multigenerational family run
dairies and livestock ranches throughout Estero Americano (Gold Ridge RCD 2007). Therefore,
livestock ranching is an ongoing threat to steelhead in Estero Americano although efforts are
being implemented by ranch owners in coordination with the Gold Ridge RCD to address this
threat.
Roads and Railroads

While road and railroads pose a minor threat to these populations, roads, old railroads and trails
have interrupted sediment transport, often disconnecting the floodplain and contributing
sediment to the channel from surface erosion. Undersized culverts also reduce the availability of
spawning gravel and increase channel incision, resulting in the risk of failing or causing flow
diversion down roads.

These watershed experience a Mediterranean-type climate receiving the most precipitation
during winter months. Summer streamflows are already pressured by agricultural and
residential uses; long-lasting drought patterns could pose a significant threat to maintaining
changes to streams through the initiation or acceleration of natural processes respectively.

Our analysis of habitat-related conditions indicate that the steelhead populations in these streams
are currently limited by the availability of juvenile rearing habitat and general lack of deep pools
and other velocity refugia for winter migrating adult steelhead. High levels of sediment in the
substrates within some stream reaches may also affect steelhead densities by reducing the
survival of incubating eggs, pool volume, and growth rates of juvenile fish deprived of a healthy
macroinvertebrate forage base. The limited amount of quality rearing and spawning habitat is
undoubtedly a major factor limiting presence within Estero Americano.

In general, recovery strategies focus on improving conditions and ameliorating conditions and
the threats discussed above, although strategies that address other indicators may also be
conditions within the watershed. The general recovery strategies for the populations in this
Stratum are discussed below with more detailed and site-specific recovery actions provided in
North Coastal Diversity Stratum Rapid Assessment Recovery Actions Table.
Efforts to recover steelhead populations in these watersheds at varying degrees should focus on
the following: (1) conserving (Drakes Bay tributaries, Redwood Creek) and restoring (Americano
and Pine Gulch Creek) streamflows; (2) restoring complex pool habitats by increasing large
woody debris and/or boulder structures; (3) restoring the integrity of riparian habitats (Estero
Americano); (4) reducing the incidence of stream sedimentation by mapping and then treating
agriculture, road and trail related sediment sources (Estero Americano, Redwood Creek); (5)
improving stream water quality conditions (turbidity, sediment, and/or toxicity); and (6)
improving the quality and extent of freshwater lagoon and estuarine habitats within the Estero
Americano lagoon/estuary and Estero Americano. Watershed assessments, plans and programs
(i.e., The Estero Americano Watershed Management Plan) that assess/address threats to steelhead
habitat should continue to be developed and implemented. A project in the lower Pine Gulch
Creek watershed that will reduce the amount of water diverted from the creek during summer
and early fall should be promoted and implemented.

Literature Cited
Armour, C.L., D.A. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1991. AFS Position Statement: The effects of livestock
grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems. Fisheries 16:7-11.
Ballard, T.M., and Krueger, W.C., 2005. Cattle and Salmon II: Interactions between Cattle and
Spawning Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in a Northeastern Oregon
Riparian Ecosystem. Rangeland Ecology & Management, Vol. 58, No. 3 (May, 2005), pp.
274-278.
Gold Ridge RCD. 2007. The Estero Americano Watershed Management Plan. Version 1,
February, 2007. Occidental, CA. 103 pp + Appendices.
NMFS. 2013. Fisheries and other ecological benefits of the Pine Gulch Creek Watershed
Enhancement Project. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, North-
central Coast Office, Santa Rosa, CA. 15pp.
NPS. 2004. Environmental Assessment. Coastal Watershed Restoration- Drakes Estero Road
Crossing Improvements. National Park Service, Point Reyes National Seashore, Point
Reyes Station, CA. 136 pp +Appendices.
NPS. 2005. Pine Gulch Creek watershed water availability and cumulative instream impact
analysis. National Park Service. Version 5.2 (November 3, 2005). Point Reyes National
Seashore, Point Reyes Station, CA. 37pp +Appendices.
NPS. 2011. Long-term Coho Salmon and Steelhead Trout Monitoring in Coastal Marin County.
National Park Service, Point Reyes National Seashore. Point Reyes Station, CA. 91pp
+Appendices.
Stillwater Sciences. 2009. Redwood Creek Watershed assessment. Final Draft. Prepared by
Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley, California for Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San
Francisco, CA. 108 pp +Figures.

CCC Steelhead DPS: North Coastal Diversity Stratum (Estero Americano/Drakes Bay/Pine Gulch/Redwood)
Steelhead Life History Stages

Habitat & Population Condition Scores By Life Stage:
VG = Very Good Summer- Winter-
G = Good Adults Eggs Rearing Rearing Smolts
F = Fair Juveniles Juveniles
P = Poor
Riparian Vegetation: Composition, Cover & Tree Diameter F F
Estuary: Quality & Extent G F G G
Velocity Refuge: Floodplain Connectivity G G G

Stresses: Key Attribute: Indicators
Hydrology: Redd Scour VG
Hydrology: Baseflow & Passage Flows VG VG F F
Passage/Migration: Mouth or Confluence & Physical Barriers G F G G
Habitat Complexity: Percent Primary Pools & Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratios F F F
Habitat Complexity: Large Wood & Shelter F F F F
Sediment: Gravel Quality & Distribution of Spawning Gravels F F F G
Viability: Density, Abundance & Spatial Structure F F F
Water Quality: Temperature G G
Water Quality: Turbidity & Toxicity G G G G

CCC Steelhead DPS: North Coastal Diversity Stratum (Estero Americano/Drakes Bay/Pine Gulch/Redwood)
Stresses
Water Quality: Impaired Instream

Hydrology: Impaired Water Flow
Altered Pool Complexity and/or
Reduced Density, Abundance &

Impaired Passage & Migration
Productivity: Impaired Gravel

Instream Habitat Complexity:

Estuary: Impaired Quality &
Reduced Large Wood and/or

Hydrology: Gravel Scouring
Impaired Quality & Extent
Altered Riparian Species:
Composition & Structure
Water Quality: Increased

Instream Substrate/Food
Floodplain Connectivity:
Turbidity or Toxicity
Quality & Quantity
Pool/Riffle Ratio
Temperatures
Diversity
Shelter
Events
Extent
Threat Scores
L: Low
M: Medium
H: High
Agriculture L L L L L L L L L L
Channel Modification L L L L L L L L L L L
Disease, Predation, and Competition L L L L L L L L L
Fire, Fuel Management, and Fire Suppression L L L L L L L L L L

Threats - Sources of Stress
Livestock Farming and Ranching M L L L L M L M L L
Logging and Wood Harvesting L L L L L L L L L L
Mining L L L L L L L L L L
Recreational Areas and Activities L L L L L L L L L L
Residential and Commercial Development L L L L L L L L L L
Roads and Railroads L L L L L L L M L L
Severe Weather Patterns L L L L H L L L L L L
Water Diversions and Impoundments L M L L H L L L L M L L
Fishing and Collecting L
Hatcheries and Aquaculture L L L

Estero Americano, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
EAmer- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
CCCS-1.1 Objective Estuary range
EAmer- Recovery
CCCS-1.1.1 Action Estuary Increase the quality and extent of estuarine habitat
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
Gold Ridge
EAmer- RCD, Marin
CCCS- Develop and implement estuary rehabilitation and RCD, Private Cost based on estuary use/residence monitoring
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary enhancement strategies. 3 10 Landowners 161.00 161.00 322 at a rate of $321,745/project.
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, Gold
Restore estuarine wetlands and sloughs, and Ridge RCD,
EAmer- improve prey abundance by increasing shoreline Marin RCD,
CCCS- perimeter and planting native emergent and riparian Private Cost based on treating 10% of total estuarine
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary species to improve foraging and cover. 2 10 Landowners 934 934 1,867 habitat at a rate of $46,470/acre.
EAmer- Recovery Increase rate of lagoon formation and/or freshwater

CCCS-1.1.2 Action Estuary conversion
CDFW, Gold
Ridge RCD,
EAmer- Restore estuary function by increasing in-stream Marin RCD, Cost based on amount of instream flow to
CCCS- flow in Estero Americano Creek and tributaries that NMFS, Private increase through varied methods (e.g.
1.1.2.1 Action Step Estuary will provide greater freshwater input into the estuary. 2 20 Landowners TBD conservation, water lease, etc.).
CDFW, Gold
Ridge RCD,
Improve estuarine water quality by identifying and Marin RCD,
EAmer- addressing upstream pollution sources which NCRWQB,
CCCS- contribute to poor water quality conditions in the NRCS, Private Cost based on installing 3 continuous monitoring
1.1.2.2 Action Step Estuary estuary 2 10 Landowners 7.50 7.50 15 stations at a rate of $5,000/station.
EAmer- Recovery
CCCS-1.1.3 Action Estuary Improve the quality of each estuarine habitat zone
Gold Ridge
RCD, Marin
EAmer- RCD, NCRWQB, Cost based on amount of fine sediment delivered
CCCS- Restore estuary function by reducing fine sediment NRCS, Private from upper watershed. Cost likely accounted
1.1.3.1 Action Step Estuary input from the upper watershed. 3 30 Landowners TBD through implementation of other action steps.
CDFW, Gold
EAmer- Monitor the habitat use of various life stages of Ridge RCD,
CCCS- steelhead in the Estero Americano estuary and Marin RCD, Cost based on use/residence monitoring at a rate
1.1.3.2 Action Step Estuary associated wetlands. 2 10 NMFS 161.00 161.00 322 of $321,745/project.
CCCS-3.1 Objective Hydrology range
EAmer- Recovery
CCCS-3.1.1 Action Hydrology Improve flow conditions (baseflow conditions)
CDFW, Gold
Ridge RCD,
Marin RCD,
NMFS, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
EAmer- Private
CCCS- Develop cooperative projects with private Landowners, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology landowners to conserve summer flows 3 5 RCD 0 Kind.

Gold Ridge
Promote, via technical assistance and/or regulatory RCD, NMFS,
action, the reduction of water use affecting the NOAA RC,
EAmer- natural hydrograph, development of alternative water NRCS, Private
CCCS- sources, and implementation of diversion regimes Landowners, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology protective of the natural hydrograph. 3 20 SWRCB 0 Kind.
Low in-stream flow should be addressed by CDFW, Gold
increasing summer baseflows during the low rainfall Ridge RCD,
seasons especially in reaches impacted by water Marin RCD,
diversions and by increasing riparian protection and NMFS, NOAA
EAmer- restoration, erosion control, and employing best RC, NRCS,
CCCS- management practices that encourage permeability Private Cost based on hydrologic model at a rate of
3.1.1.3 Action Step Hydrology and infiltration. 2 20 Landowners 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 75 $74,195/project.
CDFW, Gold
Work with recovery partners to ensure that patterns Ridge RCD,
of water runoff, including surface and subsurface Marin RCD,
EAmer- drainage, should match, to the greatest extent Private
CCCS- possible, the natural hydrologic pattern for the Landowners,
3.1.1.4 Action Step Hydrology watershed in timing, quantity, and quality. 2 20 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
EAmer- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
CCCS-3.2 Objective Hydrology mechanisms
EAmer- Recovery
Marin County, Cost difficult to determine because of landowner

EAmer- Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Marin RCD, participation and extent of off-channel storage
CCCS- water diversion (e.g. storage tanks for rural NPS, State needed to reduce impacts. Stream flow model
3.2.1.1 Action Step Hydrology residential users). 3 60 Parks TBD should address this concern.
CDFW, DWR,
Marin County,
EAmer- Marin RCD,
CCCS- Identify and eliminate depletion of summer base NMFS, RWQCB,
3.2.1.2 Action Step Hydrology flows from unauthorized water uses. 2 30 SWRCB 0 Cost accounted for in stream flow model.
CA Coastal
Commission,
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, Gold
Ridge RCD,
Improve coordination between agencies and others Marin County,
to address season of diversion, off-stream Marin RCD,
EAmer- reservoirs, bypass flows protective of steelhead and NRCS, RWQCB,
CCCS- their habitats, and avoidance of adverse impacts Sonoma County,
3.2.1.3 Action Step Hydrology caused by water diversion (CDFG 2004). 3 60 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CCCS-5.1 Objective Passage range
EAmer- Recovery
CCCS-5.1.1 Action Passage Modify or remove physical passage barriers
CDFW, Gold
Ridge RCD,
EAmer- NMFS, NOAA
CCCS- Develop and implement plan to address fish passage RC, Private Cost based on providing passage at a partial
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage barriers within Ebabias Creek. 2 10 Landowners 24.50 24.50 49 barrier at a rate of $48,582/project.

California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, Gold
Ridge RCD,
Marin RCD,
EAmer- NMFS, NRCS,
CCCS- Develop and implement plan to address fish passage Private Cost based on providing passage at a partial
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage barriers within Estero Americano Creek. 2 10 Landowners 24.50 24.50 49 barrier at a rate of $48,582/project.
CCCS-7.1 Objective Riparian range
EAmer- Recovery
CCCS-7.1.1 Action Riparian Improve riparian conditions
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, Gold
Ridge RCD,
Marin RCD,
EAmer- Prioritize and fence riparian areas from grazing NCRWQB,
CCCS- (using fencing standards that allow other wildlife to NRCS, Private See Estero Americano Watershed Management
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian access the stream). 2 20 Landowners TBD Plan for costs.
California
Coastal
Identify and implement riparian enhancement Conservancy,
projects where current canopy density and diversity CDFW, Gold
are inadequate and site conditions are appropriate Ridge RCD,
EAmer- to: initiate tree planting and other vegetation Marin RCD,
CCCS- management to encourage the development of a NRCS, Private See Estero Americano Watershed Management
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian denser more extensive riparian canopy. 3 10 Landowners TBD Plan for costs
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
Gold Ridge
RCD, Marin
EAmer- RCD, NCRWQB,
CCCS- NRCS, Private Cost based on amount of water sources to
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian Locate water sources away from riparian areas. 2 20 Landowners TBD relocate. Cost estimated at $5,000/site.
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
Gold Ridge
RCD, Marin
EAmer- Promote streamside conservation measures, RCD, NCRWQB,
CCCS- including conservation easements, setbacks, and NRCS, Private Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
7.1.1.4 Action Step Riparian riparian buffers. 3 20 Landowners 0 Kind.
CCCS-8.1 Objective Sediment range
EAmer- Recovery
CCCS-8.1.1 Action Sediment Improve instream gravel quality

California
Coastal
Conservancy,
Gold Ridge
RCD, Marin
EAmer- RCD, NCRWQB, Cost based on the amount of high and medium
CCCS- Address high and medium priority sediment delivery NRCS, State priority sites. Suggest conducting an erosion
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment sites 2 20 Parks TBD assessment at a rate of $14.38/acre.
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, Gold
Ridge RCD,
Marin RCD,
EAmer- NCRWQB,
CCCS- Establish and/or maintain continuous native riparian NRCS, State Costs covered under other recovery actions - See
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment buffers. 3 60 Parks 0 Riparian.
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
Gold Ridge
RCD, Marin
EAmer- Fence riparian areas from grazing (using fencing RCD, NCRWQB,
CCCS- standards that allow other wildlife to access the NRCS, Private Costs covered under other recovery actions - See
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment stream). 3 30 Landowners 0 Riparian.
CCCS-10.1 Objective Water Quality range
EAmer-
CCCS- Recovery
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
Gold Ridge
RCD, Marin
County, Marin
RCD, NRCS,
EAmer- Promote streamside conservation measures, Private
CCCS- including conservation easements, setbacks, and Landowners, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality riparian buffers (CDFG 2004). 3 60 Sonoma County 0 Kind.
EAmer- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

CCCS-10.2 Objective Water Quality mechanisms.
EAmer-
CCCS- Recovery
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
Gold Ridge
RCD, Marin
EAmer- Evaluate and reduce nutrient and pathogen loading RCD, NCRWQB,
CCCS- from upstream areas to minimize oxygen demand in NRCS, Private Cost based on water quality monitoring at a rate
10.2.1.1 Action Step Water Quality lower Estero Americano Creek. 2 2 Landowners 10.00 10 of $5,000/site.
CCCS-12.1 Objective Agriculture range

EAmer- Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
CCCS- Recovery (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, Gold
Ridge RCD,
Marin County,
Incentive programs and incentive-based approaches NCRWQB,
EAmer- should be explored for landowners who conduct NRCS, Private Cost based on amount of incentives to provide for
CCCS- operations in a manner compatible with steelhead Landowners, farming practices. Currently, incentive programs
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture recovery requirements. 3 20 SWRCB TBD exist and should be explored and expanded.
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, Gold
Ridge RCD,
Marin RCD,
NCRWQB,
EAmer- Encourage and assist the NRCS and RCDs to NRCS, Private
CCCS- increase the number of landowners participating in Landowners, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
12.1.1.2 Action Step Agriculture sediment reduction planning and implementation. 3 20 SWRCB 0 Kind.
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, Gold
Ridge RCD,
Marin RCD,
EAmer- Address sediment and runoff sources from road NCRWQB, Cost based on conducting a road inventory for 62
CCCS- networks and other actions that deliver sediment and NRCS, Private miles of road at a rate of $957/mile. Costs may
12.1.1.3 Action Step Agriculture runoff to stream channels. 2 20 Landowners 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 60 be redundant with other actions. See Sediment.
CCCS-18.1 Objective Livestock range
EAmer- Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
Gold Ridge
RCD, Marin
Continue to implement recommendations within The RCD, NRCS,
EAmer- Estero Americano Watershed Management Plan Private
CCCS- (GRRCD 2007) and the Estero Americano Dairy Landowners, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
18.1.1.1 Action Step Livestock Enhancement Program. 2 20 SWRCB 0 Kind.
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, Gold
Ridge RCD,
Marin County,
Incentive programs and incentive-based approaches NCRWQB,
EAmer- should be explored for landowners who conduct NRCS, Private Cost accounted for in other action step.
CCCS- operations in a manner compatible with steelhead Landowners, Currently, incentive programs exist and should be
18.1.1.2 Action Step Livestock recovery requirements. 3 20 SWRCB 0 explored and expanded.

California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, Gold
Ridge RCD,
Marin RCD,
NCRWQB,
EAmer- Encourage and assist the NRCS and RCDs to NRCS, Private
CCCS- increase the number of landowners participating in Landowners, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
18.1.1.3 Action Step Livestock sediment reduction planning and implementation. 3 20 SWRCB 0 Kind.
EAmer-
CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to the estuary
18.1.2 Action Livestock (impaired quality and extent)
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
Gold Ridge
RCD, Marin
EAmer- Continue to implement recommendations within The RCD, NRCS,
CCCS- Estero Americano Watershed Management Plan Private Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
18.1.2.1 Action Step Livestock (GRRCD 2007). 3 20 Landowners 0 Kind.
EAmer- Prevent or minimize impairment to instream habitat
CCCS- Recovery complexity (altered pool complexity and/or pool riffle
18.1.3 Action Livestock ratio)
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
Gold Ridge
RCD, Marin
EAmer- Continue to implement recommendations within The RCD, Private
CCCS- Estero Americano Watershed Management Plan Landowners, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
18.1.3.1 Action Step Livestock (GRRCD 2007). 3 20 SWRCB 0 Kind.
EAmer- Severe Weather modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
CCCS-24.1 Objective Patterns range
EAmer-
CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
CDFW, Gold
Ridge RCD,
Marin RCD,
NCRWQB,
EAmer- Private
CCCS- Severe Weather Work with water users to minimize depletion of Landowners, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
24.1.1.1 Action Step Patterns summer base flows. 3 20 SWRCB 0 Kind.
EAmer- Severe Weather Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

CCCS-24.2 Objective Patterns mechanisms
EAmer-
EAmer- Encourage SWRCB to bring illegal water diverters CDFW, Marin

CCCS- Severe Weather and out-of-compliance diverters into compliance with County, Sonoma Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
24.2.1.1 Action Step Patterns State law. 3 60 County, SWRCB 0 Kind.

Drakes Bay Tributaries, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
DrB-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
DrB-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and

DrB-CCCS- Conduct adult and juvenile monitoring to inform Cost for population status and trends are
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability recovery criteria. 2 5 NPS 0 accounted for in the Monitoring Chapter.

Pine Gulch Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
PGC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
25.1 Objective ment range
Water
PGC-CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Impound Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
Implement the Pine Gulch Creek Watershed

Enhancement Project. The proposed project includes
appropriation of water to storage during the winter Marin County,
Water season, controlled riparian diversion between April NMFS, Private
PGC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound and July 1, and no diversion between July 1 and Landowners, Action is considered In-Kind and is an ongoing
25.1.1.1 Action Step ment December 15 of each year. 2 20 SWRCB 0 action

Water natural hydrograph, development of alternative water
PGC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound sources, and implementation of diversion regimes CDFW, NMFS,
25.1.1.2 Action Step ment protective of the natural hydrograph. 3 25 RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Water
PGC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
25.2 Objective ment mechanisms
Water
PGC-CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Impound Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
25.2.1 Action ment connectivity (impaired quality and extent)
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, Marin
County, Private
Landowners,
Water Develop off channel water storage for farming State Water
PGC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound operation within the watershed to increase summer Resources
25.2.1.1 Action Step ment pool habitat in the lower portion of the watershed. 2 30 Control Board TBD Cost depends on landowner participation.
Water
PGC-CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Impound Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
Water Marin County, Cost based on number and type of fish screens to
PGC-CCCS- Diversion/Impound Adequately screen water diversions to prevent NMFS, Private implement. Estimate for fish screens is
25.2.2.1 Action Step ment juvenile salmonid mortalities. 2 100 Landowners TBD $53,465/screen.

Redwood Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
RedC- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
RedC- Recovery Improve the quality and extent of freshwater lagoon

CCCS-1.1.1 Action Estuary habitat
RedC-
CCCS- Enhance and restore estuary function by improving Marin County, Cost based on treating 10% of 12 acres of
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary complex habitat features. 2 10 NPS 169.00 169.00 338 estuarine habitat at a rate of $281,099/acre.
RedC- Estimated costs based on similar costs in

CCCS- Continue restoration efforts on Big Lagoon to benefit geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary salmonids during all life stages and seasons. 2 10 NPS 2,500 2,500 5,000 site, setting and geographic specific.
Where appropriate, remove structures and/or modify
practices which impair or reduce the historical tidal
RedC- prism and/or estuarine function where feasible and
CCCS- where benefits to salmonids and/or the estuarine
1.1.1.3 Action Step Estuary environment are predicted. 2 60 NPS TBD
RedC- Support efforts of NPS to restore functional
CCCS- floodplain and lagoon habitat in the lower portion of Marin County,
1.1.1.4 Action Step Estuary the watershed. 2 60 Marin RCD, NPS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
CCCS-2.1 Objective Connectivity range
RedC- Recovery Floodplain

CCCS-2.1.1 Action Connectivity Increase and enhance velocity refuge
RedC-
CCCS- Floodplain Delineate reaches possessing both potential winter
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity rearing habitat and floodplain areas. 2 20 NPS TBD
CDFW, Marin
RedC- County, Marin
CCCS- Floodplain Target habitat restoration and enhancement that will RCD, NMFS,
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity function between winter base flow and flood stage. 2 60 NPS TBD
RedC- Promote restoration projects designed to create or
CCCS- Floodplain restore alcove, backchannel, ephemeral tributary, or Marin County,
2.1.1.3 Action Step Connectivity seasonal pond habitats. 2 60 Marin RCD, NPS TBD
RedC- Identify potential sites for construction/restoration of

CCCS- Floodplain alcoves, backwaters, etc. based on land use and Marin County,
2.1.1.4 Action Step Connectivity geomorphic constraints. 2 60 Marin RCD, NPS TBD
Support efforts to remove levees on the Banducci

property to create backwater and alcove habitat by
having the county raise the lower section of Muir
Woods road where it meets Highway One. Raising
the road will address flooding and create vital off
RedC- channel habitat in this section of creek. Coordinate Estimated costs based on similar costs in
CCCS- Floodplain with the NMFS and/or CDFW geomorphologist on Marin County, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
2.1.1.5 Action Step Connectivity design features and implementation techniques. 2 10 NPS 5,000 5,000 10,000 site, setting and geographic specific.
RedC- CDFW, NOAA Estimated costs based on similar costs in

CCCS- Floodplain Restore connectivity and enhance habitat in Green RC, Private geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
2.1.1.6 Action Step Connectivity Gulch. 2 10 Landowners 200.00 200.00 400 site, setting and geographic specific.
Continue to monitor restored reaches in the Bowling

Alley and Upper Alley sections to promote off
RedC- channel habitat formation. Consult with NMFS and or Estimated costs based on similar costs in
CCCS- Floodplain CDFW geomorphologist before and during the geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
2.1.1.7 Action Step Connectivity design and implementation phase. 3 20 NPS 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 500 site, setting and geographic specific.
RedC- Floodplain Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
CCCS-2.2 Objective Connectivity mechanisms

RedC- Recovery Floodplain

CCCS-2.2.1 Action Connectivity Rehabilitate and enhance floodplain connectivity
RedC- Encourage willing landowners to restore historical Cost difficult to determine because of willingness
CCCS- Floodplain floodplains or offchannel habitats through Marin County, of landowner participation and fair market value
2.2.1.1 Action Step Connectivity conservation easements, etc. 2 60 NPS TBD for conservation easements.
RedC-
CCCS- Floodplain Minimize urban development of any kind in existing Marin County, This recommendation should be considered
2.2.1.2 Action Step Connectivity areas with floodplains or off channel habitats 2 60 NPS 0 standard practice. Action is considered In-Kind
RedC- Purchase land/conservation easements to
CCCS- Floodplain encourage the re-establishment and/or enhancement CDFW, NMFS, Cost difficult to determine because of fair market
2.2.1.3 Action Step Connectivity of natural riparian communities. 3 60 NPS, USFWS TBD value and rate of turnover.
RedC- Evaluate, develop solutions and implement
CCCS- Floodplain immediate needs to address problems resulting from Marin County, Cost based on riparian monitoring estimated at
2.2.1.4 Action Step Connectivity channelization. 3 10 Marin RCD, NPS 37.00 37.00 74 $73,793/project.
RedC- Recovery
Marin County,
RedC- Marin RCD,
CCCS- NPS, State
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology Assess and map water diversions (CDFG 2004). 2 5 Parks 0 Cost accounted for in action step below.
CDFW, DWR,
Marin County,
Marin RCD,
RedC- Establish a comprehensive stream flow evaluation NMFS, NPS, Cost for stream flow model estimated at
CCCS- program to determine instream flow needs for RWQCB, State $65,084/project. This recommendation should
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology salmonids. 2 10 Parks, SWRCB 32.50 32.50 65 also map and identify water diversions.
Provide incentives to water rights holders willing to
RedC- convert some or all of their water right to instream CDFW, DWR, Cost difficult to determine because of landowner
CCCS- use via petition change of use and California Water RWQCB, State participation. Currently, incentive programs exist
3.1.1.3 Action Step Hydrology Code 1707 (CDFG 2004). 2 60 Parks, SWRCB TBD and should be explored and expanded.
RedC- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
RedC- Recovery
RedC- Maintain water operations agreements between CDFW, MBCSD,

CCCS- NPS, CDFW, and MBCSD to operate in a manner NPS, State
3.2.1.1 Action Step Hydrology that does not alter summer surface flow 2 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Marin County, Cost difficult to determine because of landowner

RedC- Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Marin RCD, participation and extent of off-channel storage
CCCS- water diversion (e.g. storage tanks for rural NPS, State needed to reduce impacts. Stream flow model
3.2.1.2 Action Step Hydrology residential users). 2 60 Parks TBD should address this concern.
Marin County,
RedC- Promote conjunctive use of water with water projects Marin RCD,
CCCS- whenever possible to maintain or restore salmonid NPS, NRCS,
3.2.1.3 Action Step Hydrology habitat. 2 60 State Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, DWR,
Marin County,
RedC- Marin RCD,
CCCS- Identify and eliminate depletion of summer base NMFS, RWQCB,
3.2.1.4 Action Step Hydrology flows from unauthorized water uses. 2 30 SWRCB 0 Cost accounted for in stream flow model.

CA Coastal
Commission,
CDFW, DWR,
Farm Bureau,
Improve coordination between agencies and others Marin County,
to address season of diversion, off-stream Marin RCD,
RedC- reservoirs, bypass flows protective of salmonids and NPS, RWQCB,
CCCS- their habitats, and avoidance of adverse impacts State Parks,
3.2.1.5 Action Step Hydrology caused by water diversion. 3 60 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC- Recovery
CCCS-3.2.2 Action Hydrology Improve passage flows
Marin County,
RedC- Promote passive diversion devices designed to allow Marin RCD,
CCCS- diversion of water only when minimum streamflow NPS, State
3.2.2.1 Action Step Hydrology requirements are met or exceeded (CDFG 2004). 2 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC- salmonid migratory reaches for effects on the natural CDFW, DWR,
CCCS- hydrograph and the supply of spawning gravel for NMFS, RWQCB,
3.2.2.2 Action Step Hydrology recruitment downstream. 3 60 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Marin County,
RedC- Marin RCD,
CCCS- Encourage use of the most recent update of NMFS' NPS, State
3.2.2.3 Action Step Hydrology Water Diversion Guidelines. 3 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CCCS-6.1 Objective Habitat Complexity range
RedC- Recovery
CCCS-6.1.1 Action Habitat Complexity Increase large wood frequency (BFW 0-10 meters)
Marin County,
RedC- Incorporate large woody material into stream bank Marin RCD,
CCCS- protection projects, where appropriate. Do not use NPS, State
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity aqua logs (cylindrical concrete rip rap). 3 60 Parks TBD
Marin County,
RedC- Marin RCD, Cost based on treating 10 miles (assume 1
CCCS- Place unsecured LWD in the stream and monitor NPS, State project/mile in 50% of High IP) at a rate of
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity how it is distributed in the watershed. 2 10 Parks 130.00 130.00 260 $26,000/mile.
Marin County,
RedC- Marin RCD,
CCCS- Install properly sized large woody debris to NPS, State
6.1.1.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity appropriate viability table targets. 2 20 Parks TBD
Assess and prioritize restoration of channelized Marin County,

RedC- sections to enhance pool depths in Redwood Creek Marin RCD, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration
CCCS- through Muir Woods while maintaining the historic NPS, State effectiveness monitoring estimated at
6.1.1.4 Action Step Habitat Complexity resource to the greatest degree possible. 2 10 Parks 57.50 57.50 115 $114,861/project.
RedC- Recovery Improve frequency of primary pools, LWD and

CCCS-6.1.2 Action Habitat Complexity shelters
Marin County,
RedC- Evaluate the potential and specific locations (e.g. Marin RCD,
CCCS- State and Federal lands) for the re-location and re- NPS, State Cost based on beaver reintroduction estimated at
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity introduction of beaver populations 2 10 Parks 5.00 5.00 10 $10,000/beaver family translocation.
RedC- Recovery
CCCS-6.1.3 Action Habitat Complexity Improve shelter
Marin County,
RedC- Increase shelters in 75% of streams across the Marin RCD,
CCCS- watershed to improve conditions for adults, and NPS, State Cost accounted for in increase pools, riffles, and
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity winter/summer rearing juveniles 2 20 Parks 0 LWD frequency.
CCCS-6.2 Objective Habitat Complexity mechanisms

RedC- Recovery Improve frequency of primary pools, LWD and

Marin County,
Educate landowners, land managers, and County Marin RCD,
RedC- and municipal staffs on the importance of LWD to NPS, Private
CCCS- salmonid survival and recovery and watershed Landowners,
6.2.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity processes. 3 20 State Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Implement education programs and modify policies
and procedures to improve riparian corridor Marin County,
RedC- protection, maintain channel integrity, implement Marin RCD,
CCCS- alternatives to hard bank protection, and retain large NPS, State
6.2.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity woody debris. 3 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Marin County,
Fully implement the Programmatic Section 7 Marin RCD,
RedC- consultation for restoration projects administered by NMFS, NOAA
CCCS- the NOAA Restoration Center that permits placement RC, NPS, State
6.2.1.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity of instream large woody debris. 3 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC- Recovery
CCCS-7.1.1 Action Riparian Improve canopy cover
Assess riparian canopy and impacts of exotic
RedC- vegetation (e.g., Arundo donax, etc.), prioritize and
CCCS- develop riparian habitat reclamation and
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian enhancement programs (CDFG 2004). 3 20 State Parks TBD
Marin County,
RedC- Fence riparian areas from grazing (using fencing Marin RCD,
CCCS- standards that allow other wildlife to access the NPS, State
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian stream). 2 20 Parks 62.50 62.50 62.50 62.50 250 Cost based on previous regional projects
RedC- Marin County,
CCCS- NPS, State
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian Locate water sources away from riparian areas. 2 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Marin County,
RedC- Marin RCD, Estimated costs based on similar costs in
CCCS- Plant native vegetation to promote streamside NPS, State geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
7.1.1.4 Action Step Riparian shade. 3 20 Parks 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 100 site, setting and geographic specific.
CDFW, Marin
County, Marin
RedC- Promote bio-engineering solutions as appropriate RCD, NMFS,
CCCS- (e.g. where critical infrastructure is located) for bank NPS, State
7.1.1.5 Action Step Riparian hardening projects. 3 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC- Recovery
CCCS-7.1.2 Action Riparian Improve tree diameter
RedC- Increase tree diameter within 55% of watershed to
CCCS- achieve optimal riparian forest conditions (55 - 69% Marin County,
7.1.2.1 Action Step Riparian Class 5 & 6 tree) 2 30 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
Improve the structure and composition of riparian
RedC- areas to provide shade, large woody debris input,
CCCS- nutrient input, bank stabilization, and other salmonid Marin County,
7.1.2.2 Action Step Riparian needs. 2 20 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
RedC- Encourage programs to purchase land/conservation
CCCS- easements to re-establish and enhance natural Marin RCD,
7.1.2.3 Action Step Riparian riparian communities. 2 10 MMWD 0 Encouragement is considered In-Kind
CCCS-7.2 Objective Riparian mechanisms
RedC- Recovery
CCCS-7.2.1 Action Riparian Improve riparian conditions

Marin County,
RedC- Promote streamside conservation measures, Marin RCD,
CCCS- including conservation easements, setbacks, and NPS, State
7.2.1.1 Action Step Riparian riparian buffers (CDFG 2004). 3 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Review and develop preferred protocols for Pierce's
RedC- Disease Control that would maintain a native riparian Marin County,
CCCS- corridor and develop an outreach program (CDFG NPS, State
7.2.1.2 Action Step Riparian 2004). 3 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC- Recovery
Conduct road and sediment reduction assessments Marin County, Cost for road inventory estimated at $957/mile
RedC- to identify sediment-related and runoff-related Marin RCD, (assume 75% of road network) and sediment
CCCS- problems and determine level of hydrologic NPS, State assessment (assume 25% of total watershed
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment connectivity. 2 5 Parks 50.00 50 acres) estimated at $12/acre.
Marin County,
RedC- Marin RCD,
CCCS- Address high and medium priority sediment delivery NPS, State Cost accounted for in sediment assessment and
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment sites 2 20 Parks 0 decommissioning/upgrading actions
Marin County,
RedC- Decommission riparian road systems and/or upgrade Marin RCD,
CCCS- roads (and skid trails on forestlands) that deliver NPS, State Cost based on decommissioning 7 miles of
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment sediment into adjacent watercourses (CDFG 2004). 2 10 Parks 42.00 42.00 84 riparian road at a rate of $12,000/mile.
Marin County,
RedC- Marin RCD,
CCCS- Establish and/or maintain continuous native riparian NPS, State
8.1.1.4 Action Step Sediment buffers. 3 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Marin County,
RedC- Fence riparian areas from grazing (using fencing Marin RCD, Cost based on amount of riparian exclusion
CCCS- standards that allow other wildlife to access the NPS, State fencing needed. Estimate for exclusion fencing is
8.1.1.5 Action Step Sediment stream). 3 30 Parks TBD $3.63/ft.
CCCS-8.2 Objective Sediment mechanisms
RedC- Recovery
RedC- Limit winter use of unsurfaced roads and recreational Marin County,
CCCS- trails by unauthorized vehicles to decrease fine NPS, State
8.2.1.1 Action Step Sediment sediment loads. 3 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Use available best management practices for road
construction, maintenance, management and Marin County,
RedC- decommissioning (e.g. Weaver and Hagans, 1994; Marin RCD,
CCCS- Sommarstrom et al., 2002; Oregon Department of NPS, State
8.2.1.2 Action Step Sediment Transportation, 1999). 3 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC-
CCCS- Recovery
RedC- Cost based on treating 1 mile (assume 80
CCCS- Conduct conifer release to promote growth of larger NPS, State acres/mile in 15% High IP with 1 mile minimum) at
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality diameter trees where appropriate. 3 10 Parks 57.00 57.00 114 a rate of $1,422/acre.
Improve riparian and instream conditions in rearing
habitats by establishing riparian protection zones that Marin County,
RedC- extend the distance of a site potential tree height Marin RCD,
CCCS- from the outer edge of a channel, and by adding NPS, State
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality LWD. 2 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind

RedC- Promote streamside conservation measures, Marin County,
CCCS- including conservation easements, setbacks, and NPS, State
10.1.1.3 Action Step Water Quality riparian buffers (CDFG 2004). 3 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind

CCCS-10.2 Objective Water Quality mechanisms
RedC-
CCCS- Recovery
Cost to conduct water quality monitoring

RedC- Evaluate and reduce nutrient and pathogen loading estimated at $657/site. Assume minimum of 5
CCCS- from upstream areas to minimize oxygen demand in sites for High IP. Cost does not account for data
10.2.1.1 Action Step Water Quality lower Redwood Creek. 2 2 NPS 3.30 3 management or reporting requirements.
CCCS-11.1 Objective Viability range
RedC-
CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure and
11.1.1 Action Viability diversity
RedC- Conduct upslope watershed assessments to define
CCCS- limiting factors. Encourage all major landowners to
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability participate 2 20 CDFW, NPS 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
RedC-
CCCS- Conduct an instream habitat assessment to develop
11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability restoration recommendations 2 60 NPS 0 Cost accounted for fish/habitat monitoring.
RedC- Estimated costs based on similar costs in

CCCS- Develop and implement a monitoring program to CDFW, MMWD, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
11.1.1.3 Action Step Viability evaluate the performance of recovery efforts. 2 10 NMFS, NPS 259 259 518 site, setting and geographic specific.
Continue to rescue juvenile salmonids with existing
permittees that are under an imminent risk of
RedC- stranding and mortality and relocate to suitable
CCCS- habitat when deemed appropriate by NMFS and CDFW, MMWD,
11.1.1.4 Action Step Viability CDFW 2 10 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
CCCS-13.1 Objective Modification range
RedC-
CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment of floodplain
RedC-
CCCS- Channel Conduct education with public works staff in this area
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification relative to Fishnet 4C Roads Manual 2 20 FishNet 4C 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Cost based on amount of obsolete bank
Marin County, stabilization structures. Cost estimated to be
RedC- Where feasible, remove obsolete bank stabilization Marin RCD, more costly than stream complexity and ELJ
CCCS- Channel structures from the channel which contribute to NPS, State projects which cost $26,000/mile and
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification channel incision and reduced habitat complexity. 3 60 Parks TBD $104,000ELJ, respectively.
Marin County,
RedC- Minimize additional channel modification or utilize Marin RCD,
CCCS- Channel BMP's to address flood control or bank stabilization NPS, State
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification issue 3 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Thoroughly investigate the ultimate cause of channel

instability prior to engaging in site specific channel Marin County,
RedC- modifications and maintenance. Identify and target Marin RCD,
CCCS- Channel remediation of watershed process disruption as an NPS, State
13.1.1.4 Action Step Modification overall priority. 3 20 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC- Promote bio-engineering solutions as appropriate

CCCS- Channel (e.g. except where critical infrastructure is located)
13.1.1.5 Action Step Modification for bank hardening projects. 3 20 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Marin County,
RedC- Marin RCD,
CCCS- Channel NPS, State Cost based on treating 50% of IP at a rate of
13.1.1.6 Action Step Modification Restore habitat complexity in modified channel areas 2 10 Parks 44.50 44.50 89 $29,640/mile.
RedC- Fire/Fuel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
CCCS-15.1 Objective Management range
RedC-
CCCS- Recovery Fire/Fuel Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
15.1.1 Action Management species composition and structure
RedC- Identify historical fire frequency, intensities and
CCCS- Fire/Fuel durations and manage fuel loads in a manner NPS, State
15.1.1.1 Action Step Management consistent with historical parameters. 3 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC-
CCCS- Fire/Fuel Conduct fuel load monitoring and compare the NPS, State Cost for effects of wildfire on ecosystem process
15.1.1.2 Action Step Management results to estimated historical fuel loads. 3 10 Parks 43.00 43.00 86 estimated at $85,897/project.
RedC- Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
CCCS- Recovery Fire/Fuel (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
15.1.2 Action Management toxicity)
RedC-
CCCS- Fire/Fuel Avoid use of aerial fire retardants and foams within NPS, State
15.1.2.1 Action Step Management 300 feet of riparian areas. 2 50 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC- Immediately implement appropriate sediment control

CCCS- Fire/Fuel measures following completion of fire suppression NPS, State
15.1.2.2 Action Step Management while firefighters and equipment are on site. 2 100 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Address the present of threatened destruction,
CCCS-21.1 Objective Recreation range
21.1.1 Action Recreation toxicity)
RedC-
CCCS- Evaluate trail crossings to ensure bridges are NPS, State
21.1.1.1 Action Step Recreation constructed to support horses. 2 50 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC-
CCCS- Eliminate horse access to creeks for watering or as NPS, State Cost are difficult to determine without knowledge
21.1.1.2 Action Step Recreation fords. 2 20 Parks TBD of number of access points.
RedC- Increase education to the equestrian community

CCCS- regarding impacts to riparian and instream habitat NPS, State
21.1.1.3 Action Step Recreation from horse manure and hooves. 3 10 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC- Recreational trails should be set back from the creek
CCCS- and built to reduce erosion and minimize stream NPS, State
21.1.1.4 Action Step Recreation crossings. 2 50 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/Comm Address the present or threatened destruction,
RedC- ercial modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
CCCS-22.1 Objective Development range
RedC- Residential/Comm
CCCS- Recovery ercial Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
CCCS- ercial
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development Implement actions in ROADS and RAILROADS 2
CCCS- ercial
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development Implement Diversity Stratum level Actions 3
CCCS- Recovery ercial Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
22.1.2 Action Development connectivity (impaired quality and extent)
CCCS- ercial
22.1.2.1 Action Step Development Implement actions in FLOODPLAIN 2

CCCS- ercial
CCCS- Recovery ercial Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
22.1.3 Action Development species and composition
CCCS- ercial
22.1.3.1 Action Step Development Implement actions in RIPARIAN 2
CCCS- Recovery ercial Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
CCCS- ercial
22.1.4.1 Action Step Development Implement actions in WATER DIVERSIONS 2
CCCS- ercial
Residential/Comm
RedC- ercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
CCCS-22.2 Objective Development mechanisms
CCCS- Recovery ercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape
CCCS- ercial
22.2.1.1 Action Step Development Implement Diversity Stratum level actions and BMP's 3
CCCS-23.1 Objective Roads/Railroads range
RedC-
CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport
Revaluate the high priority treatment

recommendations for unpaved roads from the PWA
assessment, and implement recommended
RedC- treatments if they are still relevant. If not, reassess Cost based on treating 14 miles of road network
CCCS- and make new recommendations for treatment. Push NPS, State at $21,000/mile. Cost to decommission road
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads for decommissioning when feasible. 2 10 Parks, MMWD 235.00 235.00 470 network to viability targets is $168,000.
Bridges associated with new roads or replacement

bridges (including railroad bridges) should be free
RedC- span or constructed with the minimum number of
CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation NPS, State
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads and facilitate fish passage. 3 50 Parks, MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC- Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality NPS, State
CCCS- Recovery (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or Parks, MMWD,
23.1.2 Action Roads/Railroads toxicity) NMFS, RCD
NPS, State
RedC- NMFS and other stakeholders will work with RCD or Parks, MMWD,
CCCS- NRCS to encourage hiring of consultants to conduct NMFS, RCD,
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads road assessments. 2 50 NRCS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC- Address sediment sources from road networks and NPS, State
CCCS- other actions that deliver sediment to stream Parks, MMWD,
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads channels. 2 50 NMFS, RCD 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
RedC- Reduce road densities by 10 percent over the next
CCCS- 10 years, prioritizing high risk areas in historical NPS, State Cost based on decommissioning 4 miles of road
23.1.2.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads habitats. 3 10 Parks, MMWD 22.00 22.00 44 network at $12,000/mile.
RedC-
CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to the estuary
23.1.3 Action Roads/Railroads (impaired quality and extent)

Support efforts to remove levees on the Banducci

property to create backwater and alcove habitat by
having the county raise the lower section of Muir
Woods road where it meets Highway One. Raising
the road will address flooding and create vital off
RedC- channel habitat in this section of creek. Coordinate
CCCS- with the NMFS and/or CDFW geomorphologist on Cost accounted for in Floodplain Connectivity
23.1.3.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads design features and implementation techniques. 2 30 0 action step RedC-CCCS-2.1.1.5
RedC- Remove levees along Big Lagoon and Pacific Way. Cost based on treating 1,500 linear feet of levee
CCCS- Address issues with culverts, road network, and at $70/linear foot plus road treatment at a cost of
23.1.3.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads development within the Big Lagoon Area. 2 10 TBD $21,000/mile.

CCCS-23.2 Objective Roads/Railroads mechanisms
23.2.1 Action Roads/Railroads toxicity)
Use available best management practices for road
construction, maintenance, management and
RedC- decommissioning (e.g. Weaver and Hagans, 1994;
CCCS- Sommarstrom et al., 2002; Oregon Department of
23.2.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads Transportation, 1999). 3 100 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC- Severe Weather Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

CCCS-24.1 Objective Patterns mechanisms
RedC-
Marin County,
RedC- Work with NPS and State Parks on emergency Marin RCD,
CCCS- Severe Weather drought operations and contingency plans (i.e. fish NPS, State
24.1.1.1 Action Step Patterns rescues etc.) 2 60 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Work with CDFW, County and knowledgeable
biologists to develop drought emergency rules that Marin County,
RedC- consider the lifehistory requirements of salmonids Marin RCD,
CCCS- Severe Weather and adopt implementation agreements regarding NPS, State
24.1.1.2 Action Step Patterns contingency efforts. 3 100 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, DWR,
Work with water managers on regulated streams to Marin County,
assure adequate and proper consideration is given to Marin RCD,
RedC- fish needs. Develop agreements, which will minimize NPS, RWQCB,
CCCS- Severe Weather water-use conflicts and impacts on fish and wildlife State Parks,
Marin County,
RedC- Encourage SWRCB to bring illegal water diverters Marin RCD,
CCCS- Severe Weather and out-of-compliance diverters into compliance with NPS, State
24.1.1.4 Action Step Patterns State law. 3 60 Parks, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
RedC- Diversion/Impound modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
CCCS-25.1 Objective ment range
RedC- Water
CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Impound Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
RedC- Water Work with the Muir Beach CSD and Green Gulch Muir Beach CSD,
CCCS- Diversion/Impound farm to eliminate water diversions that affect flow Green Gulch
25.1.1.1 Action Step ment within Redwood Creek. 2 20 Farm TBD

Provide incentives to water rights holders willing to NMFS, Private
RedC- Water convert some or all of their water right to instream Landowners,
CCCS- Diversion/Impound use via petition change of use and California Water NPS, State
25.1.1.2 Action Step ment Code 1707 (CDFG 2004). 3 50 Parks, MMWD TBD
RedC- Water
CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Impound Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
NMFS, Private
RedC- Water Landowners,
CCCS- Diversion/Impound Adequately screen water diversions to prevent NPS, State This recommendation should be considered
25.1.2.1 Action Step ment juvenile salmonid mortalities. 2 100 Parks, MMWD 0 standard practice. Action is considered In-Kind
Water
RedC- Diversion/Impound Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
CCCS-25.2 Objective ment mechanisms
RedC- Water
RedC- Water
CCCS- Diversion/Impound Support SWRCB in regulating the use of streamside
25.2.1.1 Action Step ment wells and groundwater. 3 100 NMFS, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

to address season of diversion, off-stream NMFS, Private
RedC- Water reservoirs, bypass flows protective of salmonids and Landowners,
CCCS- Diversion/Impound their habitats, and avoidance of adverse impacts NPS, State
25.2.1.2 Action Step ment caused by water diversion (CDFG 2004). 3 100 Parks, MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind

depletion of summer base flows from unauthorized NMFS, SWRCB,
RedC- Water water uses. Coordinated efforts by Federal and NMFS OLE,
CCCS- Diversion/Impound State, and County law enforcement agencies to CDFW, Marin
25.2.1.3 Action Step ment remove illegal diversions from streams. 3 100 County, NPS 0 Action is considered In-Kind

North Coastal Diversity Stratum: Russian River Populations
Willow Creek
Spawner Abundance Target: 47-96 adults
Sheephouse Creek
Freezeout Creek
Hulbert Creek
Porter Creek
Dutchbill Creek

Steelhead are present in fair numbers and are widely distributed throughout anadromous stream
reaches and the smaller tributaries in these watersheds. Baseline habitat surveys were conducted
by CDFG between 1994 and 1997 that documented the presence and distribution of juvenile and
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft North Coastal Diversity 318
Vol. IV, Central California Coast Steelhead Stratum: Russian River
adult steelhead, but did not provide quantifiable estimates (CDFG 2002). From 2005 to 2012,
UCCE has operated downstream migrant traps in Dutchbill (2010-2012 5-50 smolts), Sheephouse
(2005-2008 3-18 smolts) and Willow Creeks for the purposes of quantifying conservation hatchery
program coho, and have incidentally captured steelhead during a portion of the migration (CDFG
2002). Spawner surveys were conducted in several years, which documented low numbers of
adult steelhead in Sheephouse (1) and Ducthbill Creeks (5).
History of Land Use

The lower Russian River populations have had an active land use history, with timber harvest
occurring from the late 1800s through the turn of the century, and again after World War II
migration (CDFG 2002). Timber railways were converted to carry vacationers and weekend
travelers who constructed vacation homes in popular destinations throughout the Lower Russian
River from Rio Nido to Duncans Mills migration (CDFG 2002). By the 1930s, logging roads and
residences had been converted to residential roads and vacation homes to capitalize on Russian
River recreation and fishing opportunities migration (CDFG 2002).

The bottomlands of Freezeout and Willow Creeks, which were cleared for grazing operations,
still exist today, though much of Willow Creek is now in State Park ownership. Hulbert and
Porter Creek watersheds have fairly low acreage in rural residential development, while
Dutchbill Creek watershed has fairly high with numerous riparian and upslope roads. Lower
Porter Creek holds substantial vineyard development.
Conditions
The following discussion focuses on those conditions that were rated as Fair, as no conditions
were rated as Poor in the assessment process (North Coastal Diverstiy Stratum Rapid Assessment
Stresses Results). The lack of habitat complexity in the form of wood or other shelter components
and high levels of instream sediment are rated as Fair for their effects on the juvenile and egg life
stages in all streams within the Diversity Stratum. Stream temperatures and summer flows are
impaired for juveniles in both Porter and Dutchbill Creeks, reducing smolt recruitment. Impaired
passage was rated as moderate in Dutchbill for adults, and in Willow Creek for both smolts and
adults. Low floodplain connectivity hampers adult migration and limits winter juvenile refugia
in the lower portions of Willow, Dutchbill, Porter and Hulbert Creeks. Summer flows and water
quality for summer and winter rearing juveniles are a concern in Dutchbill, Porter and Freezeout
Creeks. Please see the Russian River Overview for a complete discussion on the Russian River
Estuary.
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that were rated as a High (North Coastal
Diverstiy Stratum Rapid Assessment Threats Results). Recovery strategies will focus on
ameliorating primary threats; however, some strategies may address other threat categories when
the strategy is essential to recovery efforts.
Agriculture
Historic vegetation clearing and stream channelization have occurred in lower Porter and lower
Willow Creeks, altering the riparian composition and structure and reducing shelter values for
quality juvenile rearing. While agricultural development has ceased in Willow Creek due to
acquisition by State Parks, grape growing is the primary land use in the floodplain of lower Porter
Creek. The thin buffer width and adjacent management limits expansion of the riparian corridor
and, along with the lack of an adjacent upland forest, impair stream temperatures.
Channel straightening and bank stabilization in Porter and Dutchbill Creeks have led to channel
incision, limiting the natural meandering required to foster habitat diversity and complexity. In
Willow Creek, levee construction and channel straightening have led to channel aggradation
which is aggravated by a high source of upslope sediment loading. Consequently, pool depths
and shelter values are low in these streams, compromising both summer and winter lifestage
rearing.

Upslope runoff and resultant turbidity arise from cattle operations in Freezeout and Willow
Creeks and continue to alter and/or limit the riparian zone. Bank stability and erosion are high
where cattle have direct access to the stream.

Historical timber harvest removed much of the mature trees, limiting the potential for eventual
large wood recruitment in all stream within the DS, with the exception of Willow Creek. High
shelter values exist in Willow Creek, though pool development and depth are hampered by high
sediment loading.

Streamside and upslope residential development with associated urban runoff is high in
Dutchbill Creek. Consequently, habitat diversity and complexity are lower than the historic
potential. The potential for future development to reduce habitat quality in Hulbert, Porter, and
Freezeout Creek is high if large parcels were to be split and current land use subject to change.
Roads and Railroads

High levels of instream sediment from roads are having a Medium effect on the juvenile and egg
life stages respectively in all streams within the DS. While road upgrades have been planned or
implemented in most watersheds of the DS, roads remain a major threat to Dutchbill, Hulbert
and Willow Creeks. Levees associated with bridge crossings in Willow Creek in particular limit
the ability of the channel to process legacy sediments associated with historic logging and
upslope livestock grazing (Prunuske Chatham Inc. 2004). Road crossings limit adult passage to
tributaries of Dutchbill Creek.

Water diversions and impoundments were rated High in Dutchbill Creek, where numerous
riparian diverters and appropriated storage tanks and dams exist. Current efforts by Goldridge
RCD and other partners are addressing solutions to conflicts with needed fish flows. Porter Creek
watershed has a large dam, though recently landowners have collaborated with resource agencies
to release flows during critical summer months to provide cooler water for rearing juvenile
salmonids.
Limiting Conditions, Life Stages, and Habitats

The highest condition-threat rated interactions occur due to the effects of channel modification
on floodplain connectivity and residential development and associated water development on
water quality and hydrology. The worst impacts are in Willow, Porter and Dutchbill Creeks.
Moderate condition-threat interactions also occur with livestock management (Freezeout and
Willow Creeks), legacy effects of timber harvest (Willow, Hulbert and Porter Creeks), and road
development (all streams). Lifestages most threatened are summer and winter rearing juveniles.
Habitats most threatened include riparian corridors and adjacent floodplain, and water quality
and flow.

the watershed. The general recovery strategies for the populations in this Stratum are discussed
below with more detailed and site-specific recovery actions provided in North Coastal Diversity
Stratum Rapid Assessment Recovery Actions.
Recovery strategies for this DS will focus on ameliorating the effects of channel modification on
floodplain connectivity through the development of restoration projects that reconnect the stream
with the adjacent floodplain, and improve migration for adult and smolt salmonids. Efforts to
restore habitat complexity, increase riparian areas, and reduce sediment are also recommended
in specific streams and reaches to improve juvenile summer and winter rearing habitat. BMPs are
recommended to mitigate ongoing effects from residential development and associated water
diversions on water quality and hydrology, and to reduce impacts from livestock and existing
roads on riparian and spawning habitats.
Literature Cited
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2002. Russian River Basin Fisheries Restoration
Plan - July 2002 Draft . Principal authors of this document are Robert Coey (CDFG), Sarah
Nossaman-Pearce (UCCE),and Colin Brooks and Zeb Young (HREC-IHRMP.
Healdsburg, CA. 331pp.
Prunuske Chatham, Inc. 2004. Sustainable Channel Development in Lower Willow Creek,
Sonoma County, California
CCC Steelhead DPS: North Coastal Stratum: Russian River (Willow/Sheephouse/Freezeout/Hulbert/Porter/Dutchbill)

P = Poor
Riparian Vegetation: Composition, Cover & Tree Diameter G G
Velocity Refuge: Floodplain Connectivity F F G

Hydrology: Redd Scour G
Hydrology: Baseflow & Passage Flows G VG F G
Passage/Migration: Mouth or Confluence & Physical Barriers F G G F
Habitat Complexity: Percent Primary Pools & Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratios G G G
Habitat Complexity: Large Wood & Shelter G F F G
Sediment: Gravel Quality & Distribution of Spawning Gravels VG F F G
Viability: Density, Abundance & Spatial Structure G G G
Water Quality: Temperature F VG
Water Quality: Turbidity & Toxicity VG F VG VG
CCC Steelhead DPS: North Coastal Stratum: Russian River (Willow/Sheephouse/Freezeout/Hulbert/Porter/Dutchbill)
Stresses






Quality & Quantity
Pool/Riffle Ratio
Temperatures
Diversity
Shelter
Events
Extent
Threat Scores
L: Low
M: Medium
H: High
Agriculture M L L L L L M L M L
Channel Modification L L H L L L L M M M L
Fire, Fuel Management, and Fire Suppression L L L L L L L L L M

Livestock Farming and Ranching M L L L L L L M M M
Logging and Wood Harvesting M L L L L L M L M L
Mining L L M L L L L L L L
Residential and Commercial Development M L M L L L L L M H
Roads and Railroads L L L L M L L M L M
Severe Weather Patterns L L L L M L L L L L L
Water Diversions and Impoundments L L L L H L L L L L L L
Willow Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
WlwC- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
WlwC- Recovery
CCCS-1.1.1 Action Estuary Increase quality and extent of estuarine habitat
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA NOS,
NOAA RC,
Private
Landowners,
Public Works,
RWQCB,
Sonoma County,
Sonoma County
WlwC- Develop and implement Estuary Protection and Water Agency,
CCCS- Enhancement projects to improve estuary function State Parks, Cost based on estuary use/residence time model
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary and habitat for juveniles and smolts. 1 5 USACE 283.00 283 at a rate of $282,233/project.
CDFW, NMFS,
WlwC- Continue implementation of the Russian River Sonoma County
CCCS- estuary management program, as described within Water Agency,
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary NMFS' Russian River Biological Opinion. 1 12 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WlwC- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
WlwC- Recovery Floodplain

WlwC- Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- Farm Bureau, Cost based on riparian and wetland restoration
CCCS- Floodplain established in low gradient response reaches of NMFS, Public model at a rate of $73,793 and $213,307/project,
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity Willow Creek. 1 10 Works, RCD 43.50 43.50 87 respectively.

pond habitats in lower Willow Creek or other reaches
where channel modification has resulted in
WlwC- plans to improve these conditions to re-create, and Public Works, Estimated costs based on similar costs in
CCCS- Floodplain restore alcove, backwater, or perennial pond RCD, Sonoma geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity habitats. 1 10 County 372.00 372.00 744 site, setting and geographic specific.
WlwC- Recovery Floodplain

Farm Bureau,
Private
Landowners,
WlwC- Public Works,
CCCS- Floodplain Add or incorporate features to enhance winter habitat RCD, Sonoma
2.1.2.1 Action Step Connectivity refugia to existing and new habitat projects. 2 20 County 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
WlwC- Recovery
Identify high priority barriers and restore passage per

NMFS' Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream CDFW, NOAA
WlwC- Crossings (NMFS 2001a) at multiple sites along RC, Private Cost based on providing passage at 4 barriers (2
CCCS- Willow Creek and tributaries. Modify the 3rd bridge to Landowners, partial, 2 unknown status) at a rate of
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage allow sediment transport and fish passage. 1 5 Sonoma County 171.00 171 $42,616/project.
Monitor fish passage at and downstream of Bridge 2 CDFW, NMFS,

WlwC- to ensure adequate adult upstream migration, and NOAA RC, Cost based on adult escapement and juvenile
CCCS- downstream smolt emigration. Implement necessary Sonoma County, migration monitoring at a rate of $36,379 and
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage recommendations to ensure passage. 1 10 UC Extension 56.25 56.25 113 $$188,264/project, respectively.
WlwC- Recovery
CCCS-6.1.1 Action Habitat Complexity Increase large wood frequency
CDFW, NOAA
WlwC- key LWD pieces/100 meters) in all reaches of the Landowners, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
CCCS- watershed to improve conditions for adults, and State Parks, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity winter/summer rearing juveniles. 1 5 Trout Unlimited 13 13 $26,000/mile.
WlwC- Recovery
CCCS-6.1.2 Action Habitat Complexity Increase frequency of primary pools

(>2.5 feet deep in 1st and 2nd order stream reaches; CDFW, NOAA Cost will be based on treating 0.5 miles (assume
WlwC- >3 feet in third order or larger stream reaches)) in RC, Private 1 project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
CCCS- Reach 1 within the watershed to improve conditions Landowners, $26,000/mile.
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity for adults, and summer/winter juveniles. 1 10 Trout Unlimited TBD
WlwC- Recovery
CCCS-6.1.3 Action Habitat Complexity Improve pool/riffle/flatwater ratio (hydraulic diversity)
CDFW, NOAA
RC, Private
WlwC- Increase riffle frequency to 20% by converting Landowners,
CCCS- flatwater habitats (glides, runs, etc.) utilizing boulders RCD, Trout
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity and log structures in Reach 1 within the watershed. 1 5 Unlimited 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
WlwC- Recovery
CDFW, NOAA
WlwC- Increase shelters to optimal conditions (>80 pool RC, Private
CCCS- shelter value) in all reaches to improve conditions for Landowners,
6.1.4.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity adults, and winter/summer rearing juveniles. 1 10 Trout Unlimited 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
WlwC- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
WlwC-
CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
WlwC- Evaluate undeveloped and developed floodplain Cost based on riparian and floodplain restoration
CCCS- Channel property for potential function and conservation RCD, Sonoma model at a rate of $73793 and $213,307/project,
CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
WlwC- floodplains and meadows to extend the duration of Landowners, Estimated costs based on similar costs in
CCCS- Channel the summer flow and provide refuge from high winter Sonoma County, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification flows (see FLOODPLAIN for specific actions). 1 10 USACE 372.00 372.00 744 site, setting and geographic specific.
CDFW, FEMA,
NMFS, NOAA
RC, Private
WlwC- Set-back existing levees in strategic areas to Landowners,
CCCS- Channel increase flood-flow detention and promote flood- RCD, Sonoma Cost will be based on amount of levee to setback.
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification tolerant land uses. 1 10 County, USACE TBD Estimate for levee setback is $34.94/linear ft.

WlwC- infrastructure and replacement with native vegetation
CCCS- Channel or flood tolerant land uses) for areas highly FEMA, Sonoma
WlwC-
CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and
WlwC- for flood conveyance incorporate features that
CCCS- Channel enhance steelhead migration under high and low flow
WlwC-
CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize increased landscape
WlwC- All proposed flood control projects should include

CCCS- Channel habitat protection, and/or alternatives that minimize NMFS, Sonoma

WlwC- ensure potential effects to CCC steelhead habitat are
CCCS- Channel fully minimized or mitigated, and where possible,
WlwC- other habitat-forming features including large
CCCS- Channel woody debris to ensure improved habitat at the CDFW, NMFS,
WlwC- Promote bio-engineering solutions as appropriate

CCCS- Channel (e.g. carefully evaluate feasibility where critical CDFW, NMFS,
WlwC- Channel Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

CCCS-13.2 Objective Modification mechanisms
WlwC-
WlwC- watershed processes, particularly within the 100-year City Planning,
CCCS- Channel flood prone zones in all historical CCC steelhead Sonoma County,
WlwC- retention programs and move away from the practice City Planning,
CCCS- Channel of removing instream large woody debris under high Sonoma County,
13.2.1.2 Action Step Modification flow emergencies. 3 10 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WlwC-
CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian

WlwC- to erosion) to exclude cattle and sheep. Calf/cow amount of riparian exclusion fencing needed.
CCCS- operations should take first priority for riparian CDFW, NOAA Cost estimate for riparian exclusion fence is
WlwC- Encourage develop and fund riparian restoration Estimated costs based on similar costs in
CCCS- projects to regain riparian corridors damaged from geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
18.1.1.2 Action Step Livestock livestock and other causes. 1 30 NRCS, RCD 24.83 24.83 24.83 24.83 24.83 149 site, setting and geographic specific.
Cost based on amount of cross fencing needed to
WlwC- NRCS, Private be removed. This action step may be
CCCS- Landowners, implemented in conjunction with above action
18.1.1.3 Action Step Livestock Remove portions of existing cross fencing. 2 60 RCD TBD step.

WlwC- Short term, seasonal and long term rest from grazing NRCS, Private Action is considered In-Kind because there is no
CCCS- in overgrazed areas would improve soil conditions for Landowners, new land being purchased, only a change in
18.1.1.4 Action Step Livestock native revegetation and land values as well. 3 60 RCD 0 grazing strategy
WlwC- Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
WlwC- Cost based on amount of participation from
CCCS- Aid landowners willing to fence off riparian areas with CDFW, NOAA landowners. Riparian exclusion fencing estimate
18.1.2.1 Action Step Livestock development of offstream alternative water sources. 1 30 RC, NRCS, RCD TBD is $3.63/linear ft.
WlwC- NRCS, Private
CCCS- Where necessary, establish predetermined stream Landowners, Cost accounted for as part of riparian exclusion
18.1.2.2 Action Step Livestock crossings when herding cattle between pastures. 2 60 RCD 0 fencing.
WlwC- NRCS, Private
CCCS- To minimize gully initiation, grazing should be kept at Landowners,
18.1.2.3 Action Step Livestock relatively low intensities on steeper slopes. 2 60 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CCCS-19.1 Objective Logging range
WlwC-
CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
CDFW, NMFS,
WlwC- Acquire key large tracts of forestlands identified as a RCD, Sonoma Need to estimate how much land will come
CCCS- priority by Federal, State, local government, and non- County, State available and fair market value for purchase in the
19.1.1.1 Action Step Logging governmental organizations. 3 60 Parks TBD future.
Board of
Forestry, CDFW,
WlwC- NMFS, Sonoma
CCCS- Conserve and manage forestlands for older forest County, State
Board of
Forestry, NMFS,
Private
Landowners,
WlwC- Encourage forest management which allows for Sonoma County,
CCCS- optimal levels of natural LWD recruitment of larger State Parks, Recruitment of LWD to the stream is critical.
19.1.1.3 Action Step Logging older trees into stream channels. 3 60 USEPA 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WlwC-
WlwC- sources from logging by utilizing BMP's that prevent CalFire, Private
CCCS- or minimize the delivery of sediment and runoff to Landowners,
WlwC- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

CCCS-19.2 Objective Logging mechanisms
WlwC-
CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape
WlwC- CalFire, Private
CCCS- Prevent or minimize the future conversion of Landowners,
19.2.1.1 Action Step Logging forestlands to agriculture or other land uses. 2 60 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
WlwC- NMFS Staff when Reviewing Timber Operations: Cost is minimal because NMFS/CDFW already
CCCS- Avoiding Take and Harm of Salmon and Steelhead" CalFire, CDFW, participate in meetings the Board of Forestry.
WlwC- Provide information to BOF regarding CCC
CCCS- steelhead priorities and recommend upgrading CalFire, CDFW,
WlwC-

yield sources. Upgrade and decommission sites and Landowners,
WlwC- road networks where appropriate. These actions Public Works, Cost based on decommissioning 2 miles of road
CCCS- include outsloping roads, ditch relief culverts, and RCD, State at a rate of $12,000/mile and upgrading 5 miles of
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads installing rolling dips. 1 10 Parks 64.50 64.50 129 road network at a rate of $21,000/mile.
CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
WlwC- Implement remaining surface treatments on the Private
CCCS- County Road network (culvert upgrades were Landowners, Cost based on remaining upgrades needed.
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads completed but surface treatments were not). 1 10 RCD TBD Road upgrades estimated at $21,000/mile.
WlwC- CDFW, NOAA
CCCS- Decommission legacy logging roads and reconnect RC, Private Cost for decommissioning is estimated at
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads springs bisected by roads. 1 10 Landowners TBD $21,000/mile.

WlwC- maintenance can be stored safely away from Private Cost based on number and type of adequate
CCCS- watercourses. Coordinate these efforts with all Landowners, spoils storage sites needed. These should be
23.1.1.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads landowners in the watershed. 2 10 Public Works TBD identified from the road assessment.

WlwC- construction (e.g. Fishnet 4c County Roads Manual; Landowners,
CCCS- Hagans & Weaver, 1994; Sommarstrom, 2002; Public Works,
Private
WlwC- Utilize BMP's to reduce the lengths of ditches, Landowners,
CCCS- increase the size of ditch relief culverts, or replace Public Works,
23.1.1.6 Action Step Roads/Railroads with rolling dips. 3 20 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Private
Utilize BMP's to upgrade existing crossings (bridges, Landowners,
WlwC- culverts, fills, and other crossings) to accommodate Public Works,
CCCS- 100-year flood flows and associated bedload and RCD, State
23.1.1.7 Action Step Roads/Railroads debris. 3 25 Parks TBD
WlwC-
CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and
CDFW, NOAA
WlwC- RC, Private
CCCS- Implement road barrier survey recommendations in Landowners, Cost based on recommendations from road
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads high then medium value areas as a priority. 2 10 RCD TBD assessment.
WlwC- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

WlwC-

WlwC- watershed processes and the adverse effects of
CCCS- improper road construction and maintenance on Cost to expand an existing program are expected
City Planning,
WlwC- FishNet 4C,
CCCS- Utilize the Fishnet4c manual in training and Public Works,
Board of
Forestry,
CalTrans,
WlwC- span or constructed with the minimum number of Landowners, and new construction plans is unlikely to increase
CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation RCD, Sonoma costs. Construction of the bridges will likely be
23.2.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads and facilitate fish passage. 3 60 County 0 much higher.
WlwC- (bridges, culverts, fills, and other crossings) should
CCCS- accommodate 100-year flood flows and associated Sonoma County,
Sheephouse Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
ShepC- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
ShepC- Recovery Floodplain

ShepC- Farm Bureau, Cost based on riparian and wetland restoration
CCCS- Floodplain Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- NMFS, Public model at a rate of $73,793 and $213,307/project,
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity established in low gradient response reaches 1 10 Works, RCD 14.00 14.00 28 respectively.

pond habitats in lower areas where channel
modification has resulted in decreased shelter, LWD NMFS, Private
frequency, and habitat complexity, develop and Landowners,
ShepC- implement site specific plans to improve these Public Works, Estimated costs based on similar costs in
CCCS- Floodplain conditions to re-create, and restore alcove, RCD, Sonoma geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity backwater, or perennial pond habitats. 1 10 County 372.00 372.00 744 site, setting and geographic specific.
ShepC- Recovery Floodplain

Farm Bureau,
Private
Landowners,
ShepC- Public Works,
CCCS- Floodplain Add or incorporate features to enhance winter habitat RCD, Sonoma
2.1.2.1 Action Step Connectivity refugia to existing and new habitat projects 2 15 County 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
ShepC- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
ShepC- Recovery
CDFW, NOAA
ShepC- key LWD pieces/100 meters) in reaches 1,2 and 4 of Landowners, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
CCCS- the watershed to improve conditions for adults, and State Parks, project/mile in 50% high IP with a minimum of 0.5
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity winter/summer rearing juveniles. 1 10 Trout Unlimited 6.50 6.50 13 miles) at a rate of $26,000/mile
ShepC- Recovery

(>2.5 feet deep in 1st and 2nd order stream reaches; CDFW, NOAA
ShepC- >3 feet in third order or larger stream reaches)) in RC, Private Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
CCCS- Reaches 1-3 within the watershed to improve Landowners, project/mile in 50% high IP with a minimum of 0.5
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity conditions for adults, and summer/winter juveniles. 1 10 Trout Unlimited 6.50 6.50 13 miles) at a rate of $26,000/mile
ShepC- Recovery
CDFW, NOAA
ShepC- RC, Private Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
CCCS- Increase shelters to optimal conditions (>80 pool Landowners, project/mile in 50% high IP with a minimum of 0.5
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity shelter value) in all reaches 1 10 Trout Unlimited 6.50 6.50 13 miles) at a rate of $26,000/mile
ShepC- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
ShepC-
Sheephouse Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
CDFW, NMFS,
ShepC- Acquire key large tracts of forestlands identified as a RCD, Sonoma Need to estimate where and how much land will
CCCS- priority by Federal, State, local government, and non- County, State come available and fair market value for purchase
19.1.1.1 Action Step Logging governmental organizations 3 60 Parks TBD in the future.
Board of
Forestry, CDFW,
ShepC- NMFS, Sonoma Costs cannot be determined at this time, due to
CCCS- Conserve and manage forestlands for older forest County, State an unknown number of variables and research
19.1.1.2 Action Step Logging stages. 3 60 Parks, USEPA TBD priorities.
Board of
Forestry, NMFS,
Private
Landowners,
ShepC- Encourage forest management which allows for Sonoma County,
CCCS- optimal levels of natural LWD recruitment of larger State Parks, US Recruitment of LWD to the stream is critical.
ShepC-
ShepC- sources from logging by utilizing BMP's that prevent CalFire, Private
CCCS- or minimize delivery of sediment and runoff to stream Landowners,
ShepC- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

ShepC-
ShepC- CalFire, NMFS,
CCCS- Minimize future conversion of forestlands to Private
19.2.1.1 Action Step Logging agriculture or other land uses. 2 60 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
ShepC- NMFS Staff when Reviewing Timber Operations: Cost is minimal because NMFS/CDFW already
ShepC- Provide information to BOF regarding CCC
Freezeout Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
FrezC- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
FrezC- Recovery Floodplain

FrezC- Farm Bureau, Cost based on riparian and wetland restoration
CCCS- Floodplain Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- NMFS, Public model at a rate of $73,793 and $213,307/project,
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity established in low gradient response reaches 1 10 Works, RCD 14.00 14.00 28 respectively.

FrezC- implement site specific plans to improve these Public Works, Estimated costs based on similar costs in
CCCS- Floodplain conditions to re-create, and restore alcove, RCD, Sonoma geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity backwater, or perennial pond habitats. 1 10 County 372.00 372.00 744 site, setting and geographic specific.
FrezC- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
FrezC- Recovery
CDFW, NOAA
FrezC- key LWD pieces/100 meters) in reaches 1,2 and 4 of Landowners,
CCCS- the watershed to improve conditions for adults, and State Parks, Cost based on treating 1 mile at a rate of
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity winter/summer rearing juveniles. 1 10 Trout Unlimited 13.00 13.00 26 $26,000/mile.
FrezC- Recovery

(>2.5 feet deep in 1st and 2nd order stream reaches; CDFW, NOAA
FrezC- >3 feet in third order or larger stream reaches)) in RC, Private
CCCS- Reaches 1-3 within the watershed to improve Landowners, Cost based on treating 1 mile at a rate of
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity conditions for adults, and summer/winter juveniles. 1 10 Trout Unlimited 13.00 13.00 26 $26,000/mile.
FrezC- Recovery
CCCS-6.1.3 Action Habitat Complexity Increase pool/riffle/flatwater ratio (hydraulic diversity)
CDFW, NOAA
RC, Private
FrezC- Increase riffle frequency to 20% by converting Landowners,
CCCS- flatwater habitats (glides, runs, etc.) utilizing boulders RCD, Trout
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity and log structures in Reaches within the watershed. 1 5 Unlimited TBD
FrezC- Recovery
CDFW, NOAA
FrezC- RC, Private
CCCS- Increase shelters to optimal conditions (>80 pool Landowners,
6.1.4.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity shelter value) in all reaches 1 10 Trout Unlimited TBD
FrezC-
CCCS- Recovery

FrezC- NMFS, Private continuous water quality monitoring stations at a
CCCS- Install continuous water quality monitoring stations in Landowners, rate of $5,000/station. Cost does not account for
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality lower Freezeout Creek 1 5 RWQCB 5.00 5 data management or maintenance.
CDFW, CDFW
Law
FrezC- Identify and provide solutions for point and non-point Enforcement,
CCCS- sources contributing to poor water quality and RWQCB, Cost based on results of continuous water quality
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality pollution. 1 5 USEPA TBD monitoring.
FrezC-

fence riparian and other sensitive areas (areas prone Cost based on amount of fencing needed and
FrezC- to erosion) to exclude cattle and sheep. Calf/cow participation of landowners. Currently, existing
CCCS- operations should take first priority for riparian CDFW, NOAA incentive programs exist and should be explored
18.1.1.1 Action Step Livestock fencing programs over steer operations. 1 60 RC, NRCS, RCD TBD and expanded.
FrezC- Encourage develop and fund riparian restoration NRCS, Private Cost based on amount of area needing to be
CCCS- projects to regain riparian corridors damaged from Landowners, restored. Estimate for riparian restoration is
18.1.1.2 Action Step Livestock livestock and other causes. 1 30 RCD TBD $37,200/acre.

FrezC- Short term, seasonal and long term rest from grazing NRCS, Private Action is considered In-Kind because no land is
CCCS- in overgrazed areas would improve soil conditions for Landowners, being purchased, only a change in grazing
18.1.1.3 Action Step Livestock native revegetation and land values as well. 3 60 RCD 0 strategy
FrezC- NRCS, Private
CCCS- Manage rotational grazing to aid in the reduction of Landowners,
18.1.1.4 Action Step Livestock noxious weeds. 3 60 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
FrezC- Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
FrezC-
CCCS- Aid landowners willing to fence off riparian areas with CDFW, NOAA
18.1.2.1 Action Step Livestock development of offstream alternative water sources 1 30 RC, NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CCCS- Where necessary, establish predetermined stream Landowners, This action step should be in concert with riparian
18.1.2.2 Action Step Livestock crossings when herding cattle between pastures. 2 60 RCD TBD exclusion fencing.
CCCS- To minimize gully initiation, grazing should be kept at Landowners,
18.1.2.3 Action Step Livestock relatively low intensities on steeper slopes 2 60 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind

FrezC- with 1000 lbs RDM (residual dry matter)/acre left at NRCS, Private
CCCS- end of grazing season. Remove cattle from pasture Landowners,
18.1.2.4 Action Step Livestock before soils dry out. 3 25 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
FrezC-
CDFW, NMFS,
FrezC- Acquire key large tracts of forestlands identified as a RCD, Sonoma Need to estimate where and how much land will
CCCS- priority by Federal, State, local government, and non- County, State come available and the fair market value for the
19.1.1.1 Action Step Logging governmental organizations 3 60 Parks TBD land to purchase in the future.
Board of
Forestry, CDFW,
FrezC- NMFS, Sonoma
CCCS- Conserve and manage forestlands for older forest County, State
Board of
Forestry, NMFS,
Private
Landowners,
FrezC- Encourage forest management which allows for Sonoma County,
CCCS- optimal levels of natural LWD recruitment of larger State Parks, US Recruitment of LWD to the stream is critical.
FrezC-
FrezC- sources from logging by utilizing BMP's that prevent CalFire, Private
CCCS- or minimize delivery of sediment and runoff to stream Landowners,
FrezC- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

FrezC-
FrezC- CalFire, NMFS,
CCCS- Prevent or minimize future conversion of forestlands Private
FrezC- NMFS Staff when Reviewing Timber Operations: Cost is minimal because NMFS/CDFW already
FrezC- Establish greater oversight and post-harvest
CCCS- monitoring by the permitting agency for operations BOF, NMFS,
19.2.1.3 Action Step Logging within high value habitat areas 3 10 State 0 Action is considered In-Kind
FrezC- Provide information to BOF regarding CCC
FrezC-
CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
FrezC- Assess existing road networks and implement Private
CCCS- actions that hydrologically disconnect roads and Landowners, Cost based on road inventory of 4 miles of road
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads reduce sediment sources. 2 5 RCD 4.00 4 network at a rate of $957/mile.

FrezC- road networks where appropriate. These actions Public Works,
CCCS- include outsloping roads, ditch relief culverts, and RCD, State Cost based on appropriate recommendations to
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads installing rolling dips. 2 10 Parks TBD employ from road inventory.

FrezC- maintenance can be stored safely away from Private
CCCS- watercourses. Coordinate these efforts with all Landowners, Cost based on amount of adequate spoils storage
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads landowners in the watershed. 3 10 Public Works TBD sites needed.

FrezC- construction (e.g. Fishnet 4c County Roads Manual; Landowners,
Private
Landowners,
FrezC- Utilize BMP's to reduce the lengths of ditches, Public Works,
CCCS- increase the size of ditch relief culverts, or replace RCD, State
FrezC- culverts, fills, and other crossings) to accommodate Landowners,
CCCS- 100-year flood flows and associated bedload and Public Works,
23.1.1.6 Action Step Roads/Railroads debris. 3 25 State Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
FrezC-
FrezC- CDFW, NOAA
CCCS- Assess private road stream crossings for barrier RC, Private
CDFW, NOAA
FrezC- Implement public road barrier survey RC, Private
CCCS- recommendations in high then medium value areas Landowners,
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads as a priority (See Passage). 2 5 RCD TBD Cost accounted for in above action step.
FrezC- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

FrezC-

FrezC- watershed processes and the adverse effects of
City Planning,
FrezC- FishNet 4C,
Board of
Forestry,
CalTrans,
FrezC- span or constructed with the minimum number of Landowners, and new construction plans is unlikely to increase
CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation RCD, Sonoma costs. Construction of the bridges will likely be
FrezC- (bridges, culverts, fills, and other crossings) should
Hulbert Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
HulC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
HulC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, NOAA
key LWD pieces/100 meters) in all reaches of the Landowners, Cost based on treating 0.8 miles (assume 1
HulC-CCCS- watershed to improve conditions for adults, and State Parks, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
HulC-CCCS- Recovery

conditions (>40% of pools meet primary pool criteria Cost based on treating 0.8 miles (assume 1
(>2.5 feet deep in 1st and 2nd order stream reaches; CDFW, NOAA project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
>3 feet in third order or larger stream reaches)) in RC, Private $26,000/mile. This action step should be
HulC-CCCS- Reaches 1-3 within the watershed to improve Landowners, coordinated with above action step to reduce cost
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity conditions for adults, and summer/winter juveniles. 1 10 Trout Unlimited 13.00 13.00 26 and redundancy.
HulC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, NOAA
RC, Private Estimated costs based on similar costs in
HulC-CCCS- Improve canopy to 80% by planting riparian and Landowners, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian coniferous species. 1 10 RCD 83.00 83.00 166 site, setting and geographic specific.
"Promote streamside conservation measures,
including conservation easements, setbacks, and Counties, Private
HulC-CCCS- riparian buffers throughout the watershed" (CDFG Landowners,
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian 2004). 3 30 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
HulC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

CDFW, NMFS,
Acquire key large tracts of forestlands identified as a RCD, Sonoma Need to estimate how much land will come
HulC-CCCS- priority by Federal, State, local government, and non- County, State available and fair market value for purchase in the
19.1.1.1 Action Step Logging governmental organizations. 3 60 Parks TBD future.
Board of
Forestry, CDFW,
NMFS, Sonoma
HulC-CCCS- Conserve and manage forestlands for older forest County, State
Board of
Forestry, NMFS,
Private
Landowners,
HulC-CCCS- optimal levels of natural LWD recruitment of larger State Parks, Recruitment of LWD to the stream is critical.
19.1.1.3 Action Step Logging older trees into stream channels. 3 60 USEPA 0 Action is considered In-Kind
HulC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport

HulC-CCCS- or minimize the delivery of sediment and runoff to Landowners,
HulC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

HulC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape

CalFire, NMFS,
HulC-CCCS- Prevent or minimize future conversion of forestlands Private
HulC-CCCS- Avoiding Take and Harm of Salmon and Steelhead" CalFire, CDFW, participate in meetings the Board of Forestry.
HulC-CCCS- steelhead priorities and recommend upgrading
HulC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to sediment

23.1.1 Action Roads/Railroads transport (road condition/density, dams, etc.)
CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
HulC-CCCS- actions that hydrologically disconnect roads and Landowners, Cost based on road inventory of 17.5 miles of
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads reduce sediment sources. 2 5 RCD 17.00 17 road network at a rate of $957/mile.

yield sources. Upgrade and decommission sites and Landowners, Cost based on decommissioning 15.8 miles of
road networks where appropriate. These actions Public Works, road network at a rate of $12,000/mile and
HulC-CCCS- include outsloping roads, ditch relief culverts, and RCD, State upgrading remaining 1.6 miles at a rate of
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads installing rolling dips. 2 10 Parks 112.00 112.00 224 $21,000/mile.

HulC-CCCS- watercourses. Coordinate these efforts with all Landowners, Cost will be based on number of adequate spoil
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads landowners in the watershed. 3 20 Public Works TBD sites needed identified in road inventory.

HulC-CCCS- Hagans & Weaver, 1994; Sommarstrom, 2002; Public Works,
Private
Landowners,
HulC-CCCS- increase the size of ditch relief culverts, or replace RCD, State
HulC-CCCS- 100-year flood flows and associated bedload and Public Works,
23.1.1.6 Action Step Roads/Railroads debris. 3 20 State Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
HulC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

CDFW, NOAA
HulC-CCCS- Assess private road stream crossings for barrier RC, Private Cost may be included in the above road
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads potential and implement recommendations. 1 10 Landowners TBD assesment.
CDFW, NOAA
HulC-CCCS- recommendations in high then medium value areas Landowners, Cost will be based on recommendations identified
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads as a priority (See Passage). 2 5 RCD TBD in road assessment.
HulC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

HulC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape


HulC-CCCS- improper road construction and maintenance on Cost to expand an existing program are expected
23.2.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads salmonids and their habitats. 3 5 CDFW, RCD 0 to be minimal.
Action is considered In-Kind
City Planning,
FishNet 4C,
HulC-CCCS- Utilize the Fishnet4c manual in training and Public Works,
Board of
Forestry,
CalTrans,
HulC-CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation RCD, Sonoma costs. Construction of the bridges will likely be
HulC-CCCS- accommodate 100-year flood flows and associated Sonoma County,
Porter Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
PortC- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
PortC- Recovery Floodplain

PortC- Farm Bureau, Estimated costs based on similar costs in

CCCS- Floodplain Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- NMFS, Public geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity established in low gradient response reaches. 2 10 Works, RCD 58 58 116 site, setting and geographic specific.

PortC- implement site specific plans to improve these Public Works,
CCCS- Floodplain conditions to re-create, and restore alcove, RCD, Sonoma
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity backwater, or perennial pond habitats. 2 20 County 0 Cost accounted for in above action step
PortC- Recovery Floodplain

Farm Bureau,
Private
Landowners,
PortC- Public Works,
CCCS- Floodplain Add or incorporate features to enhance winter habitat RCD, Sonoma Costs will vary depending on methods
2.1.2.1 Action Step Connectivity refugia to existing and new habitat projects 2 10 County TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
PortC- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
PortC- Recovery
CDFW, NOAA
PortC- key LWD pieces/100 meters) in all reaches of the Landowners, Cost based on treating 1.3 miles (assume 1
CCCS- watershed to improve conditions for adults, and State Parks, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
PortC- Recovery

conditions (>40% of pools meet primary pool criteria Cost based on treating 1.3 miles (assume 1
(>2.5 feet deep in 1st and 2nd order stream reaches; CDFW, NOAA project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
PortC- >3 feet in third order or larger stream reaches)) in RC, Private $26,000/mile. This action step should be
CCCS- Reaches 4-7 within the watershed to improve Landowners, coordinated with similar action steps to reduce
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity conditions for adults, and summer/winter juveniles. 1 10 Trout Unlimited 17.00 17.00 34 cost and redundancy.
PortC- Recovery
CCCS-6.1.3 Action Habitat Complexity Increase pool/riffle/flatwater ratio (hydraulic diversity)
CDFW, NOAA
Increase riffle frequency to 20% by converting RC, Private
PortC- flatwater habitats (glides, runs, etc.) utilizing boulders Landowners,
CCCS- and log structures in Reaches within the RCD, Trout
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity watershed. 1 5 Unlimited 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
PortC- Recovery
CCCS-6.1.4 Action Habitat Complexity Increase shelter
CDFW, NOAA
PortC- RC, Private
CCCS- Increase shelters to optimal conditions (>80 pool Landowners,
6.1.4.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity shelter value) in all reaches
. 1 10 Trout Unlimited 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
PortC- Recovery
Improve canopy to 80% by planting riparian and CDFW, NOAA
PortC- coniferous species within Reaches 1, 3, 4 and 7 to RC, Private Estimated costs based on similar costs in
CCCS- provide shade, large woody debris input, nutrient Landowners, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian input, and bank stabilization. 1 10 RCD 83.00 83.00 166 site, setting and geographic specific.
PortC- including conservation easements, setbacks, and City Planning,
CCCS- riparian buffers throughout the watershed (CDFG Land Trusts,
PortC- Recovery
Class 5 & 6 tree). Plant native riparian species and CDFW, NOAA
PortC- native conifers/hardwoods throughout riparian zones RC, Private
CCCS- within the watershed to increase overall tree Landowners, Cost accounted for through implementation of
7.1.2.1 Action Step Riparian diameter. 3 20 RCD 0 other action steps.
PortC-
Address sediment and runoff sources from road Cost based on road inventory of 13.7 miles of
PortC- networks and other actions that deliver sediment and CDFW, Private road network. Cost to address sediment and
CCCS- runoff to stream channels (see Roads for specific Landowners, runoff will depend upon recommendations from
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture actions/areas). 2 10 RCD 7.00 7.00 14 the assessment.
PortC- those in the Fish Friendly Farming program NRCS, Private
CCCS- (California Land Stewardship Institute), or other Landowners,
PortC- organizations to increase the number of landowners NRCS, Private
CCCS- participating in sediment reduction planning and Landowners,

PortC- other cooperative conservation programs) to address NRCS, Private
CCCS- sediment source reduction, riparian habitat, forest Landowners, Cost of completing Farm Conservation Plan
CDFW, NMFS,
PortC- NRCS, Private
CCCS- Assess the effectiveness of erosion control Landowners,
12.1.1.5 Action Step Agriculture measures throughout the winter period. 3 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
CCCS- Landowners,
PortC-
PortC- Implement programs to purchase land/conservation Cost will be based on number and scope of
CCCS- easements to encourage the re-establishment and/or Land Trusts, conservation easements, fair market value, and
Private
PortC- Landowners,
CCCS- Utilize native plants when landscaping and RCD, UC
12.1.2.2 Action Step Agriculture discourage the use of exotic invasives. 3 30 Extension 0 Action is considered In-Kind
PortC-
PortC- CDFW, Private project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
CCCS- Landowners, $26,000/mile. If ELJ is used, assume flat rate of
12.1.3.1 Action Step Agriculture Add large woody debris to reach optimal frequencies. 2 10 RCD 17.00 17.00 34 $104,000/ELJ.
CCCS- Avoid the removal of large wood and other shelter Landowners,
12.1.3.2 Action Step Agriculture components from the stream system. 3 50 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
PortC-
CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
CDFW, Private
PortC- Landowners,
CCCS- Re-establish native plant communities in riparian RCD, UC
12.1.4.1 Action Step Agriculture zones to increase stream canopy to 80%. 2 20 Extension TBD
PortC-
CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
NRCS, Private
PortC- Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Landowners,
CCCS- water diversion during the spring and summer (e.g. RCD, UC
12.1.5.1 Action Step Agriculture diversion during winter high flow). 2 20 Extension 0 Action is considered In-Kind
PortC- protection (wind machines, cold air drains, heaters, NRCS, Private
CCCS- or micro-sprayers) which eliminate or minimize water Landowners,
PortC- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

CCCS-12.2 Objective Agriculture mechanisms
PortC-
Farm Bureau,
PortC- Develop legislation that will fund county planning for NRCS, Sonoma
CCCS- environmentally sound agricultural growth and water County, UC
PortC- Coordinate with the agencies that authorize forest Board of

CCCS- land conversions to discourage conversions to Forestry, CDFW,
PortC- Develop riparian setbacks/buffers where they do not City Planning, Cost will be based on amount of setbacks
CCCS- currently occur, and enforce requirements of local RWQCB, needed. Estimate for levee setbacks is
12.2.1.3 Action Step Agriculture regulations where they do. 3 20 Sonoma County TBD $31.7/linear ft.
PortC- City Planning,

CCCS- Increase setbacks of existing agricultural activities NRCS, RCD,
12.2.1.4 Action Step Agriculture from the top of bank to 100'. 3 25 Sonoma County TBD
CDFW, NMFS,
PortC- NRCS, RCD, Streamlining permit processing is not expected to
CCCS- Streamline permit processing where landowners are SWRCB, cost much, and may save money through future
PortC- conduct operations in a manner compatible with CCC NRCS, Private Soliciting cooperation not expected to cost much
CCCS- steelhead and CC Chinook salmon recovery Landowners, outside of already existing federal and state and
PortC- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
PortC-
CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment of floodplain

PortC- infrastructure and replacement with native vegetation
CCCS- Channel or flood tolerant land uses) for areas highly FEMA, Sonoma
PortC-
PortC- for flood conveyance incorporate features that
CCCS- Channel enhance steelhead migration under high and low flow
PortC-
PortC- All proposed flood control projects should include

CCCS- Channel habitat protection, and/or alternatives that minimize NMFS, Sonoma

PortC- ensure potential effects to CCC steelhead habitat are
CCCS- Channel fully minimized or mitigated, and where possible,
PortC- other habitat-forming features including large
CCCS- Channel woody debris to ensure improved habitat at the CDFW, NMFS,
PortC- Promote bio-engineering solutions as appropriate

CCCS- Channel (e.g. carefully evaluate feasibility where critical CDFW, NMFS,
PortC- Channel Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

CCCS-13.2 Objective Modification mechanisms
PortC-
PortC- watershed processes, particularly within the 100-year City Planning,
CCCS- Channel flood prone zones in all historical CCC steelhead Sonoma County,
PortC- retention programs and move away from the practice
CCCS- Channel of removing instream large woody debris under high City Planning,
PortC-

PortC- to erosion) to exclude cattle and sheep. Calf/cow amount of riparian exclusion fencing needed.
CCCS- operations should take first priority for riparian CDFW, NOAA Cost estimate for riparian exclusion fence is
PortC- Encourage develop and fund riparian restoration Cost will be based on amount of area to be
CCCS- projects to regain riparian corridors damaged from restored. Cost estimate for riparian restoration is
18.1.1.2 Action Step Livestock livestock and other causes. 2 30 NRCS, RCD TBD $37,200/ acre.

PortC- Short term, seasonal and long term rest from grazing NRCS, RCD, Action is considered In-Kind. It is not requiring the
CCCS- in overgrazed areas would improve soil conditions for Private purchase of any land but only a change in grazing
18.1.1.3 Action Step Livestock native revegetation and land values as well. 3 60 Landowners 0 strategy.
PortC- NRCS, RCD,
CCCS- Manage rotational grazing to aid in the reduction of Private
PortC-
CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality (e.g.
18.1.2 Action Livestock turbidity, suspended sediment and/or toxicity)
PortC- Cost based on treating 0.2 miles (assume 1

CCCS- Aid landowners willing to fence off riparian areas with CDFW, NOAA project/mile in 5% high IP) at a rate of $3.63/ft.
18.1.2.1 Action Step Livestock development of offstream alternative water sources. 2 30 RC, NRCS, RCD 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 4 Offstream water sources estimate is $5,000/site.
PortC- NRCS, RCD,
CCCS- Where necessary, establish predetermined stream Private This action should be conducted in coordination
18.1.2.2 Action Step Livestock crossings when herding cattle between pastures. 2 60 Landowners TBD with riparian fencing.
PortC- NRCS, RCD,
CCCS- To minimize gully initiation, grazing should be kept at Private
18.1.2.3 Action Step Livestock relatively low intensities on steeper slopes. 3 60 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind

PortC- with 1000 lbs RDM (residual dry matter)/acre left at NRCS, RCD,
CCCS- end of grazing season. Remove cattle from pasture Private
18.1.2.4 Action Step Livestock before soils dry out. 3 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CCCS-20.1 Objective Mining range
PortC-
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
PortC- Landowners, Cost based on appropriate measures needed to
CCCS- Improve passage where mining and other activities Sonoma County, improve passage. Cost fish/habitat restoration
20.1.1.1 Action Step Mining have resulted in diminished migration windows. 1 10 USACE TBD model estimate of $114,861/project.
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
PortC- Landowners,
CCCS- Implement gravel mining practices recommended by Sonoma County,
20.1.1.2 Action Step Mining NMFS and CDFW 2 10 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
PortC- Prevent or minimize impairment to instream habitat
CCCS- Recovery complexity (altered pool complexity and/or pool riffle
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
PortC- Develop and enhance staging pool habitats and Private
CCCS- thalweg depth where geomorphic conditions dictate Landowners, Cost accounted for in HABITAT COMPLEXITY
20.1.2.1 Action Step Mining and allow. 2 10 USACE 0
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
PortC- Continue to implement and support BMP's which Private
CCCS- improve, maintain or prevent impacts to habitat Landowners,
PortC-
CDFW,
Counties,
PortC- Private
CCCS- Develop and enhance offchannel habitats such as Landowners, Cost accounted for in FLOODPLAIN
20.1.3.1 Action Step Mining alcoves to promote fry and juvenile rearing habitat. 2 20 USACE 0 CONNECTIVITY.
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
PortC- Retain LWD, boulders and vegetation on riffles Private
CCCS- where structure is beneficial to migration and resting Landowners,
PortC-
23.1.1 Action Roads/Railroads (road construction/density, dams, etc.)
CDFW, NOAA
RC,
PortC- Assess existing road networks and implement NRCS,Private
CCCS- actions that hydrologically disconnect roads and Landowners,
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads reduce sediment sources. 2 10 RCD TBD

PortC- road networks where appropriate. These actions Public Works,
CCCS- include outsloping roads, ditch relief culverts, and RCD, State
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads installing rolling dips. 2 10 Parks 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.

PortC- maintenance can be stored safely away from Private Cost based on number and type of adequate
CCCS- watercourses. Coordinate these efforts with all Landowners, spoils sites needed identified from road
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads landowners in the watershed. 3 10 Public Works TBD assessment.

PortC- construction (e.g. Fishnet 4c County Roads Manual; Landowners,
Private
Landowners,
PortC- Utilize BMP's to reduce the lengths of ditches, Public Works,
CCCS- increase the size of ditch relief culverts, or replace RCD, State
PortC- culverts, fills, and other crossings) to accommodate Landowners,
CCCS- 100-year flood flows and associated bedload and Public Works,
23.1.1.6 Action Step Roads/Railroads debris. 3 20 State Parks TBD
PortC-
PortC- CDFW, NOAA
CCCS- Assess private road stream crossings for barrier RC, Private
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads potential and implement recommendations . 1 10 Landowners TBD
CDFW, NOAA
PortC- Implement public road barrier survey RC, Private
CCCS- recommendations in high then medium value areas Landowners, Cost based on recommendations from road
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads as a priority (See Passage). 2 5 RCD TBD assessment.
PortC- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

PortC-

PortC- watershed processes and the adverse effects of
City Planning,
PortC- FishNet 4C,
Board of
Forestry,
CalTrans,
PortC- span or constructed with the minimum number of Landowners, Incorporating free span bridges into replacement
CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation RCD, Sonoma and new construction plans is unlikely to increase
23.2.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads and facilitate fish passage. 3 60 County 0 costs. Action is considered In-Kind
PortC- (bridges, culverts, fills, and other crossings) should
PortC- Diversion/Impound modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
CCCS-25.1 Objective ment range
PortC- Water
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
Private
Landowners,
RCD, RWQCB,
Sonoma County,
PortC- Water Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Sonoma County
CCCS- Diversion/Impound water diversion (e.g., storage tanks for rural Water Agency,
25.1.1.1 Action Step ment residential users). 2 20 SWRCB TBD
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NRCS,
PortC- Water Sonoma County Promoting water conservation best practices is
CCCS- Diversion/Impound Promote water conservation best practices such as Water Agency, not expected to result in additional costs. Action
25.1.1.2 Action Step ment drip irrigation for vineyards. 3 20 SWRCB 0 is considered In-Kind
CDFW, RCD,
PortC- Water Sonoma County Costs associated with promoting use of reclaimed
CCCS- Diversion/Impound Promote the use of reclaimed water for agricultural or Water Agency, water is expected to be minimal. Action is
25.1.1.3 Action Step ment other uses. 3 60 State Parks 0 considered In-Kind
NMFS, RCD,
RWQCB,
PortC- Water Promote passive diversion devices designed to allow Sonoma County
CCCS- Diversion/Impound diversion of water only when minimum streamflow Water Agency, Costs to promote this action are expected to be
25.1.1.4 Action Step ment requirements are met or exceeded (CDFG 2004). 3 30 SWRCB 0 minimal. Action is considered In-Kind
PortC- Water
CCCS- Recovery Diversion/Impound Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
PortC- Water Cost based on number and type of fish screens

CCCS- Diversion/Impound Adequately screen water diversions to prevent CDFW, NMFS, needed to prevent juvenile salmonid mortalities.
25.1.2.1 Action Step ment juvenile salmonid mortalities. 1 10 NOAA RC TBD Estimate for fish screen is $53,465/screen.
Water
PortC- Diversion/Impound Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
CCCS-25.2 Objective ment mechanisms
PortC- Water

PortC- Water greater certainty for reaches that have water Private
CCCS- Diversion/Impound available for consumptive uses and be useful as a Landowners, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
25.2.1.1 Action Step ment decision-support tool for other programs. 1 5 RCD 65 a rate of $65,084/project.
CDFW, County
Planning, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NOAA NWS,
NOAA RC,
PortC- Water weather prediction capabilities in support of finer Landowners,
CCCS- Diversion/Impound scale frost protection capabilities for the benefit of RCD, Water
25.2.1.2 Action Step ment grape growers and fisheries flows. 1 5 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, County
PortC- Water compensatory releases from large dams; provide Landowners, Cost based on types and feasibility of
CCCS- Diversion/Impound policy and funding for the above actions to maximize RCD, Water recommendations to employ to reduce conflicts
25.2.1.3 Action Step ment benefits for fisheries and agriculture 1 5 Agencies TBD between frost protection and fisheries.
CDFW, RCD,
RWQCB,
Sonoma County,
PortC- Water Request that SWRCB review and/or modify water Sonoma County Coordination costs are expected to be minimal,
CCCS- Diversion/Impound use based on the needs of steelhead and authorized Water Agency, depending on what specific actions are proposed.
25.2.1.4 Action Step ment diverters (CDFG 2004). 3 5 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
PortC- Water migratory reaches for effects on the natural
CCCS- Diversion/Impound hydrograph and the supply of spawning gravel for
25.2.1.5 Action Step ment recruitment downstream (CDFG 2004). 2 30 0 Action is considered In-Kind
PortC- Water
CCCS- Diversion/Impound Improve compliance with existing water resource
25.2.1.6 Action Step ment regulations via monitoring and enforcement. 3 15 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Dutch Bill Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (North Coastal) Recovery Actions
DBC-CCCS- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain

Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- Farm Bureau, Estimated costs based on similar costs in
DBC-CCCS- Floodplain established in low gradient response reaches of NMFS, Public geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity lower Dutchbill Creek 2 10 Works, RCD 21 21 42 site, setting and geographic specific.

pond habitats in lower Dutchbill Creeks or other
areas where channel modification has resulted in
plans to improve these conditions to re-create, and Public Works,
DBC-CCCS- Floodplain restore alcove, backwater, or perennial pond RCD, Sonoma
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity habitats. 2 20 County TBD
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain

Farm Bureau,
Private
Landowners,
Public Works,
DBC-CCCS- Floodplain Add or incorporate features to enhance winter habitat RCD, Sonoma
2.1.2.1 Action Step Connectivity refugia to existing and new habitat projects 2 20 County TBD
DBC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
DBC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, NFWF,
NMFS, Private
Continue and support the Russian River Resources Landowners,
DBC-CCCS- Partnership led by NFWF to model flows and water RCD, UC
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology usage 1 5 Extension 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NFWF,
Develop cooperative projects with private NMFS, Private
DBC-CCCS- landowners to conserve summer flows based on Landowners,
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology results of the NFWF efforts 1 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
DBC-CCCS- Develop rearing habitat curves in Dutchbill Creek to Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
3.1.1.3 Action Step Hydrology identify optimal base flow conditions 3 10 CDFW, SWRCB 32.50 32.50 65 a rate of $65,084/project.
DBC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, CDFW
Law
Enforcement,
NMFS, NMFS Cost based on amount of water diversions
OLE, Private needed to be altered. Several recommendations
Landowners, could be developed to reduce drawdown in the
DBC-CCCS- Reduce the rate of frost protection and domestic RCD, SWRCB, spring such as off-channel storage facilities or
3.1.2.1 Action Step Hydrology drawdown in the spring 2 5 UC Extension TBD alternate frost protection measures.
DBC-CCCS- Recovery
California
Conservation
Corps, CDFW,
NOAA RC,
Develop floodplain enhancement and LWD projects Private
DBC-CCCS- in modified areas of Dutchbill Creeks, and in incised Landowners,
3.1.3.1 Action Step Hydrology channel areas of major tributaries 2 10 Trout Unlimited TBD
DBC-CCCS- Recovery
Identify high priority barriers and restore passage per CDFW, NOAA
NMFS' Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream RC, Private Cost based on escapement and juvenile migration
DBC-CCCS- Crossings (NMFS 2001a) at multiple sites along Landowners, monitoring at a rate of $36,379 and
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage Dutchbill Creek and tributaries 1 5 Sonoma County 225.00 225 $188,264/project, respectively.
DBC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, NOAA
key LWD pieces/100 meters) in all reaches of the Landowners, Cost based on treating 1.4 miles (assume 1
DBC-CCCS- watershed to improve conditions for adults, and State Parks, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
DBC-CCCS- Recovery

(>2.5 feet deep in 1st and 2nd order stream reaches;
>3 feet in third order or larger stream reaches)) in CDFW, NOAA
Reaches 1, 4, 7 and 8 within the watershed to RC, Private
DBC-CCCS- improve conditions for adults, and summer/winter Landowners,
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity juveniles. 1 10 Trout Unlimited TBD
DBC-CCCS- Recovery
6.1.3 Action Habitat Complexity Increase pool/riffle/flatwater ratio
CDFW, NOAA
Increase riffle frequency to 20% by converting RC, Private
flatwater habitats (glides, runs, etc.) utilizing boulders Landowners,
DBC-CCCS- and log structures in Reaches 1 and 5 within the RCD, Trout
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity watershed. 1 5 Unlimited TBD
DBC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, NOAA
Increase shelters to optimal conditions (>80 pool RC, Private
DBC-CCCS- shelter value) to improve conditions for adults, and Landowners,
6.1.4.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity winter/summer rearing juveniles in all reaches. 1 10 Trout Unlimited TBD
DBC-CCCS- Recovery
Cost based on a minimum of 3 continuous water
Install continuous water quality monitoring stations in NMFS, Private quality monitoring stations at a rate of
DBC-CCCS- key reaches to evaluate summer conditions for Landowners, $5,000/station. Cost does not account for data
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality juvenile steelhead 1 5 RWQCB 15.00 15 management or maintenance.
CDFW, CDFW
Law
Identify and provide solutions for point and non-point Enforcement, Cost is contingent upon above action step and
DBC-CCCS- sources contributing to poor water quality and RWQCB, recommendations to treat point and non-point
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality pollution. 1 5 USEPA TBD source pollution.
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport

networks and other actions that deliver sediment and CDFW, Private Cost based on agricultural road network that
DBC-CCCS- runoff to stream channels (see Roads for specific Landowners, deliver sediment and runoff. Estimate is
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture actions/areas) 2 20 RCD TBD $1500/mile
DBC-CCCS- (California Land Stewardship Institute), or other Landowners,
DBC-CCCS- participating in sediment reduction planning and Landowners,

DBC-CCCS- sediment source reduction, riparian habitat, forest Landowners, Cost of completing Farm Conservation Plan
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
DBC-CCCS- Assess the effectiveness of erosion control Landowners, Cost is likely be to low if CDFW effectiveness
12.1.1.5 Action Step Agriculture measures throughout the winter period. 3 20 RCD TBD monitoring protocols are used.
DBC-CCCS- Private
12.1.1.6 Action Step Agriculture Continue the use of cover crops in agriculture fields. 3 25 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Forest and ranch managers should utilize the Private
DBC-CCCS- Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads (PWA, Landowners,
12.1.1.7 Action Step Agriculture 1994). See ROADS for additional actions 3 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
DBC-CCCS- 2007), and The Grazing Handbook (Sotoyome RCD, Landowners,
12.1.1.9 Action Step Agriculture 2007) 3 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian

DBC-CCCS- corridors to provide future recruitment of large wood Landowners,
12.1.2.1 Action Step Agriculture and other shelter components 2 15 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Implement programs to purchase land/conservation Cost based on amount of land/conservation

DBC-CCCS- easements to encourage the re-establishment and/or Land Trusts, easement needed, fair market value, and
Private
Landowners,
DBC-CCCS- Utilize native plants when landscaping and RCD, UC
12.1.2.3 Action Step Agriculture discourage the use of exotic invasives 3 20 Extension 0 Action is considered In-Kind
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

CDFW, Private Cost based on treating 1.4 miles (assume 1

DBC-CCCS- Landowners, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
12.1.3.1 Action Step Agriculture Add large woody debris to reach optimal frequencies 2 10 RCD 18.50 18.50 37 $26,000/mile.
NRCS, Private
DBC-CCCS- Avoid the removal of large wood and other shelter Landowners,
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality

CDFW, Private
Landowners, Estimated costs based on similar costs in
DBC-CCCS- Re-establish native plant communities in riparian RCD, UC geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
12.1.4.1 Action Step Agriculture zones to increase stream canopy to 80%. 2 10 Extension 41.50 41.50 82 site, setting and geographic specific.
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

NRCS, Private
Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Landowners, Cost based on amount of off-channel storage
DBC-CCCS- water diversion during the spring and summer (e.g. RCD, UC needed to reduce impacts. Cost for off-channel
12.1.5.1 Action Step Agriculture diversion during winter high flow). 2 10 Extension TBD estimate is $5,000/site.
DBC-CCCS- or micro-sprayers) which eliminate or minimize water Landowners,
CDFW, City
Planning,
it. Spread it. Sink it! (Santa Cruz Resource Sonoma County
DBC-CCCS- Conservations District, 2009) to conserve water Water Agency,
12.1.5.3 Action Step Agriculture resources. 3 10 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
DBC-CCCS-
12.2 Objective Agriculture Address the inadequacies of regulatory mechanisms
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape

Farm Bureau,
DBC-CCCS- environmentally sound agricultural growth and water County, UC

DBC-CCCS- land conversions to discourage conversions to Forestry, CDFW,

DBC-CCCS- currently occur, and enforce requirements of local RWQCB,
City Planning,
DBC-CCCS- Increase setbacks of existing agricultural activities NRCS, RCD,
12.2.1.4 Action Step Agriculture from the top of bank to 100' 3 20 Sonoma County TBD
CDFW, NMFS,
DBC-CCCS- Streamline permit processing where landowners are SWRCB, cost much, and may save money through future
DBC-CCCS- steelhead and CC Chinook salmon recovery Landowners, outside of already existing federal and state and
DBC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

DBC-CCCS- Channel property for potential function and conservation RCD, Sonoma model at a rate of $73,793 and $213,307/project,
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification easement and/or acquisition potential. 3 5 County 288.00 288 respectively.
CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
DBC-CCCS- Channel the summer flow and provide refuge from high winter Sonoma County, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification flows (see FLOODPLAIN for specific actions) 2 10 USACE 521 521 1,042 site, setting and geographic specific.
CDFW, FEMA,
NMFS, NOAA
RC, Private
Set-back existing levees in strategic areas to Landowners,
DBC-CCCS- Channel increase flood-flow detention and promote flood- RCD, Sonoma Cost based on amount of levees to set-back.
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification tolerant land uses. 2 20 County, USACE TBD Cost estimate for levee setback is $34.94/linear ft.

infrastructure and replacement with native vegetation
DBC-CCCS- Channel or flood tolerant land uses) for areas highly FEMA, Sonoma
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

DBC-CCCS- Channel enhance steelhead migration under high and low flow
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Channel

13.1.3 Action Modification Prevent increased landscape disturbances

DBC-CCCS- Channel habitat protection, and/or alternatives that minimize NMFS, Sonoma

DBC-CCCS- Channel fully minimized or mitigated, and where possible,
DBC-CCCS- Channel woody debris to ensure improved habitat at the CDFW, NMFS,

DBC-CCCS- Channel (e.g. carefully evaluate feasibility where critical CDFW, NMFS,
DBC-CCCS- Channel Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

DBC-CCCS- Recovery Channel

13.2.1 Action Modification Prevent increased landscape disturbances
watershed processes, particularly within the 100-year City Planning,
DBC-CCCS- Channel flood prone zones in all historical CCC steelhead Sonoma County,
DBC-CCCS- Channel of removing instream large woody debris under high City Planning,
DBC-CCCS- Commercial modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
Residential/
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
CDFW, Cities,
Counties, NMFS,
Residential/ Improve education and awareness of agencies, Private
DBC-CCCS- Commercial landowners and the public regarding salmonid Landowners,

Residential/ flood control districts, and planning departments, etc., Cost of training and encouraging partners to
DBC-CCCS- Commercial on the critical importance of maintaining riparian CDFW, Cities, maintain riparian health is expected to be low.

Residential/ maintenance practices and evaluate, avoid, minimize Counties, NMFS,
DBC-CCCS- Commercial and/or mitigate their impacts to rearing and migrating NOAA RC,
Residential/
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape
funding of larger detention devices in key watersheds Investigating funding larger detention devices is
Residential/ with ongoing channel degradation or in sub- not expected to cost much. Implementing the
DBC-CCCS- Commercial watersheds where impervious surface area > 10 CDFW, Cities, devices will be much more expensive. Action is
22.1.2.1 Action Step Development percent. 3 5 Counties, NMFS 0 considered In-Kind
CDFW, Cities,
Residential/ Create flood refuge habitat, such as hydrologically Counties, NMFS, Number, location and scope of future projects is
DBC-CCCS- Commercial connected floodplains with riparian forest, and use Private uncertain at this time. Cost likely accounted for in
22.1.2.2 Action Step Development streamway concept where appropriate. 2 25 Landowners TBD other action steps.
Residential/ found feasible, encourage willing landowners to Trusts, NMFS, Encouraging landowners to restore floodplain
DBC-CCCS- Commercial restore these areas through conservation Private areas is not expected to cost much. Action is
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS, Cost of purchasing land/conservation easements
Residential/ Purchase conservation easements from landowners Private is highly variable and based on fair market value,
DBC-CCCS- Commercial that currently have grazing or agricultural operations Landowners, amount of conservation easement needed, and
22.1.2.4 Action Step Development along the estuary. 2 10 RCD TBD landowner participation.
CDFW,
Identify areas at high risk of conversion from Counties, NMFS,
Residential/ forestland to rural residental etc., and develop Private Cost of identifying and developing incentives to
DBC-CCCS- Commercial incentives and alternatives for landowners that Landowners, landowners expected to be low. Action is
Design new developments to minimize impacts to
Residential/ value, and similarly constrained sites that occur
DBC-CCCS- Commercial adjacent to a CCC steelhead or CC Chinook salmon CDFW, Cities, The cost of implementing this BMP should be
22.1.2.6 Action Step Development watercourse. 3 100 Counties, NMFS 0 standard practice. Action is considered In-Kind

Residential/ infrastructure and replacement with native vegetation
DBC-CCCS- Commercial or flood tolerant land uses) for areas highly CDFW, Cities,
Residential/ Encourage infill and high density developments over likely to incur any costs outside of the duties of
DBC-CCCS- Commercial dispersal of low density rural residential in CDFW, Cities, already salaried state and federal workers.
Residential/ Minimize new development, or road construction Cities, Counties,

DBC-CCCS- Commercial within floodplains, riparian areas, unstable soils or Public Works,
22.1.2.9 Action Step Development other sensitive areas 3 20 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/ Conserve open space in un-fractured landscapes, Cities, Counties,

DBC-CCCS- Commercial protect floodplain areas and riparian corridors, and Public Works,
22.1.2.10 Action Step Development develop conservation easements 3 20 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/ Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Residential/ discharges, which can result in locally severe erosion
DBC-CCCS- Commercial and disruption of riparian vegetation and instream Implementing this BMP is not expected to be very

Residential/ 2007), and Management Tips to Enhance Land & RCD, RWQCB,
DBC-CCCS- Commercial Water Quality for Small Acreage Properties Sonoma County
22.1.3.2 Action Step Development (Sotoyome RCD, 2007) 3 20 Water Agency 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
Residential/ Private
DBC-CCCS- Commercial Encourage the use and provide incentives for rooftop Landowners,
22.1.4.1 Action Step Development water storage and other conservation devices 2 20 Sonoma County TBD
Residential/
DBC-CCCS- Commercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
Residential/
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
Mendocino
Residential/ County, Private
DBC-CCCS- Commercial Implement performance standards in Stormwater Landowners, Cost of implementing performance standards is
22.2.1.1 Action Step Development Management Plans. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 likely low.
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or

Residential/ commercial and industrial products (e.g. pesticides) Mendocino
DBC-CCCS- Commercial with high potential for contamination of local County, Sonoma Implementing this BMP is expected to be low
22.2.2.1 Action Step Development waterways. 2 100 County, USEPA 0 cost.

Residential/ receive the appropriate treatment before being
DBC-CCCS- Commercial discharged into any body of water that may enter any Cities, Counties, Implementing this BMP is expected to be low
22.2.2.2 Action Step Development steelhead or Chinook salmon waters. 2 100 Public 0 cost.
Residential/
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape

Residential/ land/conservation easements to encourage the re- Trusts, NMFS, the other hand, is likely to be very expensive.
DBC-CCCS- Commercial establishment and/or enhancement of natural riparian NRCS, RCD, Cost based on fair market value, land turnover,
Residential/
DBC-CCCS- Commercial Discourage Sonoma County from rezoning CDFW, NMFS, The cost of discouraging forestland conversion is

Residential/ permits is expected to be low (i.e., covered as
DBC-CCCS- Commercial Enforce existing building permit programs to minimize part of already existing enforcement programs).
Residential/ work in coordination with California Dept. of Housing, Private
DBC-CCCS- Commercial Association of Bay Area Governments and other Landowners,
Residential/ Minimize new construction in undeveloped areas
DBC-CCCS- Commercial within the 100-year flood prone zones in all historical CDFW, NMFS,
Residential/ Work with Mendocino County to develop more CDFW, NMFS, Cost is expected to be low since work will largely
DBC-CCCS- Commercial protective regulations in regard to exurban RWQCB, be carried out by federal, state and local staff.
Residential/ acreage limit for parcelization and in concert with Mendocino
DBC-CCCS- Commercial limits on water supply and groundwater recharge County, NMFS, Encouraging the county is not expected to result
Land Trusts,
Residential/ Explore the use of conservation easements to Private
DBC-CCCS- Commercial provide incentives for private landowners to preserve Landowners,
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

CDFW, NOAA
DBC-CCCS- Assess private road stream crossings for barrier RC, Private
CDFW, NOAA
DBC-CCCS- recommendations in high then medium value areas Landowners, This action step should be part of road inventory
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads as a priority (See Passage). 2 5 RCD 0 assessment identified in other action steps.
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport


yield sources. Upgrade and decommission sites and Landowners, Cost based on type and number of
road networks where appropriate. These actions Public Works, recommendation to employ. Road upgrades
DBC-CCCS- include outsloping roads, ditch relief culverts, and RCD, State estimate is $21,000/mile and road
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads installing rolling dips. 2 20 Parks TBD decommissioning estimate is $12,000/mile.
CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
DBC-CCCS- actions that hydrologically disconnect roads and Landowners, Cost based on road inventory of 50.7 miles at a
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads reduce sediment sources. 2 10 RCD 24.50 24.50 49 rate of $957/mile.

DBC-CCCS- watercourses. Coordinate these efforts with all Landowners, Cost based on amount of adequate spoils sites
23.1.2.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads landowners in the watershed. 3 10 Public Works TBD needed.

DBC-CCCS- Hagans & Weaver, 1994; Sommarstrom, 2002; Public Works,
Private
Landowners,
DBC-CCCS- increase the size of ditch relief culverts, or replace RCD, State
23.1.2.5 Action Step Roads/Railroads with rolling dips 3 25 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
DBC-CCCS- 100-year flood flows and associated bedload and Public Works,
23.1.2.6 Action Step Roads/Railroads debris. 3 25 State Parks TBD
DBC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

DBC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape


DBC-CCCS- improper road construction and maintenance on
23.2.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads salmonids and their habitats. 3 5 CDFW, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City Planning,
FishNet 4C,
DBC-CCCS- Utilize the Fishnet4c manual in training and Public Works,
23.2.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads operations 3 10 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Board of
Forestry,
CalTrans,
DBC-CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation RCD, Sonoma costs. Construction of the bridges will likely be
DBC-CCCS- accommodate 100-year flood flows and associated Sonoma County,
DBC-CCCS- Water Diversion modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
Private
Landowners,
RCD, RWQCB,
Sonoma County,
Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Sonoma County Costs are minimal to promote. Costs for
DBC-CCCS- Water Diversion water diversion (e.g., storage tanks for rural Water Agency, implementation will depend on the number of
25.1.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment residential users). 2 20 SWRCB 0 participants.
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NRCS,
Sonoma County
DBC-CCCS- Water Diversion Promote water conservation best practices such as Water Agency, Promoting water conservation best practices is
25.1.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment drip irrigation for vineyards. 3 20 SWRCB 0 not expected to result in additional costs.
CDFW, RCD,
Sonoma County Costs associated with promoting use of reclaimed
DBC-CCCS- Water Diversion Promote the use of reclaimed water for agricultural or Water Agency, water is expected to be minimal. Action is
25.1.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment other uses. 3 60 State Parks 0 considered In-Kind
NMFS, RCD,
RWQCB,
Promote passive diversion devices designed to allow Sonoma County
DBC-CCCS- Water Diversion diversion of water only when minimum streamflow Water Agency, Costs to promote this action are expected to be
25.1.1.4 Action Step /Impoundment requirements are met or exceeded (CDFG 2004). 3 30 SWRCB 0 minimal. Action is considered In-Kind
DBC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,

Cost based on number and type of fish screens

DBC-CCCS- Water Diversion Adequately screen water diversions to prevent CDFW, NMFS, needed to prevent juvenile salmonid mortalities.
25.1.2.1 Action Step /Impoundment juvenile salmonid mortalities. 1 20 NOAA RC TBD Estimate for fish screens is $53,465/screen.
DBC-CCCS- Water Diversion Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

DBC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology


greater certainty for reaches that have water NRCS, Private Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
DBC-CCCS- Water Diversion available for consumptive uses and be useful as a Landowners, a rate of $65,084/project. Cost to distribute
25.2.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment decision-support tool for other programs. 1 5 RCD 65.00 65 expected to be minimal.
CDFW, County
Planning, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NOAA NWS,
NOAA RC,
DBC-CCCS- Water Diversion scale frost protection capabilities for the benefit of RCD, Water
CDFW, County
compensatory releases from large dams; provide Landowners, Cost based on types and feasibility of
DBC-CCCS- Water Diversion policy and funding for the above actions to maximize RCD, Water recommendations to employ to reduce conflicts
25.2.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment benefits for fisheries and agriculture. 1 5 Agencies TBD between frost protection and fisheries.
CDFW, RCD,
RWQCB,
Sonoma County,
Request that SWRCB review and/or modify water Sonoma County Coordination costs are expected to be minimal,
DBC-CCCS- Water Diversion use based on the needs of steelhead and authorized Water Agency, depending on what specific actions are proposed.
25.2.1.4 Action Step /Impoundment diverters (CDFG 2004). 3 5 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
migratory reaches for effects on the natural CDFW,
DBC-CCCS- Water Diversion hydrograph and the supply of spawning gravel for SWRCB, Evaluation costs are expected to be minimal.
25.2.1.5 Action Step /Impoundment recruitment downstream (CDFG 2004). 3 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
DBC-CCCS- Water Diversion Improve compliance with existing water resource NMFS, RWQCB, associated costs are expected to be minimal.
Interior Diversity Stratum
This stratum includes populations of steelhead that spawn in interior watersheds that do not
exhibit characteristics typical of coastal watersheds. These watersheds are typically warmer and
drier in the summer due to the lack of coastal fog, and exhibit substantially different vegetation
(e.g., oak savannahs and cottonwood riparian corridors, as opposed to redwood/conifer forests).
Assessment of the Supporting populations:
Dry Creek
Maacama Creek
Mark West Creek
Upper Russian River
o Crocker Creek
o Gill Creek
o Miller Creek (Russian)
o Sausal Creek
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Interior Diversity Stratum 361
CCC steelhead Interior Diversity Stratum Populations, Historical Status, Populations Role in
Recovery, Current IP-km, and Spawner Density and Abundance Targets for Delisting.

Interior Crocker Creek D Supporting 4.5 6-12 25-52
Dry Creek I Essential 115.9 26.1 3,000
Gill Creek D Supporting 8.1 6-12 47-95
Maacama Creek I Essential 76.2 31.6 2,400
Mark West Creek I Essential 164.2 20 3,300
Miller Creek (Russian) D Supporting 3.1 6-12 17-35
Sausal Creek D Supporting 11.1 6-12 65-131
Upper Russian River I Essential 422.9 20 8,500
Interior Diversity Stratum Recovery Target 17,200
CCC steelhead Interior Diversity Stratum
Dry Creek Population

Diversity Stratum: Interior

Although rigorous juvenile or adult sampling were not historically conducted within the Dry
Creek watershed, periodic surveys by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
from the 1950s and 1960s suggest high steelhead productivity within the various tributary sub-
watersheds prior to the construction of Lake Sonoma in 1980. Sporadic sampling (both spatially
and temporally) occurred historically within the tributaries, and it appears the most consistent
sampling efforts took place within largest tributaries such as Mill and Pena Creeks. The trends
from these sampling efforts suggest steelhead abundance has declined over the past several
decades within most tributary reaches. For example, CDFW noted that young-of-the-year
steelhead were abundant throughout the sampling reach during a 1957 survey, and very large
numbers of newly emerged juvenile steelhead during a May, 1964 survey in Pena Creek (CDFW
2006). For comparison, CDFW surveys in the 1980s and 1990s in Mill Creek documented juvenile
low and moderate steelhead numbers respectively (CDFW 2006).
In 1980, the Don Clausen Fish Hatchery (DCFH) on Dry Creek was constructed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to compensate for lost spawning and nursery areas upstream of
Warm Springs DamLake Sonoma Project. Warm Springs Dam was not designed with fish
passage facilities; thus, steelhead are precluded from accessing the approximately 130 square
miles of watershed located upstream of the dam near the confluence with Pena Creek (CDFW
2004). Steelhead are widely distributed throughout the 14 miles of the Dry Creek mainstem,
which is augmented to a large degree by hatchery production. The established mitigation goals
included 300,000 released smolts and 6,000 returning adults to Dry Creek. In 1993, juvenile
steelhead production peaked with the release of over 1.5 million juveniles from the DCFH (CDFW
2011a). Between 1982 and 2012 adult steelhead returns ranged from 333 to 8,100, with the peak
in 1995 (CDFW 2011b).
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Dry Creek 364

The Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) has been trapping out-migrating smolts on Dry
Creek since 2009 in response to monitoring required through the NMFS Russian River Biological
Opinion (2008). Wild downstream migrant abundance estimates (including young-of-year (YOY)
and parr) migrating down Dry Creek ranged from 71,000 (2009) to 42,000 (2010) to 32,000 (2011)
with the makeup of YOY to parr ranging from 20 to 50% (Manning and Lamb 2012). While the
proportion of wild and hatchery steelhead in the adult steelhead population in Dry Creek has not
been well documented, in 2010 and 2011 SCWA was able to operate the counting video/counting
station at Mirabel long enough to get a representative sample; in 2010 and 2011, of 530 and 600
fish counted, the proportion of hatchery to wild was 3:1 and 4:1 respectively (S. Chase, pers comm
2013).
History of Land Use

Land use within the Dry Creek basin has been dominated by agriculture since the late 1800s. At
the turn of the 19th century, the Dry Creek valley was one of Californias premier producers of
Zinfandel grapes. Following prohibition in the early 1920s, much of the vineyard acreage was
replaced by fruit trees, with most of the fruit processed in nearby Healdsburg. Following the
repeal of prohibition, the valley again shifted to primarily grape production. Since the 1970s, the
conversion of forest land to vineyards has accelerated dramatically, where today over one fourth
of the watershed area below Warm Springs Dam is in grape production. Urban development has
been limited within the watershed; the city of Healdsburg, located within the extreme southeast
corner of the watershed, is the only urbanized area of significance. Limited cattle grazing and
logging occur within some tributaries.

Completed in 1982, Warm Springs Dam, located upstream of the Pena Creek confluence, forms
Lake Sonoma, a multi-purpose reservoir providing flood protection, municipal water storage,
and hydroelectric power. A fish hatchery operates at the base of the dam, producing steelhead
and coho salmon to mitigate lost habitat in the upper watershed. The USACE owns the dam and
appurtenant structures, as well as a significant area of land surrounding Lake Sonoma, and
controls the winter flow releases to avoid flooding of the lower river. Summer flow releases are
managed by SCWA in accordance with its state water right permit, which maintains around 100-
200 CFS nearly year round to meet the water supply needs of over 600,000 customers over 9
cities/districts within Sonoma and Marin Counties. SCWA actively monitors salmonid
populations within Dry Creek, the mainstem Russian River, to evaluate and monitor their
operations in the Russian River basin to comply with a 2008 biological opinion governing those
operations. To mitigate high flow releases, SCWA has removed passage barriers to several

tributaries, and will complete 6 miles of habitat enhancement between the years 2013 and 2020,
to improve velocity refugia on Dry Creek by enlisting the cooperation between local, state, and
Federal agencies and local land-owners/vintners.

The following habitat indicators were rated Poor through the CAP process: habitat complexity,
riparian vegetation, sediment, passage/migration, estuary/lagoon, population viability,
landscape patterns, and sediment transport. Recovery strategies will typically focus on
improving these habitat indicators, although strategies that address other indicators may also be
conditions within the watershed.
Current Conditions
our CAP viability analysis. The Dry Creek CAP Viability Table results are provided below.
Population and Habit Conditions

Hydrology within the Dry Creek basin has been severely altered from the historical flow regime
of less than 1 cfs during the dry months. The storm driven winter natural hydrology (e.g., up to
30,000 cfs) in the reach below Warm Springs Dam has been severely truncated to no more than
6,000 cfs, while the natural low flow summer flows (e.g., 1-5 cfs) have been elevated to a steady,
year-round baseflow of approximately 100-200 cfs (Steiner 1996). The altered flow regime has
simplified mainstem aquatic and riparian habitat within the lowermost 14 miles of Dry Creek
(Interfluve 2010), and the high summer flows are likely limiting rearing juvenile salmonids
(SCWA and Entrix 2002). Within many Dry Creek tributaries, agricultural operations have
diminished both summer and spring flow levels by diverting/pumping stream flows for
irrigation and frost control (NMFS 2009). Domestic well pumping also likely impacts summer
baseflows within tributaries of the basin.

Inadequate instream shelter predominantly affects juvenile steelhead, which depend on complex
instream and edgewater habitat features to provide cover from predators (Shirvell 1990) and low-
velocity refuge from high winter flow events (Bustard and Narver 1975). Submerged LWD often
comprises a large component of available shelter within streams located in forested landscapes

(Shirvell 1990), such as Dry Creek. Shelter ratings throughout much of the Dry Creek basin are
Poor, with 29 of 31 sampled stream reaches having a shelter score below 80 (SEC data). Similarly,
LWD volume was also low throughout most sampled tributary reaches, as evidenced by the high
frequency with which CDFW personnel suggested LWD restoration as a critical priority within
their Dry Creek watershed stream reports. Interfluve (2010) shows higher shelter rating values
(>80 for nine out of 15 reaches) for mainstem Dry Creek.

Past management activities within the Russian River estuary have likely degraded parr and smolt
steelhead rearing habitat. Since 2009, SCWA has partnered with NMFS and CDFW to adaptively
manage the estuary as a perched or closed freshwater lagoon while minimizing flood risk
within the lower river. To address flooding concerns within the lower estuary, SCWA breaches
the estuary sand bar once the water surface elevation reaches a critical height. The elevated Dry
Creek flows present a challenge to managing water levels in the lagoon, requiring a balance
between flooding adjacent low lying properties in Jenner and to providing highly productive
summer rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids, including steelhead. Please see the Russian River
Overview for more information.
Habitat Complexity: Percent Primary Pools & Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratio

Adult steelhead utilize pool habitat as holding habitat during upstream migration, while deeper
pools are preferred habitat of larger, 1- and 2-year old juvenile steelhead (Everest and Chapman
1972). Wood plays a key role in creating and maintaining pool habitat within stream systems
(Montgomery et al. 1995, Rosenfeld and Huato 2003), yet quality pool habitat is lacking
throughout most tributary and mainstem reaches of Dry Creek, likely due in large part to lack of
LWD.
Passage/ Migration: Mouth of Confluence & Physical Barriers

Barriers and impediments alter or entirely preclude migration and seasonal movement patterns
of both adult and juvenile steelhead. Warm Springs Dam blocks salmon and steelhead access to
up to 105 miles of historical habitat located within the upper Dry Creek basin (Steiner 1996).
Smaller barriers/impediments exist on Mill and Grape Creeks. Dutcher Creek is currently mostly
inaccessible to salmonids due to the presence of numerous artificial barriers just upstream of the
mouth.

The connection between floodplain habitat and lower tributary stream channels throughout the
broad Dry Creek Valley is limited where the creek is adjacent to agricultural areas due to the
encroachment of vegetation on the Dry Creek mainstem. Warm Springs Dam alters the natural

transportation of gravel and wood from the upper half of the watershed, but does not appear to
be a significant cause of the extensive channel instability witnessed within Dry Creek during the
past several decades (Interfluve 2010). Instead, intensive gravel mining and several large flood
and fire events can be attributed to the vertical incision and lateral erosion within the mainstem
as both processes were already well established prior to dam completion. Recently, channel
condition appears to be improving, as the rate of incision has slowed and much of the mainstem
channel has approached a point of equilibrium with regard to incision/aggradation (Interfluve
2010). However, riparian composition and function in Dry Creek has been adversely impacted
by the dam, with the less frequent scouring flows emanating from the dam allowing a dense
riparian corridor of 20 and 30-year old trees to establish. The dense growth has confined the Dry
Creek channel, precluded lateral channel migration, and sequestered large volumes of coarse bed
material outside of the active channel (Interfluve 2010).
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that rate as High or Very High (See Dry Creek
CAP Results). Recovery strategies will likely focus on ameliorating threats rated as High;
recovery efforts.
Agriculture
Agricultural operations (predominantly grape growing) occur throughout the low lying
elevations, and vineyards are also common in the higher elevations of the Dry Creek watershed.
Where agricultural land has encroached upon tributary riparian zones, the corridor is thin; wood
recruitment and shade are at low levels; and sediments and chemicals can readily enter the stream
channel during runoff periods. Water diversions and near-stream groundwater pumping for
irrigation are likely a primary cause of chronic low-water conditions in tributaries commonly
observed during summer (Deitch et al. 2008; NMFS 2009).
Where riprap and other hardened stabilization techniques have been employed to prevent
erosion and loss of land, stream velocity is high, and shelter for juvenile fish or resting adults is
low. Additionally, hardened bank stabilization, such as riprap and wooden crib-walls, can
preclude the natural hydrologic and floodplain function necessary for creating and maintaining
instream habitat (FEMA 2009). In the 1980s, the USACE installed various structures along
mainstem Dry Creek, including car bodies, creosote crib walls, submarine netting, steel jacks
and concrete weirs with fish ladders to stem downcutting and lateral erosion. Many of these

structures have been deemed ineffective and are currently being considered for removal or
modification as part of the enhancement of Dry Creek required by the biological opinion.
Habitat Complexity
The Dry Creek CAP analysis rated shelter condition as Poor for summer rearing juveniles
throughout much of the watershed; conditions that were likely a direct result of documented poor
LWD volume. Habitat complexity created by submerged LWD likely comprised a large
component of available shelter within tributary streams located in forested landscapes. As part
of their stream habitat inventory program, CDFW recommended pool habitat restoration within
most of the tributaries to Dry Creek. Some of these recommendations have been fulfilled through
the enhancement of work by SCWA (e.g., Grape, Wine and Crane Creeks) and DFW (e.g., Mill
Creek).
Roads and Railroads

Embededdness levels are high due to sediment from problem public and private roads and active
erosion sites throughout the upper portions of tributary subwatershed, such as Pena and Mill
Creeks, which have both been the subject of programmatic sediment surveys. Remaining
subwatersheds should be assessed and treatments developed to upgrade and decommission
problem roads to reduce surface runoff and high stream velocities.

Water diversions supporting agriculture within Dry Creek are likely a primary cause of the low
flow conditions impacting fish during the spring and summer months (Deitch et al. 2008).
Furthermore, water diversions and impoundments can also impact fish directly. Many
diversions are unpermitted and do not address fish passage or screening considerations. The
largest impoundment in the system, Warm Springs Dam, blocks fish passage into over half the
Dry Creek watershed, and interrupts the downstream transport of wood and sediment from the
upper basin.
Other Threats
Within the Russian River, hatchery steelhead are genetically identical to wild fish, and thus both
are listed as part of the CCC steelhead ESU. In 2004, mitigation and enhancement goals for the
hatchery were modified to 300,000 juveniles and 6,000 adults to better reflect a balance of hatchery
and wild fish in the basin, and wild fish are now introgressed into hatchery breeding to aid
genetic diversity (Wilson 2011). Though hatchery steelhead smolts may compete with wild
juvenile steelhead, hatchery smolts tend to out-migrate quickly and therefore any competition is

likely fleeting (NMFS 2008). Competition among adults for spawning habitat may occur, but is
thought to be largely restricted to the mainstem channel (NMFS 2008).

Threat and stress analysis within the CAP workbook suggests summer and winter rearing habitat
are most limiting steelhead production within the Dry Creek basin. Poor juvenile rearing habitat
was documented within the mainstem channel, due largely to high summer releases from WSD
interacting with impaired riparian and stream channel function. Within Dry Creek tributaries,
juvenile habitat is limited by poor LWD volume and a general lack of instream cover. During
summer months, low flow volume can also limit the availability of juvenile habitat in tributary
reaches.
Continue Planned Enhancement Within Mainstem and Tributary Reaches

The Dry Creek watershed is currently undergoing an ambitious enhancement plan brought about
through the Russian River Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008). As part of the implemented
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative, SCWA and the Corps will be funding a multi-million dollar
project aimed at improving six miles of mainstem channel to near-optimum coho and steelhead
habitat. Also, five separate projects aimed at improving instream habitat and fish passage will
occur within four important Dry Creek tributaries. Ensuring future implementation of these
restoration actions is critically important.
Address Impaired Tributary Hydrology

Low tributary flows likely impair juvenile steelhead survival during both spring and summer,
although the mechanism by which these flow effects manifest is different for each season and
stream. In spring, acute stream flow pumping in response to frost events can cause rapid
dewatering of the stream channel. Conversely, summer low flows are more of a chronic, long-
term effect brought about largely by steady agricultural and residential stream diversions and
well pumping. Restoration actions should foster coordination between landowners during low
flow conditions to minimize acute dewatering episodes, and encourage the use of alternative frost
protection strategies (e.g., wind fans, off-channel reservoirs, etc.), many of which have already
been successfully employed throughout the watershed.
Improve Instream Habitat Quality and Quantity

Although the planned restoration actions brought about by the Russian River Biological Opinion
will improve LWD volume and shelter availability within the mainstem Dry Creek and select
tributaries, further restoration actions will be needed to address these issues within many of the

remaining tributaries where poor LWD and shelter conditions likely limit habitat carrying
capacity and function.
Identify, Prevent and Reduce Sediment Sources

Treatments proposed from existing road sediment surveys should be prioritized and restoration
actions implemented by Sonoma County Department of Transportation and private landowners.
Additionally, remaining roads (mostly private) should be addressed as part of a comprehensive
sediment reduction and transportation plan for the entire basin. Future road construction should
utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent altering watershed hydrologic processes,
sediment transport and fish passage, and construction of roads within riparian zones should be
avoided or minimized. BMPs to prevent sediment into the stream environment, from agriculture,
road building and maintenance, and cattle grazing within riparian areas should be implemented.
Evaluate and Improve the Regulated Flow Structure

Current efforts between NMFS and the NWS California/Nevada River Forecasting Center,
Monterey Weather Forecasting Office and the Office of Hydrologic Development, SCWA and the
USACE seek to balance and sustain fisheries flows while maximizing reservoir capture of
watershed runoff. These efforts involving forecast-based reservoir operations for flood control
and conservation, modeling watershed runoff and improvement of atmospheric rainfall and river
forecasts to identify opportunistic periods for diversion and bypass should be supported. Based
on this evaluation and information, NMFS will work with the USACE to modify the rule curve
associated with storage and releases from Lake Sonoma in the interest of fisheries flows.

Literature Cited
Bustard, D. R. and D. W. Narver. 1975. Aspects of the winter ecology of juvenile coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri). Journal of the Fisheries Research
Board of Canada 32:667680.
CDFW. 2004. Recovery strategy for California coho salmon. Report to the California Fish and
Game Commission. Species Recovery Strategy 2004-1. Sacramento, California. February 2004.
594 pages. [Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb.cohorecovery.]
CDFW. 2006. Stream Inventory Report: Mill Creek. Report revised April 14, 2006. 23 pp.
CDFW. 2006. Stream Inventory Report: Pena Creek. Report revised April 14, 2006. 27 pp.
CDFW 2011a. CDFW Report: Warm Springs Hatchery Production History 1981/82 2010/11.
CDFW 2011b. CDFW Report: History Of Fish Trapped At Warm Springs Hatchery (Dry Creek)
Chase, S. Sonoma County Water Agency Biologist, 2013. Personal communication regarding
unpublished monitoring data.
Deitch, M. J., G. M. Kondolf and A. M. Merenlender. 2008. Hydrologic impacts of small-scale

instream diversions for frost and heat protection in the California wine country. River
Research and Applications (25):118-134.
Everest, F. W., and D. W. Chapman. 1972. Habitat selection and spatial interaction by juvenile
Chinook salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho streams. J. Fish Res. Board Can. 29:91-100.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. Engineering With Nature: Alternative
Techniques to Riprap Bank Stabilization. Technical Memorandum. NTIS Order Number:
PB2009-107826.
Interfluve. 2010. Current Conditions Inventory Report Dry Creek: Warm Springs Dam to
Russian River (Draft). Revised March 2010. 77 pp. with appendices.
Manning, D.J. and J. Martini-Lamb, editors. 2012. Russian River Biological Opinion status and
data report year 2011-12. Sonoma County Water Agency, Santa Rosa, CA. p. 208

Montgomery, D. R., J. M. Buffington, R. D. Smith, K. M. Schmidt, and G. Pess. 1995. Pool spacing
in forest channels. Water Resources Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, Pgs. 1097-1105, April 1995.
NMFS. 2008. Biological Opinion for Water Supply, Flood Control Operations, and Channel
Maintenance conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Sonoma County Water
Agency, and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation
Improvement District in the Russian River Watershed. September 24, 2008.
NMFS. 2009. Frost Protection Threat Assessment for Threatened and Endangered Salmonids in
the Russian River Watershed. Draft report prepared for the State Water Resources Control
Board Public Workshop on Frost Protection, November 18, 2009. November 10, 2009. 10 pp.
Rosenfeld, J. S. and L. Huato. 2003. Relationship between large woody debris characteristics and
pool formation in small coastal British Columbia streams. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 23:928938.
Shirvell C. S. 1990. Role of instream rootwads as juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
and steelhead trout (O. mykiss) cover habitat under varying stream flows. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 852-861.
SCWA (Sonoma County Water Agency) and Entrix. 2002. Russian River Dry Creek Flow Study.
Conducted by the Russian River Flow Related Habitat Assessment Panel for the Russian River
Biological Assessment Executive Committee. November 25, 2002. 98 pp.
Steiner Environmental Consulting. 1996. A history of the salmonid decline in the Russian River.
Prepared for the Sonoma County Water Agency and the California Coastal Conservancy.
Steiner Environmental Consulting. Potter Valley, CA. 86 pp.
Wilson B. 2011. Brett Wilson personal communication.

Dry Creek CAP Viability Results
Current
Target Rating
Measurement
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Pool/Riffle/Flatwater streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km 55% of IP-km
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km 1% of IP-km (>80
Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating Poor
(>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream stream average)
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 58.3
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
Passage at Mouth or 50% of IP-km to
Passage/Migration or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km Fair
Confluence 74% of IP-km
accessible* km km
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km 91.1% of IP-km Very Good
accessible* km km
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
km km
Tree Diameter Not
Riparian Vegetation rating "D" rating "D" rating "D" Not Defined
(South of SF Bay) Specified

Quantity & <50% of IP-Km 50% of IP-Km 75% of IP-Km
75% of IP-km to
Sediment Distribution of or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km Good
90% of IP-km
Spawning Gravels accessible* km km
50-80%
<50% Response >80% Response >80% Response
Floodplain Response
Velocity Refuge Reach Reach Not Defined Reach Good
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants
>1 spawner
low risk spawner
spawner density per
Spence (2008)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 58
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% 15-17%
Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) and >30% (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and Fair
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm)
streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km 25% of IP-km
Gravel Quality
(Embeddedness)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Juveniles Condition

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 51% to 74% of 75% to 89% of >90% of 29% of
streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/40% of
Percent Primary
Habitat Complexity (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average IP-km (>40% Poor
Pools
primary pool primary pool primary pool primary pool average primary
frequency) frequency) frequency) frequency) pool frequency)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 75
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
Hydrology (Instantaneous Protocol: Risk Fair
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
Passage at Mouth or
Passage/Migration or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km <16 IP-km Poor
Confluence
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km 91.1% of IP-km Very Good
accessible* km km

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
70% of streams/
67% of IP-km
(>70% average
stream canopy;
>85% where
coho IP overlaps)
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
km km
Tree Diameter Not
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP 75 to 89% IP
<50% IP km >90% IP km 50 to 74% IP-km
km (<20 C km (<20 C
coho IP coho IP
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Contaminants
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5
Size Viability Density <0.2 Fish/m^2 >1.5 Fish/m^2 0.26 Fish/m^2 Fair
Fish/m^2 Fish/m^2
<50% of 50-74% of 75-90% of >90% of
44% of Historical
Viability Spatial Structure Historical Historical Historical Historical Poor
Range

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Winter Rearing
Juveniles
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
75% of IP-km to
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km Good
90% of IP-km
accessible* km km
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
km km
Tree Diameter Not
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Not
Specified
Properly
Impaired/non- Impaired but Impaired but
functional functioning functioning
Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 75
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
Passage at Mouth or
Passage/Migration or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km >90% of IP-km Very Good
Confluence
accessible* km km
No Evidence of
Contaminants
Smolt
Smolt Smolt
abundance Smolt
abundance abundance
which abundance to
Size Viability Abundance high risk moderate risk Fair
spawner density per
Spence (2008) (2008)
Spence (2008)
>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of 0.619% of
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of >30% of
Landscape Patterns Agriculture Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Poor
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of <15% of
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of
5% of watershed
Landscape Patterns Urbanization watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 Very Good
>1 unit/20 acres
Riparian Vegetation Species Composition Good
>3 2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6
1.9 Miles/Square
Sediment Transport Road Density Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Good
Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile
>1 0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1
Streamside Road 2.0 Miles/Square
Sediment Transport Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Poor
Density (100 m) Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile

Dry Creek CAP Threat Results

1 Agriculture Medium High High Medium Medium High High
2 Channel Modification Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium High
3 Disease, Predation and Competition Low Low Low Low Medium Low Low
4 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Medium Low Low Low Low Not Specified Low
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low
8 Logging and Wood Harvesting Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
11 Development Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
12 Roads and Railroads Medium Low Medium Medium Low Low Medium
13 Severe Weather Patterns Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
14 Water Diversion and Impoundments Medium High High High Medium High High
Threat Status for Targets and Project Medium High High High Medium High High

Dry Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Interior) Recovery Actions
DC-CCCS- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species
DC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain
CDFW, FEMA,
NMFS, NOAA
RC, Private
Landowners,
DC-CCCS- Floodplain Improve over-winter survival by increasing the Sonoma County,
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity frequency and functionality of floodplain habitats. 2 10 USACE TBD
CDFW, FEMA,
NMFS, NOAA
RC, Private
Create flood refuge habitat, such as hydrologically Landowners,
DC-CCCS- Floodplain connected floodplains with riparian forest, removal of Sonoma County,
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity levees, and use setback levees where appropriate. 2 25 USACE TBD
CDFW, FEMA,
NMFS, NOAA
RC, Private
Implement actions that re-establish the hydrologic Landowners,
DC-CCCS- Floodplain connection between stream channels and adjacent Sonoma County, The number, scope and duration of actions is
2.1.1.3 Action Step Connectivity floodplain habitat. 2 50 USACE TBD unknown at this time.
DC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
DC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
3.1.1 Action Hydrology (impaired water flow)
CDFW, County
Planning, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NOAA NWS,
NOAA RC,
NRCS, Private
Consultants,
Support efforts to provide improved localized Private
DC-CCCS- scale frost protection capabilities for the benefit of RCD, Water
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology grape growers and fisheries flows. 1 5 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind

diversion on salmonid habitat by establishing a more
natural hydrograph, by-passing adequate
downstream flows, regulating season of diversion, CDFW, NMFS,
DC-CCCS- and promoting and implementing off-stream storage Sonoma County, Cost is TBD, since the number, location and
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology solutions (CDFG 2004). 1 25 SWRCB TBD scope of future actions is unknown at this time.
DC-CCCS- so that water allocations can be readily quantified by CDFW, NMFS,
3.1.1.3 Action Step Hydrology watershed. 2 5 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Request that SWRCB review and/or modify water
use based on the needs of Chinook
DC-CCCS- salmon/steelhead and authorized diverters (CDFG CDFW, NMFS, No cost expected for requesting SWRCB review
3.1.1.4 Action Step Hydrology 2004). 2 10 SWRCB 0 of water use. Action is considered In-Kind
DC-CCCS- Support the development and implementation of CDFW, NMFS,
3.1.1.5 Action Step Hydrology groundwater use regulations. 3 10 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, CDFW
Law
Enforcement, Cost expected to be largely absorbed through
DC-CCCS- Improve compliance with existing water resource NMFS, NMFS already employed agency enforcement personnel.
3.1.1.6 Action Step Hydrology regulations via monitoring and enforcement. 3 100 OLE, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

migratory reaches for effects on the natural Cost will be through evaluation largely be done by
DC-CCCS- hydrograph and spawning gravel recruitment CDFW, NMFS, already staffed federal, state and local agencies.
3.1.1.7 Action Step Hydrology downstream (CDFG 2004). 3 100 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
DC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species
DC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
Improve fish passage at sites identified as partial or NRCS, Private Cost based on providing passage at 14
DC-CCCS- total barrier to anadromy. High priority tributary Landowners, impassable and 4 partial barriers at a rate of
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage watersheds include Mill, Pena and Grape Creek. 1 10 RCD 5,943 5,943 11,885 $745,789 and $360,982/project, respectively.
Investigate passage barriers on Dutcher Creek, Felta

Creek (CDFW survey reach 2), Foss Creek, Mill CDFW, NMFS,
Creek, Norton Creek, Pine Ridge Canyon Creek, NOAA RC,
Schoolhouse Creek, West Slough, and Wine Creek NRCS, Private Cost of most work will largely be done by CDFW
DC-CCCS- (CDFW stream survey reports). Pena Creek Landowners, and NMFS engineers. Action is considered In-
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage tributaries should also be investigated. 1 10 RCD 0 Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
The falls on lower Mill Creek and on lower Felta NOAA RC,
Creek need to be evaluated for passage periodically. NRCS, Private
DC-CCCS- Adjustment may be needed presently on Mill Creek. Landowners, Analysis likely done by agency staff at a low cost.
5.1.1.4 Action Step Passage (CDFG 2002). 2 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
NRCS, Private
Log-jams in the Chapman Branch and Pena Creek Consultants, Cost of monitoring/investigating is based on
need to be monitored/investigated for passage. Prior Private fish/habitat restoration at a rate of
DC-CCCS- to removing logjams, consult with NMFS and CDFW Landowners, $114,861/project. if done by NMFS and CDFW,
5.1.1.5 Action Step Passage fish passage specialists (CDFG 2002). 2 5 RCD 115.00 115 cost is small.
DC-CCCS- Habitat modification, or curtailment of the species
DC-CCCS- Recovery Improve frequency of primary pools, LWD, and
6.1.1 Action Habitat Complexity shelters.
Cost based on treating 35 miles (assume 1

Where feasible, design and engineer pool CDFW, NMFS, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
enhancement structures to increase the number of NRCS, Private $26,000/mile. Cost can be significantly higher for
DC-CCCS- pools. All tributary streams, aside from Grape, Mill, Landowners, greater engineering and oversight such as
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity and Pine Ridge Canyon, are high priority streams. 1 25 RCD 182.00 182.00 182.00 182.00 182.00 910 implementing ELJ estimated at $104,000/ELJ.
Complete stream habitat surveys within Dry Creek Work will largely be performed as part of CDFW's
DC-CCCS- tributaries where potential habitat exists above the stream habitat assessment program. Action is
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity CDFW survey reach. 2 5 CDFW 0 considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC, Cost is TBD since scope, size and number of
Develop tributary pool and shelter projects with NRCS, Private potential future restoration projects is unknown at
DC-CCCS- cooperative landowners to enhance presmolt and Landowners, this time. Cost could be accounted for in above
6.1.1.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity smolt survival 2 100 RCD TBD action step.
CDFW, NMFS,
Encourage landowners to implement woody debris NOAA RC,
restoration projects as part of their ongoing NRCS, Private
DC-CCCS- operations in stream reaches where large woody Landowners,
6.1.1.4 Action Step Habitat Complexity debris is lacking. 2 100 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
DC-CCCS- Encourage bio-engineering projects to address CDFW, NOAA

6.1.1.5 Action Step Habitat Complexity erosion issues on private lands. 2 3 RC, NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Finish implementation of instream habitat restoration CDFW, NMFS,

along six miles of mainstem Dry Creek as specified Sonoma County
DC-CCCS- within the Russian River Biological Opinion (NMFS Water Agency,
6.1.1.6 Action Step Habitat Complexity 2008). 1 10 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NMFS, Private
Evaluate the potential and develop Safe Harbor Landowners,
DC-CCCS- Agreements for Dry Creek landowners participating Sonoma County
6.1.1.7 Action Step Habitat Complexity in habitat enhancement along Dry Creek. 1 5 Water Agency 0 Action is considered In-Kind
DC-CCCS- Recovery
Enhance Dry Creek mainstem and tributary migration

and resting habitats with LWD, boulders, and other CDFW, NMFS,
DC-CCCS- instream features to increase habitat complexity and NOAA RC, Cost is captured in the Russian River Biological
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity improve staging pool frequency and depth 1 25 NRCS, RCD 0 Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alteratives
DC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, NMFS,
Improve instream LWD volumes throughout all Dry NRCS, Private
DC-CCCS- Creek tributary reaches, except for recently restored Landowners, Cost is captured in the Russian River Biological
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity reaches in Grape Creek. 1 20 RCD 0 Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alteratives
CDFW, NOAA
Maintain current LWD, boulders, and other structure- RC, Private
providing features which provide stream complexity, Consultants,
DC-CCCS- pool frequency, and depth when evaluating permits Private Cost is captured in the Russian River Biological
6.1.3.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity for stream or bank modification. 3 100 Landowners 0 Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alteratives
Encourage landowners to implement woody debris CDFW, NMFS,
restoration projects as part of their ongoing NRCS, Private Encouragement will largely come from already
DC-CCCS- operations in stream reaches where large woody Landowners, salaried CDFW and NMFS personnel. Action is
6.1.3.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity debris is lacking. 2 100 RCD 0 considered In-Kind
Educate landowners regarding the importance of CDFW, NMFS,
LWD to stream habitat creation and natural fluvial NRCS, Private Education will likely arise through continued
DC-CCCS- processes, and the need to leave LWD within the Landowners, guidance to landowners by CDFW, NMFS, RCD
6.1.3.4 Action Step Habitat Complexity stream channel. 2 10 RCD 0 and NRCS staff. Action is considered In-Kind
DC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
Promote streamside conservation measures, Private
DC-CCCS- including conservation easements, setbacks, and Landowners, Cost is unknown at this time since the number,
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian riparian buffers (CDFG 2004). 2 20 RCD TBD location and scope of future projects is not known.
Fence riparian areas within the Dry Creek watershed

from grazing by using fencing standards that CDFW, NMFS,
excludes cattle but allows other wildlife to access the NOAA RC,
stream. High priority stream reaches include NRCS, Private
DC-CCCS- Pechaco Creek (reach 1 and 2) and Pena Creek Landowners, Cost based on treating 3.5 miles (assume 1
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian (reach 3) (CDFW stream survey reports). 2 2 RCD 67.00 67 project/mile in 5% high IP) at a rate of $3.63/ft.
Increase canopy cover levels within the Dry Creek

watershed. Priority streams include Fall Creek
(reach 1), Felta Creek (reach 2,3), Foss Creek, Mill CDFW, NMFS, Cost based on treating 3.5 miles (assume 1
Creek, Norton Creek, Pechaco Creek (reach 1,2,3), NOAA RC, project/mile in 5% high IP with 10 acres/mile) at a
Pena Creek, West Slough, Wine Creek (reach 1), NRCS, Private rate of $20,719/acre. Cost can be reduced once
DC-CCCS- and Woods Creek (reach 1,2,3) (CDFW stream Landowners, specific plans are developed for each reach
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian survey reports). 1 10 RCD 363 363 725 identified.

Encourage the restoration of floodplain function and CDFW, NMFS,
protect riparian vegetation to improve migration and NOAA RC,
summer/overwintering habitat for steelhead and NRCS, Private Education largely done through interaction with
DC-CCCS- Chinook salmon. Landowners, NMFS, CDFW, NRCS and RCD staff. Action is
7.1.1.4 Action Step Riparian 2 100 RCD 0 considered In-Kind

vegetation (e.g., Arundo donax, ivy, etc.), prioritize Approximate cost of performing assessment and
DC-CCCS- and develop riparian habitat reclamation and CDFW, NMFS, developing reclamation and enhancement
7.1.1.5 Action Step Riparian enhancement programs (CDFG 2004). 3 20 NOAA RC 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 100 program.
DC-CCCS- Recovery
Develop a Large Wood Recruitment Plan that

assesses instream wood needs, and sites potentially
responsive to wood recruitment or placement, and Land Trusts,
DC-CCCS- develop a riparian strategy to ensure long term Private
7.1.2.1 Action Step Riparian natural recruitment of wood via large tree retention. 3 100 Landowners TBD Cost of future management unknown at this time.
CDFW, NOAA Cost based on treating 10.5 miles (assume 1

DC-CCCS- Conduct conifer release to promote growth of larger RC, Private project/mile in 15% high IP with 20 acres/mile
7.1.2.2 Action Step Riparian diameter trees where appropriate. 3 20 Landowners 77.00 77.00 77.00 77.00 308.50 treated) at a rate of $1,468/acre.
DC-CCCS- Recovery
Initiate road assessments and landslide mapping in CDFW, NMFS,

the Dry Creek watershed. High priority streams NOAA RC,
include Crane Creek, Felta Creek (reach 3,4), Grape NRCS, Private
Creek, Mill Creek, Palmer Creek, Pena Creek, Pine Consultants,
DC-CCCS- Ridge Canyon Creek, Wallace Creek, Wine Creek RCD, Sonoma
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment and Woods Creek (CDFW stream survey reports). 2 20 County 0 Cost accounted for in ROADS/RAILROADS.
CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
Implement completed road assessments to address Private
sediment-related and runoff-related problems and Landowners,
DC-CCCS- correct problems with road hydrologic connectivity to Public Works,
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment streams. 2 20 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in Roads section.

and others to devise incentive programs and CDFW, NMFS,
incentive-based approaches to encourage and NOAA RC,
support landowners who conduct operations in a NRCS, Private Cooperation largely accomplished by federal,
DC-CCCS- manner compatible with CCC steelhead and CC Landowners, state and local agencies. Action is considered In-
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment Chinook salmon recovery priorities. 3 20 RCD 0 Kind
Provide incentives to restore high priority sites as Cost is based on type and amount of incentives to
DC-CCCS- determined by watershed analysis, CDFW, or provide. Currently, existing incentive programs
8.1.1.4 Action Step Sediment CalFire. 2 50 CDFW, NMFS TBD exist and should be explored and expanded.
Debris jams are potentially trapping sediment and
eroding adjacent banks within Schoolhouse Creek,
Wine Creek, and Woods Creek. The jams should be Analysis largely done by CDFW or NMFS
DC-CCCS- analyzed for possible removal or modification CDFW, NMFS, engineers, so cost will likely be low. Action is
8.1.1.5 Action Step Sediment (CDFW stream survey reports). 2 5 NOAA RC 0 considered In-Kind
Spawning gravel is limited within Dutcher Creek
(reach 1), Fall Creek, Felta Creek, Grape Creek, and CDFW, NMFS,
Wine Creek (upper and lower reaches) (CDFW NOAA RC, Cost is TBD, since scope, number and location of
stream habitat reports). Implement actions to NRCS, Private projects is uncertain at this time. Cost estimate
DC-CCCS- improve spawning gravel abundance and quality Landowners, for spawning gravel is $32/cu.yd. (assume a
8.1.1.6 Action Step Sediment within these stream. 2 5 RCD TBD minimum of 10 cu. yds/mile).

DC-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and

CDFW, NOAA
RC, Private
DC-CCCS- Monitor population status for response to recovery Landowners, Costs for monitoring population status and trends
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability actions. 2 10 RCD 0 are covered under in the Monitoring Chapter.
CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
Utilize CDFW approved implementation, Private
DC-CCCS- effectiveness, and validation monitoring protocols Landowners,
11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability when assessing efficacy of restoration efforts. 3 100 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Develop standardized watershed assessments within CDFW, NMFS,

sub-watersheds to define limiting factors specific to NRCS, Private
DC-CCCS- those areas. Encourage all major landowners to Landowners,
11.1.1.3 Action Step Viability develop similar assessment methods. 3 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Conduct a comprehensive assessment of watershed

processes (e.g., hydrology, geology, fluvial- CDFW, NMFS,
geomorphology, water quality, and vegetation), NRCS, Private Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
DC-CCCS- instream habitat, and factors limiting steelhead and Landowners, rate of $114,861/project. Additional parameters
11.1.1.4 Action Step Viability Chinook salmon production. 3 5 RCD 115.00 115 will increase the cost.
Evaluate feasibility of installing a lifecycle station in CDFW, NMFS,

DC-CCCS- an appropriate location within the watershed. Sonoma County Costs for monitoring population status and trends
11.1.1.5 Action Step Viability Implement action if found feasible. 1 10 Water Agency 0 are covered under in the Monitoring Chapter.
Improve smolt condition factor through the addition of , CDFW, NMFS,

Salmon Analog pellets until adult population returns Russian River Cost based on treating 7 miles (assume 1
DC-CCCS- reach nutrient sustaining levels. Wild Steelhead project/mile in 10% high IP with 1lb/150 sq. ft.) at
11.1.1.6 Action Step Viability 1 10 Society, USACE 7.00 7.00 14 a rate of $2,000/mile.
DC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape
DC-CCCS- steelhead and CC Chinook salmon recovery Landowners, outside of already existing federal and state and
CDFW, Farm
Implement Best Management Practices such as Bureau, NMFS,
DC-CCCS- (California Land Stewardship Institute), or other Landowners,
Coordination efforts are expected to be low cost,
Coordinate with the agencies that authorize mainly comprising already in place staff salaries
DC-CCCS- conversions to minimize conversions in key at the state and federal level. Action is
12.1.1.3 Action Step Agriculture watersheds and discourage forestland conversions. 3 25 CDFW, NMFS 0 considered In-Kind
DC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport
12.1.2 Action Agriculture (road condition/density, dams, etc.

Minimize future sediment and runoff sources from The cost is TBD since the number, location and
agricultural land by modifying actions that deliver CDFW, NMFS, scope of future erosion control measures is
sediment and runoff to stream channels. Assess the NRCS, Private unknown at this time. however, the cost will likely
DC-CCCS- effectiveness of erosion control measures throughout Landowners, be low if CDFW effectiveness monitoring
12.1.2.1 Action Step Agriculture the winter period. 3 20 RCD TBD protocols are used.

DC-CCCS- sediment source reduction, riparian habitat, forest Landowners, Cost of completing Farm Conservation Plan
DC-CCCS- participating in sediment reduction planning and Landowners,
DC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
DC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape
Promote agricultural practices that protect and CDFW,

DC-CCCS- restore steelhead and Chinook salmon habitat by Counties, NMFS, Cost TBD since the scope and authorship of the
12.2.1.1 Action Step Agriculture working with the agricultural community. 3 10 NOAA SWFSC TBD papers is unknown at this time.
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
DC-CCCS- Streamline permit processing where landowners are SWRCB, cost much, and may save money through future
DC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species
DC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
13.1.1 Action Modification hydrology
FEMA, NMFS,
All proposed levees should be designed to account Private
DC-CCCS- Channel for minimal maintenance associated with an intact Landowners, Cost associated with design changes to levees is
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification and functioning riparian zone. 2 100 Sonoma County TBD expected to be small.
CDFW, FEMA,
NMFS, NOAA
RC, Private
Set-back existing levees in strategic areas to Landowners, Cost based on treating 3 miles (assume 1
DC-CCCS- Channel increase flood-flow detention and promote flood- RCD, Sonoma project/mile, with 80/acres/mile) at a rate of
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification tolerant land uses. 2 30 County, USACE 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 8,928 $37,200/acre.
CDFW, FEMA,
NMFS, Private
DC-CCCS- Channel Avoid or minimize the effects from flood control Landowners,
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification projects on salmonid habitat. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Thoroughly investigate the ultimate cause of channel

instability prior to engaging in site specific channel CDFW, NMFS,
modifications and maintenance. Identify and target Private
DC-CCCS- Channel remediation of watershed process disruption as an Landowners, This recommendation should be considered
13.1.1.4 Action Step Modification overall priority. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 standard practice. Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
DC-CCCS- Channel Discourage stabilization projects which will lead to Sonoma County, BMP that is not expected to increase project
13.1.1.5 Action Step Modification additional instability either up- or downstream. 3 100 USACE 0 costs. Action is considered In-Kind
DC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

CDFW, NMFS,
Agencies should develop large woody debris NRCS, Private
retention programs and move away from the practice Landowners, Program development may be at a small cost.
DC-CCCS- Channel of removing instream large woody debris under high RCD, Sonoma Implementing program not expected to result in
13.1.2.1 Action Step Modification flow emergencies. 3 100 County, USACE 0 additional cost. Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
DC-CCCS- Channel Eliminate the use of gabion baskets and undersized Landowners, BMP not expected to have any associated costs.
13.1.2.2 Action Step Modification rock within the bankfull channel. 3 100 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
DC-CCCS- Address other natural or manmade factors
17.1 Objective Hatcheries affecting the species' continued existence
DC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
17.1.1 Action Hatcheries and diversity
Manage Russian River Hatcheries following a

Hatchery Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) which
is regularly updated to include adaptive management
DC-CCCS- strategies and recommendations CDFW, NMFS,
17.1.1.1 Action Step Hatcheries 1 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Evaluate the need for revising release numbers,
release sizes, release locations and strategies in the
context of meeting recovery goals and mitigation
requirements of both Russian River Hatcheries
(DCFH and CVFF). Update and revise the HGMP
DC-CCCS- according to proposed changes and CDFW, NMFS,
17.1.1.2 Action Step Hatcheries recommendations 1 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Preserve and manage the remaining genetic and CDFW, NMFS,

DC-CCCS- phenotypic characteristics that promote life history NOAA SWFSC,
17.1.1.3 Action Step Hatcheries variability in both hatchery and wild populations. 1 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Evaluate hatchery utilization in the context of
increasing abundance and spatial distribution of
DC-CCCS- steelhead in the Russian River and the larger CCC CDFW, NMFS,
17.1.1.4 Action Step Hatcheries DPS. 1 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Increase the proportion of releases from Coyote CDFW, NMFS,

DC-CCCS- Valley Fish Facility to expand and increase the NOAA SWFSC,
17.1.1.5 Action Step Hatcheries numbers of upper river spawners 1 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
If stocking is reinitiated, implement changes identified

DC-CCCS- in Hatchery Genetic Management Plans to improve CDFW, NMFS,
17.1.1.6 Action Step Hatcheries genetic and rearing management 1 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
If stocking is reinitiated, conduct or increase the
proportion of releases from Coyote Valley Fish
DC-CCCS- Facility to expand and increase the numbers of upper CDFW, NMFS,
17.1.1.7 Action Step Hatcheries river spawners 1 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
DC-CCCS- Recovery
23.1.1 Action Roads/Railroads Improve instream gravel quality
Initiate road assessments and landslide mapping in CDFW, NMFS,

the Dry Creek watershed. High priority streams NOAA RC,
include Crane Creek, Felta Creek (reach 3,4), Grape NRCS, Private
Creek, Mill Creek, Palmer Creek, Pena Creek, Pine Consultants,
DC-CCCS- Ridge Canyon Creek, Wallace Creek, Wine Creek RCD, Sonoma Cost based on road inventory for 425 miles of
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads and Woods Creek (CDFW stream survey reports). 2 20 County 101.75 101.75 101.75 101.75 407 road at a rate of $957/mile.

CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
Implement completed road assessments to address Private
sediment-related and runoff-related problems and Landowners,
DC-CCCS- correct problems with road hydrologic connectivity to Public Works,
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads streams. 2 25 RCD TBD Cost is dependent on Road Assessment
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ modification, or curtailment of the species
25.1 Objective Impoundment habitat or range
DC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
CDFW,
SWRCB,
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Implement changes to D1610 as specified within the USACE, Water
25.1.1.1 Action Step Impoundment Russian River Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008). 1 5 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Support current efforts to balance and sustain CDFW, NMFS,

fisheries flows while maximizing reservoir capture of NOAA NWS,
watershed runoff. These efforts involving forecast- Private
based reservoir operations for flood control and Landowners,
conservation, modeling watershed runoff, and Sonoma County
improvement of atmospheric rainfall and river Water Agency,
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ forecasts to identify opportunistic periods for SWRCB, Coordination done largely by agency staff and
25.1.1.2 Action Step Impoundment diversion and bypass should be supported. 1 5 USACE 0 affected landowners. Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
NRCS, Private Promotion largely done through federal, state and
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Promote water conservation best practices such as Landowners, local partnerships with interested NGO's. Action
25.1.1.3 Action Step Impoundment drip irrigation for vineyards. 2 5 Public, RCD 0 is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
NRCS, Private
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Promote the use of reclaimed water for agricultural or Landowners, Promotion likely done largely by agency and NGO
25.1.1.4 Action Step Impoundment other uses. 2 5 Public, RCD 0 partnerships. Action is considered In-Kind
Provide incentives to water rights holders within Dry Cost based on amount of incentives to provide to
Creek tributaries willing to convert some or all of their reduce instream impacts. Currently, incentive
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ water right to instream use via petition change of use CDFW, NMFS, programs exist and should be explored and
25.1.1.5 Action Step Impoundment and California Water Code 1707 (CDFG 2004). 2 10 Sonoma County TBD expanded.
DC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
25.1.2 Action Impoundment (reduced large wood and/or shelter)
Finish implementation of instream habitat restoration CDFW, NMFS,

along six miles of mainstem Dry Creek as specified Sonoma County
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ within the Russian River Biological Opinion (NMFS Water Agency,
25.1.2.1 Action Step Impoundment 2008). 1 10 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Work with project proponents and landowners to
implement instream habitat enhancement work along
Dry Creek in addition to the 6 miles required by the CDFW, NMFS,
NMFS 2008 Biological opinion, utilizing the Current NRCS, Private
Conditions Inventory and Conceptual Design work by Landowners,
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Interfluve. RCD, Sonoma
25.1.2.2 Action Step Impoundment 1 25 County TBD Cost is likely already accounted for.
Evaluate the potential and develop Safe Harbor NMFS, Private

Agreements for Dry Creek landowners participating Landowners,
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ in habitat enhancement along Dry Creek. Sonoma County
25.1.2.3 Action Step Impoundment 1 5 Water Agency 0 Action is considered In-Kind
DC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to estuary (impaired
25.1.3 Action Impoundment quality and extent)

Manage dam releases to minimize the influence on
lagoon formation in support of the Russian River CDFW, NMFS,
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Biological Opinion USACE, Water
25.1.3.1 Action Step Impoundment 1 5 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Encourage SCWA and Landowners along Dry Creek

to coordinate water withdrawals in the interest of CDFW, NMFS,
providing reliable releases from Lake Sonoma, and Sonoma County Encouragement would largely arise through
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ managing spring flow releases in support of efforts to Water Agency, already employed CDFW and NMFS staff. Action
25.1.3.2 Action Step Impoundment maintain a freshwater lagoon in the estuary. 1 10 SWRCB 0 is considered In-Kind
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

DC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

comparisons between impaired and unimpaired
conditions, with an emphasis on summer base flow
conditions relative to rearing juvenile salmonids. CDFW, County
These data will reduce uncertainty, provide greater Planning, Farm
temporal and spatial focus on impaired reaches and Bureau, NMFS,
greater certainty for reaches that have water NOAA NWS,
available for consumptive uses and be useful as a NOAA RC,
decision-support tool for other programs. NRCS, Private
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ " Landowners,
25.2.1.1 Action Step Impoundment 1 5 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
CDFW, County
Planning, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NOAA NWS,
Support efforts to provide improved localized NOAA RC,
weather prediction capabilities in support of finer NRCS, Private
scale frost protection capabilities for the benefit of Landowners,
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ grape growers and fisheries flows. RCD, Water
25.2.1.2 Action Step Impoundment 1 5 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
To resolve frost protection/fisheries conflicts over CDFW, County

spring baseflows evaluate alternatives such as: Planning, Farm
develop information about prioritizing tributaries and Bureau, NMFS,
locations for offstream storage; develop criteria for NOAA NWS,
sizing offstream storage; develop criteria making NOAA RC,
compensatory releases from large dams; provide NRCS, Private
policy and funding for the above actions to maximize Landowners,
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ benefits for fisheries and agriculture RCD, Water
25.2.1.3 Action Step Impoundment 1 5 Agencies 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.

downstream flows, regulating season of diversion,
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ and promoting and implementing off-stream storage CDFW, NMFS, Cost is TBD, since the number, location and
25.2.1.4 Action Step Impoundment solutions (CDFG 2004). 1 25 Sonoma County TBD scope of future actions is unknown at this time.
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ so that water allocations can be readily quantified by CDFW, NMFS,
25.2.1.5 Action Step Impoundment watershed. 2 5 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
use based on the needs of Chinook
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ salmon/steelhead and authorized diverters (CDFG CDFW, NMFS, No cost expected for requesting SWRCB review
25.2.1.6 Action Step Impoundment 2004). 2 10 SWRCB 0 of water use. Action is considered In-Kind

DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Support the development and implementation of CDFW, NMFS,
25.2.1.7 Action Step Impoundment groundwater use regulations. 3 10 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, CDFW
Law
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Improve compliance with existing water resource NMFS, NMFS already employed agency enforcement personnel.
25.2.1.8 Action Step Impoundment regulations via monitoring and enforcement. 3 100 OLE, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
migratory reaches for effects on the natural Cost is for evaluation largely done by already
DC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ hydrograph and spawning gravel recruitment CDFW, NMFS, staffed federal, state and local agencies. Action
25.2.1.9 Action Step Impoundment downstream (CDFG 2004). 3 100 SWRCB 0 is considered In-Kind

Maacama Creek Population


Although rigorous population estimates have never been conducted within the Maacama
watershed, sporadic historical and anecdotal surveys indicate that steelhead were once abundant.
Outmigrant trapping during May, 1965, documented abundant steelhead smolts captured at a
perforated-plate trap located within mainstem Maacama Creek, approximately 5 miles above the
Russian River confluence (CDFW 1965a). The perforated-plate trap was checked on an almost
daily basis, and over 1,100 juvenile steelhead were captured during the sampling period
(maximum daily count of 165 steelhead). Spot surveys conducted by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) during the 1990s documented the presence of 3 age classes of
steelhead within a few of the larger Maacama subwatersheds, although steelhead abundance was
largely depressed as compared to past surveys (Marcus 2004). Chinook salmon distribution and
abundance within Maacama Creek are detailed within the Chinook profile for the Russian River
population.
CDFW habitat surveys in the mid-1990s found steelhead distributed throughout much of the
Maacama basin, the sole exceptions being high gradient headwater streams and areas upstream
of migration barriers. Areas of higher quality habitat exist within upper Redwood Creek
(Yellowjacket and Kellogg Creeks) where limited logging has allowed the historical coniferous-
dominated upslope and riparian zones to remain. The McDonnell and Briggs Creek watersheds
are largely devoid of agricultural operations that dominate the southern portion of the watershed,
and contain large areas of quality rearing and spawning habitat (Marcus 2004).
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Maacama Creek 393

History of Land Use
The predominant land use within the present-day Maacama Creek watershed is agriculture
(largely vineyards), with smaller grazing and logging operations located within the northeastern
portion of the watershed. Historically, agricultural development began as early as the 1850s
within Knights Valley (Redwood Creek subbasin) and the Franz Creek watershed. Several timber
and mining (silver and mercury) companies operated within the redwood and conifer-dominated
headwaters of Redwood, Briggs and McDonnell Creeks during the late 1800s (Marcus 2004). In
the early part of the century, cattle grazing was likely widespread throughout different areas of
the basin, but now is largely restricted to northern watersheds, such as McDonnell Creek.
However, the intensive grazing that occurred throughout the basin has led to an important
change in grassland fauna, with annual European grasses replacing native perennial
bunchgrasses. Native bunchgrasses better protect the landscape from erosion due to their deep
and vigorous root system and their ability to regenerate following a fire (Marcus 2004).

The entire Maacama Creek watershed is privately owned, except for small public holdings within
the headwaters of McDonnell and Briggs Creeks (U.S. Bureau of Land Management).
Consequently, resource management within the basin is largely carried out by private
landowners with assistance from various Federal and state agencies (e.g., National Resource
Conservation Service).

The following habitat attributes were rated Poor through the CAP process: habitat complexity,
riparian vegetation, hydrology, and sediment transport. Recovery strategies will typically focus
on improving these habitat attributes, although strategies that address other attributes may also
be developed where their implementation is critical to restoring properly functioning habitat
Current Conditions
CAP viability analysis. The Maacama Creek CAP Viability Table results are provided below.

Please see the Russian River Overview for a complete discussion.

Poor riparian conditions predominantly impact summer- and winter-rearing juveniles through
elevated water temperatures and lack of velocity refugia respectively. Poor riparian conditions
are common throughout much of the Maacama Creek watershed, elevating summer water
temperatures, increasing stream bank erosion, and limiting LWD recruitment. Historical land
clearing and logging effectively removed many of the larger redwoods/conifers that shaded
headwater streams in many tributaries throughout the basin. As a result, few areas of
conifer/redwood forests remain within the watershed (e.g., headwater sections of Briggs and
Franz Creeks). Cattle grazing within the riparian corridor has likely lowered riparian function
and diversity within the McDonnell Creek subbasin, also. Lower Maacama Creek has a wide
riparian corridor (as compared to other tributaries in the basin) dominated by hardwood species.
These lower elevation reaches, such as the mainstem Maacama Creek, likely did not support
coniferous/redwood species historically.

Low baseflows can reduce the quantity of habitat, elevate stream temperatures and inhibit
movement between habitats for migration/emigration or to seek out food or temperature refugia
during stressful periods through the disconnection of streams or riffle/pool complexes. Analysis
by Marcus (2004) suggests that summer baseflows in Maacama Creek may be limiting steelhead
survival within low-gradient stream reaches (i.e., <2% gradient). Adjacent to agricultural areas,
summer baseflows flows are likely impacted during the summer irrigation season as well as the
spring frost control period (Deitch et al. 2008).

Poor shelter values can limit juvenile steelhead survival. Data from CDFW habitat inventories
indicate shelter ratings throughout the Maacama Creek watershed are poor within all sampled
reaches. Poor to Fair LWD ratings were also documented within sampled reaches, due largely to
a lack of functional riparian corridors and poor recruitment of large conifer species from adjacent
upslope areas. The general lack of wood within Maacama Creek stream channels is likely a cause
of the observed shelter deficiencies. Intense logging and land clearing around the latter half of
the 19th century, combined with devastating wild fires during 1964 and 1965, shifted forest
composition within much of the watershed from historical conifer/redwood stands to the current
oak chaparral composite (Marcus 2004). This shift in forest type has likely lowered the volume
of wood available for delivery into the stream environment.

Poor gravel quality can impact egg development and lower juvenile rearing success. Although
the CAP analysis indicated overall gravel quality as Fair, a few subwatersheds have spawning
gravel that is highly embedded with silt, which likely compromises spawning, egg incubation
and macro-invertebrate food production (Marcus 2004). The Franz Creek watershed has High
embeddedness ratings throughout most mainstem sections, likely the result of intensive
agriculture development as well as landscape-level impacts resulting from a 1964 fire and
subsequent 200-year flood event. Similarly, the McDonnell Creek watershed has some lower
channel reaches that exhibit Poor embededdness ratings, in response to local sediment sources
where livestock have access. Spawning gravel is limited within Foote Creek (CDFW 2006).

High instream temperatures have the greatest impact on summer-rearing juvenile steelhead, and
summer water temperatures are likely limiting steelhead survival throughout many sections of
Maacama Creek, primarily within or downstream of stream channels with poor riparian canopy
cover. The few areas noted as exhibiting cool water temperatures include the Briggs Creek and
Kellogg Creek subwatersheds, isolated pool habitat within mainstem Bidwell Creek, and an area
on lower Franz Creek that still retains a conifer/redwood-dominated riparian corridor.

Compared to other watersheds within the Russian River basin, Maacama Creek likely has a
moderately abundant population of steelhead that exhibit adequate life-history diversity. Several
fish passage barriers occur within the watershed, but many of the higher priority sites have been
addressed during the last several years. Although sediment from non-point sources such as roads
is present in much of the watershed, the quantity of spawning-sized gravel does not appear to be
a limiting factor in most streams.
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that were rated as High or Very High (See
Maacama Creek CAP Results). Recovery strategies will likely focus on ameliorating threats rated
as High; however, some strategies may address Medium and Low threats when the strategy is
Agriculture
Agriculture operations encroach into adjacent riparian areas on Maacama Creek and can increase
sediment delivery to the stream and decrease riparian shading and wood recruitment.
Agriculture is focused mainly within the southwestern portion of the Maacama drainage, with

an emphasis within the Knights Valley and Franz Creek sub-basin. Water diversions supporting
viticulture in these areas likely lower summer baseflows. Low summer baseflows can disconnect
aquatic habitat and elevate instream temperatures. To protect against frost damage to developing
grapes, farmers also pump/divert water during spring months, which has the potential to
appreciably decrease downstream flows (Deitch et al. 2008).

The Hanley Fire (1964) and PG&E #10 Fire (1965) burned large areas of the Maacama Creek
drainage, and the effects of these two fires continue to substantially impair riparian and aquatic
habitat throughout much of the basin (Marcus 2004). Following the fires, many areas failed to re-
establish redwood/conifer dominated forests, resulting in a lack of LWD and adequate shade in
most Maacama Creek tributaries. Furthermore, the flood event in 1965 that followed the fires
precipitated severe erosion within the burned areas. The high instream sediment concentrations
currently observed within portions of the Maacama drainage likely result from past fire damage.
Most fires since the Hanley and PG&E #10 have been small by comparison (most burning 1% or
less of the watershed area), suggesting that building fuel loads and the continuing rural nature
of the basin could produce equally devastating wildfires in the future.

Cattle grazing occurs throughout the basin and is the predominant land use within McDonnell
and lower Briggs Creeks. Erosion and riparian deforestation have been documented within the
watershed where overgrazing has occurred and riparian fencing is inadequate (Marcus 2004).
Roads and Railroads

Legacy roads from past logging and mining activity continue to impact the Maacama watershed.
Road densities within higher elevation, conifer-dominated landscapes more than doubled
between 1942 and 1961, largely the result of increased timber harvesting experienced throughout
much of the basin during that period (Marcus 2004). Many of these roads were poorly built, not
properly maintained, and have largely been abandoned.

The Maacama Creek watershed exhibits a Mediterranean-type climate, with an annual rainfall
range between 35 and 85 inches that falls predominantly between the months of October and
April. Although winter and spring seasons can be relatively wet (especially within higher
elevations), the summer and fall can be dry with daytime temperatures exceeding 100F. Given
that summer streamflow is already pressured by agricultural diversions, long-lasting drought
patterns pose a significant threat to maintaining adequate streamflows and aquatic habitat.

Other Threats
Some streams have been channelized as part of agricultural or urban development, but the
incidence of channelization is comparatively low given the small percentage of developed land
within the basin versus other Russian River watersheds (e.g., Mark West Creek, Upper Russian
River, and Santa Rosa Creek). Many streams become dry or intermittent during summer. This is
a natural condition in some reaches, or could be the result of agricultural or municipal/private
diversions, or a combination of both.

Threat and stress analysis within the CAP workbook suggests summer juvenile survival is likely
a limiting factor affecting steelhead abundance within the Maacama Creek watershed.
Inadequate stream shading, low summer baseflows, elevated water temperatures, and high levels
of inter-gravel sediment can limit benthic food production and juvenile survival. Additionally,
roads and agricultural operations threaten watershed processes in the form of altering riparian
resources, impairing hydrology, and sediment transport. Restoration actions should target
addressing these issues within high habitat potential stream reaches.
Improve Riparian Conditions, Canopy Cover and LWD

Much of the Maacama Creek watershed would benefit from improved riparian composition and
structure. This would increase stream shading, improve LWD recruitment, and improve
instream shelter for juvenile fish. General practices to improve riparian condition include
riparian planting and livestock exclusion fencing. Existing riparian corridors should be protected
or improved through the establishment of conservation easements or other landowner incentive
programs. This could provide a buffering from elevated temperatures and sediment runoff from
adjacent land uses.

Abandoned logging and mining roads exist throughout the basin, but are especially numerous
within the McDonnell and Briggs Creek sub-basins. Problem roads and active erosion sites
entire Maacama Creek basin.

Shelter ratings are Low within many surveyed stream reaches of Maacama Creek. Due largely to
an absence of LWD, quality pool habitat is absent and shelter habitat is comprised mainly of

undercut banks and aquatic vegetation. Where applicable, restoration efforts should incorporate
instream wood/boulder structures into degraded reaches to improve habitat complexity and
shelter availability.
Investigate and Address Diversion and Groundwater Extraction

Low summer streamflow has been observed within tributaries of Maacama Creek. The source of
these disconnected flow conditions should be investigated where low flows are affecting juvenile
steelhead survival. If diversions and pumping are adversely affecting aquatic habitat, Federal,
state and local government representatives should work with landowners to implement creative
solutions that minimize these effects.

Literature Cited
Laurel Marcus and Associates. 2004. Maacama Creek Watershed Assessment. Prepared for
Sotoyome Resource Conservation District, Santa Rosa, California. October 2004. 222 pp.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1965. Maacama Creek migrant salmonid
trapping report. 6 pp.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2006. Stream inventory report: Foote Creek.
12 pp.


Maacama Creek CAP Viability Results
Current
Target Rating
Measurement
1 Adults Condition Habitat Complexity Frequency (BFW 0- (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Fair
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 0% of
streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/IP-km
(>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream
average) average) average) average) average)
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 75
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
Passage at Mouth or 50% of IP-Km 75% of IP-Km 50% of IP-km to
Passage/Migration or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km Fair
Confluence to 74% of IP-km to 90% of IP-km 74% of IP-km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
50% of IP-Km 75% of IP-Km
to 74% of IP-km to 90% of IP-km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
5 & 6 across IP- 5 & 6 across IP- Poor
km km

50% of IP-Km 75% of IP-Km 75% of IP-km to
to 74% of IP-km to 90% of IP-km 90% of IP-km
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants
>1 spawner
low risk spawner
spawner density per
Spence (2008)
2 Eggs Condition Hydrology (Instantaneous Protocol: Risk Poor
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 66
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% (0.85mm) 15-17%
Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) and >30% (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and and <30% (0.85mm) and Fair
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm)
Gravel Quality
(Embeddedness)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Juveniles Condition

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Not
Habitat Complexity Frequency (Bankfull (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key
Specified
Width 0-10 meters) Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 51% to 74% of 75% to 89% of >90% of
71% of streams/
Habitat Complexity (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average Fair
pool frequency)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 0% of
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 83
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km Fair
accessible*

streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km 48 % of IP-km
Riparian
Canopy Cover stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; Poor
Vegetation
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
km km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP 75 to 89% IP
<50% IP km >90% IP km 50 to 74% IP-km
km (<20 C km (<20 C
coho IP coho IP
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Contaminants
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5 0.2 - 0.6
50-74% of 75-90% of >90% of
<50% of 75-90% of
Viability Spatial Structure Historical Historical Historical Good
Historical Range Historical Range
Range Range Range

Winter Rearing
4 Condition Habitat Complexity Frequency (Bankfull (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Fair
Juveniles
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 0% of
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
km km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants

Properly
Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 0% of
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 66
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
No Evidence of
Contaminants
Smolt Smolt Smolt
Smolt
abundance to
produce low
risk spawner
density per
Spence (2008)
(2008) Spence (2008) (2008)

>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of 0.21% of
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of 8.475% of
25-15% of
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of Watershed in
Landscape Patterns Timber Harvest Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Timber Harvest Good
Timber Harvest Timber Harvest Timber Harvest Timber Harvest in the past 10
years
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of 2% of
Landscape Patterns Urbanization watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed > 1 Very Good
Riparian Historical Historical Historical Historical Not
Species Composition
Vegetation Species Species Species Species Specified
2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6 1.5
Road Density Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Very Good
Transport Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile
0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1 1.8
Mile Mile Mile Mile

Maacama Creek CAP Threat Results

1 Agriculture Medium Medium High Medium Low High High
2 Channel Modification Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
3 Disease, Predation and Competition Low Low Medium Low Low Medium Medium
5 Suppression Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
8 Logging and Wood Harvesting Low Medium Medium Low Low Low Medium
11 Residential and Commercial Development Low Medium Medium Low Low Medium Medium
12 Roads and Railroads Medium Medium High Medium Low High High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
14 Water Diversion and Impoundments Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium
Threat Status for Targets and Project Medium Medium High Medium Medium High High

Maacama Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Interior) Recovery Actions
MaC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
MaC-CCCS- Recovery
3.1.1 Action Hydrology Improve flow conditions
Work with SWRCB and landowners to improve over
summer survival of juveniles by re-establishing
summer baseflows (from July 1 to October 1) in Costs to adjudicate and enforce water allocations
MaC-CCCS- rearing reaches that are currently impacted by water NMFS, CDFW, are borne by the State Water Board under
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology use. 3 10 RWQCB 0 California state law. Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NOAA
RC, Private
Improve connectivity of surface flows with Landowners,
groundwater, reduce aggradation, and lower the Sonoma County,
MaC-CCCS- overall sediment load at the watershed scale by Sonoma County
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology treating roads and sources of mass wasting. 2 100 Water Agency TBD Costs depend on extent of treatments.
MaC-CCCS- Recovery
NMFS, CDFW,
Private
Landowners,
Work with SWRCB and landowners to improve flow Sonoma County
MaC-CCCS- regimes for adult migration to spawning habitats and Water Agency,
3.1.2.1 Action Step Hydrology smolt outmigration. 2 10 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MaC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
MaC-CCCS- Recovery
Costs to agencies engaged in the identification

CDFW, NMFS, and elimination will vary depending on degree of
Private cooperation from the diverter. Cost borne by the
MaC-CCCS- Identify and eliminate depletion of summer base Landowners, State Water Board as part of their responsibilities
3.2.1.1 Action Step Hydrology flows from unauthorized water uses. 3 5 SWRCB 0 under state law. Action is considered In-Kind
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, Private
Landowners,
RCD, Sonoma
County, Sonoma
MaC-CCCS- Install streamflow gauging devices to determine the County Water
3.2.1.2 Action Step Hydrology current streamflow condition. 2 40 Agency 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 100 Cost per gauge estimated at 3000
CDFW, NMFS,
MaC-CCCS- Support SWRCB in regulating the use of streamside NMFS OLE,
3.2.1.3 Action Step Hydrology wells and groundwater. 2 60 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
MaC-CCCS- Improve compliance with existing water resource NMFS OLE,
3.2.1.4 Action Step Hydrology regulations via monitoring and enforcement. 3 20 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MaC-CCCS- Recovery Reduce the number, conditions, and/or magnitude of

3.2.2 Action Hydrology diversions

California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
Private
Landowners,
Sonoma County,
MaC-CCCS- Sonoma County
3.2.2.1 Action Step Hydrology Assess and map water diversions (CDFG 2004). 2 20 Water Agency 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MaC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
Improve fish passage at sites identified as partial or NRCS, Private
MaC-CCCS- total barrier to anadromy. High priority tributary Landowners, Cost based on providing passage at 9 unknown
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage watersheds include Mill, Pena and Grape Creek. 1 10 RCD 1,625 1,625 3,249 barriers at a rate of $360,982/project.
MaC-CCCS- Recovery
Improve summer rearing, winter rearing, and smolt

survival by increasing instream channel complexity in
potential rearing and migration reaches. Priority CDFW, NOAA Cost based on treating 7.4 miles (assume 1
MaC-CCCS- streams include Redwood Creek, Foote Creek, RC, Private project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity Kellog Creek, and Yellowjacket Creek. 2 100 Landowners 9.65 9.65 9.65 9.65 9.65 193 $26,000/mile.
MaC-CCCS- Recovery

responsive to wood recruitment or placement, and
MaC-CCCS- develop a riparian strategy to ensure long term
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian natural recruitment of wood via large tree retention. 3 10 Land Trusts 150.00 150 Cost based on previous regional projects
Conduct conifer release to promote growth of larger

diameter trees where appropriate. High priority areas CDFW, NOAA Cost based on treating 2.2 miles (assume 1
MaC-CCCS- for consideration may include upper Briggs Creek RC, Private project/mile in 15% high IP with 20 acres/mile)
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian and upper Bidwell Creek (Marcus 2004). 3 20 Landowners 65.00 65 treated at a rate of $1,468/acre.
MaC-CCCS- Recovery


those in the Fish Friendly Farming program CDFW, Farm
(California Land Stewardship Institute), or other Bureau, NMFS,
cooperative conservation programs, across all NRCS, Private
counties where agriculture is a land use. Best Landowners,
MaC-CCCS- management practices should include RCD, Sonoma
7.1.2.1 Action Step Riparian implementation of buffers and water conservation. 3 100 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind

vegetation (e.g., Arundo donax, ivy, etc.), prioritize Cost based on treating 1 mile (assume 1
MaC-CCCS- and develop riparian habitat reclamation and CDFW, NMFS, project/mile in 5% high IP with 10 acres/mile
7.1.2.2 Action Step Riparian enhancement programs (CDFG 2004). 3 20 NOAA RC 103 103 103 103 410 treated) at a rate of $41,000/acre.
Fence riparian areas within the Maacama Creek

watershed from grazing by using fencing standards
that allow other wildlife to access the stream.
Combine fencing with appropriate riparian CDFW, NOAA
regeneration projects when possible. High priority RC, NRCS,
MaC-CCCS- streams include Bear, Ingall, McDonnell, Lower Private Cost based on treating 1 mile (assume 1
7.1.2.3 Action Step Riparian Briggs, Little Briggs, and Coon Creek (Marcus 2004). 1 10 Landowners 10.00 10.00 20 project/mile in 5% high IP) at a rate of $3.63/ft.
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
MaC-CCCS- including conservation easements, setbacks, and Landowners, Cost is unknown at this time since the number,
7.1.2.4 Action Step Riparian riparian buffers (CDFG 2004). 2 100 RCD TBD location and scope of future projects is not known.
Work with landowners to evaluate any existing
conservation easements that exist within the CDFW, NMFS,
Maacama watershed. Changes in these easements NOAA RC,
MaC-CCCS- to better protect riparian habitat should be Private
7.1.2.5 Action Step Riparian investigated (Marcus 2004). 2 5 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MaC-CCCS- Recovery
Complete a comprehensive sediment source
inventory and assessment for the Briggs Creek sub- CDFW, NMFS,
MaC-CCCS- basin to address high road densities and grazing NRCS, Private Cost based on erosion assessment of 25% of
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment impacts. 3 2 Landowners 141.00 141 total watershed acres at a rate of $12.62/acre.
The cost of the amount and type of incentives is
Provide incentives to restore high priority sites as difficult to determine at this time. Currently,
MaC-CCCS- determined by watershed analysis, CDFW or CalFire, CDFW, incentives exist and should be explored and
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment CalFire. 3 20 NMFS TBD expanded.
Implement adequate monitoring to assess and track CDFW, NMFS,

MaC-CCCS- changes in bed profile and instream sediment levels Private Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment within the Maacama Creek watershed. 3 10 Landowners 57.50 57.50 115 rate of $114,861/project.
Establish at least one study reach on McDonnell

Creek, Briggs Creek, Redwood Creek, Bidwell Creek CDFW, NMFS,
MaC-CCCS- and Franz Creek to evaluate changes to channel Private Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
8.1.1.4 Action Step Sediment form and siltation levels (Marcus 2004). 3 10 Landowners 57.50 57.50 115 rate of $114,861/project.
CDFW, NMFS,
Use the v-star protocol over a broad area of each Private V-Star is a rather inexpensive monitoring
MaC-CCCS- sub-basin on a regular basis to evaluate pool siltation Landowners, technique, and cost is not expected to be
8.1.1.5 Action Step Sediment (Marcus 2004). 3 10 RCD 0 substantial.

MaC-CCCS- Recovery (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
Consultants,
Private
MaC-CCCS- Reduce discharge of chemical effluent and fertilizer Landowners,
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture related to agricultural practices. 3 25 RCD, RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MaC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport

12.1.2 Action Agriculture (road condition/density, dams etc.)
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
Minimize future sediment and runoff sources from Landowners,
MaC-CCCS- agricultural land by modifying actions that deliver RCD, Sonoma
12.1.2.1 Action Step Agriculture sediment and runoff to stream channels. 2 100 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MaC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape

CDFW, Farm
SRCD, NRCS, Fish Friendly Farming program or NRCS, Private
other cooperative conservation programs) to reduce Landowners,
MaC-CCCS- sediment sources and improve riparian habitat within RCD, Sonoma Cost is TBD, since the total number and scope of
12.1.3.1 Action Step Agriculture the Maacama Creek watershed. 3 10 County TBD the future plans is unknown at this time.
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
Incentive programs and incentive-based approaches NRCS, Private
should be explored for landowners who conduct Landowners, Cost based on amount and type of incentives to
MaC-CCCS- operations in a manner compatible with steelhead RCD, Sonoma employ. Currently, incentive programs are
12.1.3.2 Action Step Agriculture recovery requirements. 3 25 County TBD available and should be explored and expanded.


Developing legislation is not expected to be of
Develop legislation that will fund county planning for CDFW, NMFS, significant cost, and will likely involve the work of
MaC-CCCS- environmentally sound agricultural growth and water RCD, Sonoma already salaried public servants. Action is
12.2.1.1 Action Step Agriculture supply 2 10 County 0 considered In-Kind
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NRCS, Private Cost is difficult to estimate at this time, and will be
Landowners, dependent on the linear distance of setbacks and
MaC-CCCS- Increase setbacks of existing agricultural activities RCD, Sonoma the cost to landowners of lost production from
12.2.1.2 Action Step Agriculture from the top of bank to 100' 3 100 County TBD area inside the setback.
Sonoma County should minimize conversion of open
space, rangeland, or TPZ to vineyards or other
agricultural uses that impact salmonids until a
MaC-CCCS- grading ordinance and land conversion ordinance are CDFW, NMFS,
12.2.1.3 Action Step Agriculture in place. 3 10 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MaC-CCCS- Fire/Fuel Address the inadequacies of existing regulatory

15.1 Objective Management mechanisms
MaC-CCCS- Recovery Fire/Fuel Prevent or minimize increased landscape

15.1.1 Action Management disturbance

Avoid initiating backfires in streamside zones unless
backfire will help protect streams and streamside
zone from approaching wildfires use backfires as a
MaC-CCCS- Fire/Fuel tool to protect streams and streamside zones from
15.1.1.1 Action Step Management approaching wildfire. 2 100 CalFire 0 Action is considered In-Kind
If construction of fire lines involves falling trees near

streams, dropping some into streams and/or stream-
MaC-CCCS- Fire/Fuel side zones is appropriate for short term LWD
15.1.1.2 Action Step Management recruitment and erosion control. 3 100 CalFire 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Obtain water from non-fish bearing waters if at all

possible. In larger fish-bearing streams, excavate
active channel areas outside of wetted width to
create off-stream pools for water source. Mandate in
equipment contract specs that water trucks/tenders
be fitted with CDFW and NMFS approved fish
screens when water is acquired at fish bearing
streams. Put up a silt fence or other erosion controls
MaC-CCCS- Fire/Fuel around the water extraction locations. Avoid
15.1.1.3 Action Step Management significantly lower stream flows during water drafting. 2 100 CalFire 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Set up a comprehensive fire monitoring program that
MaC-CCCS- Fire/Fuel follows the guidelines in the National Park Service Fire
15.1.1.4 Action Step Management Monitoring Handbook 2 5 CalFire 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MaC-CCCS- Recovery Fire/Fuel Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport

15.1.2 Action Management (road condition/density, dams etc.)
Do not remove or fell standing dead or apparently
dying trees in stream-side zone. Upslope, felling and
MaC-CCCS- Fire/Fuel leaving these along the contour may intercept
15.1.2.1 Action Step Management sediment and runoff. 3 100 CalFire 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Reduce erosion from fire prevention or suppression
MaC-CCCS- Fire/Fuel activities by maintaining existing natural topography
15.1.2.2 Action Step Management to the extent possible. 3 100 CalFire 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Immediately implement appropriate sediment control
measures following completion of fire suppression
MaC-CCCS- Fire/Fuel while fire fighters and fire fighting equipment are on
15.1.2.3 Action Step Management site. 3 100 CalFire 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MaC-CCCS- Recovery Fire/Fuel (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
15.1.3 Action Management toxicity)
Minimize potential impacts from fire-related

chemicals and retardants. Locate chemicals,
petroleum products, latrines, camp sites, etc., as far
MaC-CCCS- Fire/Fuel from fish bearing streams and tributary watercourses
15.1.3.1 Action Step Management as possible. Place on naturally flat ground. 3 100 CalFire 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Use non-toxic retardants. Avoid dropping fire

retardant into streams. To the maximum extent
MaC-CCCS- Fire/Fuel feasible, orient air drops so that the drop goes
15.1.3.2 Action Step Management perpendicular to streams as opposed to parallel. 3 100 CalFire 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Avoid use of aerial fire retardants and foams within

MaC-CCCS- Fire/Fuel 300 feet of riparian areas throughout the current
15.1.3.3 Action Step Management range of CCC steelhead and CC Chinook salmon. 3 100 CalFire 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MaC-CCCS- Fire/Fuel Address other natural or manmade factors affecting

15.2 Objective Management the species continued existence
MaC-CCCS- Recovery Fire/Fuel Prevent or minimize increased landscape

15.2.1 Action Management disturbance

Ensure CDFW and NMFS participate on

rehabilitation planning teams. During rehabilitation,
consider leaving felled trees in streams as LWD
source. Re-contour any massively modified areas.
Storm-proof roads immediately after use. Where
organic materials need disposal, windrow on
disturbed soils on contour. Where larger organic
material is available, place in severely burned-out
watercourses (assure CDFW/NMFS is a part of this
design and decision). Seeding, preferably with local
MaC-CCCS- Fire/Fuel seed-stock, at high hazard/risk areas should be done CalFire, CDFW,
15.2.1.1 Action Step Management whenever feasible. 3 100 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Fuel load management costs are unknown at this
Identify historical fire frequency, intensities and time. Investigating historic fire frequency,
MaC-CCCS- Fire/Fuel durations and manage fuel loads in a manner intensity, and duration may require an
15.2.1.2 Action Step Management consistent with historical parameters. 3 100 CalFire 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 100 approximately $100,000 study.

Continue education of Caltrans, County road CDFW, NMFS,

engineers, and County maintenance staff regarding Private
watershed processes and the adverse effects of Consultants,
improper road construction and maintenance on Private
MaC-CCCS- salmonids and their habitats. Develop a Salmon Landowners,
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads Certification Program for road maintenance staff. 3 3 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Restoration projects that upgrade or decommission

MaC-CCCS- high risk roads should be considered an extremely CDFW, NMFS, No cost associated with prioritizing restoration
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads high priority for funding (e.g., PCSRF). 3 20 NOAA RC 0 actions.
NMFS and other stakeholders will work with RCD or CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS to encourage landowners to conduct NRCS, Private No cost associated with encouraging landowners
MaC-CCCS- appropriate road assessments within high priority Landowners, to conduct road assessments. Action is
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads watersheds. 2 5 RCD 0 considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
Develop a Road Sediment Reduction Plan that Consultants,
MaC-CCCS- prioritizes sites and outlines implementation and a Private Development of a Road Sediment Reduction Plan
23.1.1.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads timeline of necessary actions. 2 2 Landowners 100.00 100 may cost up to $100,000.
Develop a road upgrade fund to supplement FEMA
emergency repair funding so problem roads could be CDFW, NMFS,
upgraded to reduce sediment loading and improve Private
road reliability. Sonoma County should seek Consultants,
amendment of FEMA policies to allow improvements Private
that prevent erosion and failure, particularly in Landowners,
MaC-CCCS- watersheds with steelhead and Chinook salmon RCD, Sonoma Cost based on amount of funding needed to
23.1.1.5 Action Step Roads/Railroads habitat. 3 20 County TBD upgrade problematic roads.
MaC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

Conduct collaborative evaluations of priorities for CDFW, NMFS,
treatment of CCC steelhead and CC Chinook salmon Private Fish passage forum and other collaborative
MaC-CCCS- passage barriers, such as the Fish Passage Forum Consultants, evaluations are already in place. Action is
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads (CDFG 2004). 2 10 Public 0 considered In-Kind

Use NMFS Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Caltrans, CDFW,

Stream Crossings (NMFS 2001a) and appropriate NMFS, Private
MaC-CCCS- barrier databases when developing new or retrofitting Landowners, Utilizing more stringent crossing standards will
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads existing road crossings. 2 100 Sonoma County TBD likely increase costs to a small degree.

(bridges, culverts, fills, and other crossings) must Caltrans, Private
MaC-CCCS- accommodate 100-year flood flows and associated Landowners, Utilizing more stringent crossing standards will
23.1.2.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads bedload and debris. 2 100 Sonoma County TBD likely increase costs to a small degree.

bridges (including railroad bridges) should be free Caltrans, CDFW,
span or constructed with the minimum number of NMFS, Private
MaC-CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation Landowners, Utilizing more stringent crossing standards will
23.1.2.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads and facilitate fish passage. 2 100 Sonoma County TBD likely increase costs to a small degree.
MaC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport

Caltrans, CDFW,
Reduce road densities by 10 percent over the next Private
10 years, prioritizing high risk areas. Decommission Consultants,
and rehabilitate riparian road systems and/or Private
MaC-CCCS- upgrade roads (and skid trails on forestlands) that Landowners, Cost based on treating 10 miles of road network
23.1.3.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads deliver sediment into adjacent watercourses. 2 10 Sonoma County 105.00 105.00 210 at a rate of $21,000/mile.
Use best management practices for road Private

construction, maintenance, management and Consultants,
decommissioning (e.g. Hagans & Weaver, 1994; Private
MaC-CCCS- Sommarstrom, 2002; Oregon Department of Landowners, No cost associated with using best management
23.1.3.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads Transportation, 1999). 3 100 Sonoma County 0 practices. Action is considered In-Kind
Board of
Forestry, Private
For all rural (unpaved) and seasonal dirt roads apply Landowners,
MaC-CCCS- (at a minimum) the road standards outlined in the RCD, Sonoma Utilizing more stringent road standards will likely
23.1.3.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads California Forest Practice Rules. 3 100 County TBD increase costs to a small degree.
Board of
Forestry, Private
MaC-CCCS- Limit winter use of unsurfaced roads and recreational Landowners, Limiting winter use on trouble roads is not likely to
23.1.3.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads trails to decrease fine sediment loads. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 incur high costs.


Minimize new road construction within floodplains, CDFW, NMFS,

riparian areas, unstable soils or other sensitive areas Private
MaC-CCCS- until a watershed specific road management plan is Consultants,
23.2.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads created and implemented. 3 5 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MaC-CCCS- Severe Weather Address other natural or manmade factors affecting

MaC-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology


CDFW, NMFS,
Work with land owners or public agencies to acquire Private
MaC-CCCS- Severe Weather water that would be utilized to minimize effects of Landowners, Cost difficult to estimate due to uncertainty with
Implement water conservation strategies that provide CDFW, NMFS,
for drought contingencies without relying on Private Implementing conservation strategies not
MaC-CCCS- Severe Weather interception of surface flows or groundwater Landowners, expected to be a high cost endeavor. Action is
24.1.1.2 Action Step Patterns depletion. 3 100 SWRCB 0 considered In-Kind
CDFW, CDFW
Law
MaC-CCCS- Severe Weather depletion of summer base flows from unauthorized NMFS, NMFS

MaC-CCCS- Severe Weather water-use conflicts and impacts on fish and wildlife Landowners,
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
When feasible, use alternatives to water such as Consultants,
dust palliative (including EPA-certified compounds) Private
MaC-CCCS- Severe Weather that are consistent with maintaining or improving Landowners,
24.1.1.5 Action Step Patterns water quality (CDFG 2004). 2 20 SWRCB TBD Cost difficult to estimate at this time.
Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
MaC-CCCS- Water Diversion mechanisms
25.1 Objective /Impoundment
Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
MaC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion (impaired water flow)
25.1.1 Action /Impoundment

budget model to characterize surface stream flows CDFW, County
within Russian River tributaries, to allow for Planning, Farm
comparisons between impaired and unimpaired Bureau, NMFS,
conditions, with an emphasis on summer base flow NOAA NWS,
conditions relative to rearing juvenile salmonids. NOAA RC,
These data will reduce uncertainty, provide greater NRCS, Private
temporal and spatial focus on impaired reaches and Consultants,
greater certainty for reaches that have water Private
MaC-CCCS- Water Diversion available for consumptive uses and be useful as a Landowners, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
CDFW, County
Planning, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
To resolve frost protection/fisheries conflicts over NOAA NWS,
spring baseflows evaluate alternatives such as: NOAA RC,
develop information about prioritizing tributaries and NRCS, Private
locations for offstream storage; develop criteria for Consultants,
sizing offstream storage; develop criteria making Private Frost protection is a regulation administered by
compensatory releases from large dams; provide Landowners, the State Water Board. Cost of most work will
MaC-CCCS- Water Diversion policy and funding for the above actions to maximize RCD, Water largely be done by SWRCB and NMFS. Action is
25.1.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment benefits for fisheries and agriculture. 1 5 Agencies 0 considered In-Kind

CDFW, County
Planning, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NOAA NWS,
NOAA RC,
NRCS, Private
Consultants,
MaC-CCCS- Water Diversion scale frost protection capabilities for the benefit of RCD, Water

Mark West Creek Population


Systematic adult or juvenile fish surveys covering a substantial geographic area or time period
have not been conducted within the Mark West population area (i.e., Mark West Creek, Santa
Rosa Creek, and the Laguna de Santa Rosa), so accurately describing historic adult or juvenile
fish abundance is difficult. However, anecdotal historical accounts and reports suggest steelhead
were widely distributed and abundant throughout the population area. A 1953 survey of Mark
West Creek noted abundant juvenile steelhead within the mainstem creek where flow persisted
throughout the summer (CDFW 1953). In 1958, CDFW estimated that 5,000 steelhead returned
to spawn annually within Santa Rosa Creek (CDFW stream report SR Creek). More recently,
CDFW stream surveys during the late 1990s continued to document juvenile steelhead within
most Santa Rosa Creek and Mark West Creek tributary reaches containing perennial flow,
although densities were notably lower than those observed during surveys of the 1950s and 1960s
(reference CDFW stream reports). Similarly, snorkel and electrofishing sampling during the
summers of 1999-2001 documented moderate numbers of juvenile steelhead within both Santa
Rosa and Mark West Creek, with the highest densities occurring within headwater reaches
(SCWA 2002). Concerning adults, fyke-net sampling on both Santa Rosa Creek and Mark West
Creek captured small numbers of steelhead (both upstream and downstream migrants) during
the winters of 1993/94 and 1994/95 (City of Santa Rosa surveys from KRIS Russian River website).
Overall, steelhead remain widely distributed within the Mark West population area, but at
abundance levels that are likely significantly lower than those documented several decades prior.
History of Land Use

Intensive land management within the Santa Rosa Creek area started during the early 1800s,
when Spanish settlers began grazing cattle and harvesting timber within suitable areas in the
watershed. Agriculture also dominated early development within the area; hop fields and
orchards were common throughout lower elevation, undeveloped areas during the late 1800s and
early 1900s. Urban development grew steadily following incorporation of Santa Rosa as a city in
1870 to such an extent that Santa Rosa was ranked as the 8th largest city in California by 1870.
Population growth moderated somewhat during the early 1900s, but there was a marked increase
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Mark West Creek 419
following World War II. Today, small pockets of agriculture and cattle operations remain within
the Mark West population area, but are largely restricted to more rural areas within the
headwaters of Mark West and Santa Rosa creeks and low lying lands adjacent to the Laguna de
Santa Rosa section of the watershed. Aside from the small footprint of agriculture and cattle
grazing, much of the remaining watershed is currently heavily urbanized.

The majority of the Mark West population area lies within incorporated areas and is largely under
municipal management. Large, undeveloped private/public holdings exist within headwater
reaches throughout the watershed (e.g., Saddle Mountain Preserve in upper Mark West Creek).
The Mark West Creek, Santa Rosa Creek, and Laguna de Santa Rosa all contain substantial
channelized stream reaches (i.e., flood channels), which are currently maintained by Sonoma
County Water Agency (SCWA). The activities implemented by SCWA for flood control purposes
include sediment removal, channel debris clearing, vegetation maintenance, and bank
stabilization (Entrix 2004). SCWA also administers the Central Sonoma Watershed Project
(CSWP), a series of flood control reservoirs located on Santa Rosa, Brush, Paulin, and Matanzas
creeks. None of the CSWP reservoirs provide for upstream passage of adult or juvenile
salmonids. The City of Santa Rosa's sub-regional wastewater system's main plant is located in
the Laguna de Santa Rosa floodplain. The City owns and manages adjacent lands for storage and
agricultural reuse and release of treated wastewater.

riparian vegetation, sediment, velocity refuge, water quality, viability, and landscape
disturbance. Recovery strategies will typically focus on improving these habitat attributes,
although strategies that address other indicators may also be developed where their
implementation is critical to restoring properly functioning habitat conditions within the
watershed.
Current Conditions
our CAP viability analysis. The Mark West Creek CAP Viability Table results are provided

Adequate instream shelter is largely absent throughout most of the Mark West population area,
and juvenile steelhead within these reaches experience reduced summer survival and growth due
to poor LWD volume and shelter condition. The upper reaches of Mark West Creek and Santa
Rosa Creek generally contain more shelter than lower urbanized reaches, although shelter levels
in these upper reaches often fall below optimal levels (CDFW 2006a, CDFW 2006b). The heavily
urbanized stream reaches lower in the watershed (e.g., those within the cities of Santa Rosa,
Windsor, and Rohnert Park) exist mainly as flood control channels, and have been heavily
armored and channelized to minimize flood risk. The large urban interface between the stream
environment and upslope areas that traditionally supplied LWD impairs the potential for wood
recruitment to the stream, translating into reduced shelter and instream habitat values.
Furthermore, most large wood found within flood control channels is removed to further
alleviate flood risk.

Floodplain connectivity is poor throughout much of the basin, especially adjacent to the
urbanized floodplain where streams have been straightened and stream banks hardened to
convey flows more efficiently to reduce flooding. Without access to flooded stream bank and
riparian habitat, juvenile steelhead are flushed downstream to the river, or forced to reside within
undesirable main-channel habitat where high flow velocities and low shelter likely limit winter
survival.

The density and abundance of steelhead within the Mark West population area is greatly reduced
from historical estimates (CDFW 2006a). However, spatial diversity is still high though smaller
numbers of steelhead continue to persist throughout much of the Santa Rosa Creek, Mark West
Creek, and Laguna de Santa Rosa subwatersheds.
Sediment: Gravel Quality and Distribution of Spawning Gravels

High levels of fine sediment can impair food production (Cordone and Kelly 1961, Suttle et al.
2004) and spawning success (Chapman 1988). The quantity and quality of instream gravel within
the Mark West population area were rated Poor within the CAP workbook for both the egg and
summer juvenile lifestages. During CDFW stream surveys, only 5 of 18 sampled tributaries were
rated as Good or Very Good for embededdness, with 10 streams scoring a Poor rating (CDFW
2006a, CDFW 2006b). Within the Santa Rosa Creek watershed, a Rapid Biological Assessment
study demonstrated that all six tributary sampling reaches were impaired with regard to benthic
macro-invertebrate density and diversity, likely caused by high instream sediment and poor
water quality (Sustainable Land Stewardship Institute 2002).

Water quality is generally poor within the urbanized areas of the Mark West population area.
Santa Rosa Creek (pathogens, sediment, temperature), Mark West Creek (sediment,
temperature), and the Laguna de Santa Rosa (DO, mercury, nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment,
temperature) are all listed as impaired on the Federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List for the
various constituents identified. Recent water sampling by the Regional Water Board within lower
Santa Rosa Creek (2008) documented high coliform and enterococcus levels near the downtown
area. The cause of impairment is likely urban effluent arising from storm drains or faulty septic
systems, wastewater discharge into the Laguna, or other point sources. Water quality is likely
lowest during summer low flow conditions, when effluent discharge is more concentrated upon
entering the stream system. Juvenile steelhead are most likely impacted by poor summer water
quality; however, storm drainage following the first heavy rains of the season likely washes oil
and chemicals from city streets into storm channels, possibly impacting adult and winter juvenile
steelhead inhabiting the watershed at that time.

The composition and structure of riparian areas are rated Poor throughout much of the Mark
West population area. CDFW stream habitat reports documented Good canopy values within
only 3 of 18 sampled stream reaches, whereas 10 of 18 were rated as Poor (CDFW 2006a, CDFW
2006b). Many streams flowing through urban Santa Rosa, Windsor, and Rohnert Park have been
channelized for flood conveyance, precluding connectivity between the stream, riparian corridor
and floodplain. Non-native tree species, which are common in the urban setting, do not provide
the natural functional benefits (e.g., shading efficiency, allochthanous input, etc.) necessary for
rearing juvenile steelhead during summer months.

Landscape disturbance alters structural and functional characteristics of the stream system,
which can, in turn, upset the flow of energy between different biological communities occupying
the river continuum (Van Note et al. 1980). Much of the Mark West Creek, Santa Rosa Creek,
and Laguna de Santa Rosa watersheds are disturbed at the landscape scale, ranging from the
large urban interface within the city of Santa Rosa and outlying municipalities to more benign
land-use practices, such as agriculture and cattle grazing.
Current stream flow patterns within Santa Rosa Creek and the Laguna de Santa Rosa likely
deviate from historical patterns with higher flows during summer (due to wastewater discharge
and urban runoff) and steeper winter storm hydrographs (due to high impervious surface area)
within the watershed. Additionally, warm water temperature could limit juvenile steelhead
survival during summer within some channelized sections of the population area although
higher elevation headwater areas contain suitable water temperatures throughout the summer.
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that were rated as High or Very High (See Mark
West Creek CAP Results). Recovery strategies will likely focus on ameliorating threats rated as
High; however, some strategies may address Medium and Low threats when the strategy is
Agriculture
Although many areas that once supported agriculture have been converted to urban
development, agriculture continues as a dominant land use within the Mark West Creek
watershed. As of 2002, 22 percent of the population area was in agriculture production, focused
largely within the lower reaches of Santa Rosa Creek, Mark West Creek, and much of the Laguna
de Santa Rosa (NMFS GIS info). Land clearing and management associated with agriculture can
increase erosion, confine stream channels, and limit riparian corridor extent and functionality.
Flood control activities concomitant with the growing urban interface have simplified instream
habitat complexity and disconnected many stream channels from their floodplains mostly
through stream bank stabilization measures and channelization. As a result, riparian condition
throughout urbanized portions of the watershed is generally poor, with lower densities of shade-
producing trees, low LWD recruitment potential or residency, and a higher proportion of non-
native invasive species which out-compete beneficial native riparian species. The SCWA has
initiated a process to shift its stream maintenance program to improve riparian habitat and restore
morphological function in the flood control channels to the degree possible.

The 2010 census estimated the population within the Mark West Creek area at over 350,000
residents, the highest human population amongst the six Russian River steelhead populations,
and over half the watershed has a housing density higher than 1 unit per 20 acres (NMFS GIS
data, 2015). The high level of urban development has increased the impervious area within the
watersheds, greatly impacting the hydrology and water quality.
Roads and Railroads
Road networks within the Mark West watershed are largely paved and associated with
impervious surfaces within commercial and residential areas in contrast to the unpaved road
systems common to rural watersheds with other land uses (e.g., logging, livestock ranching, or
rural sub-divisions). As a result, much of the impacts resulting from Mark West area roads relate
to road borne pollution (e.g., oils, urban runoff, etc.). Paved roads parallel many of the waterways
within both Santa Rosa Creek and Laguna de Santa Rosa watersheds and the lower portion of
Mark West Creek, while the headwaters of Mark West Creek are relatively rural in nature
characterized by low to moderate road densities. These paved roads represent a significant source
of the total impervious surfaces within the basin, and likely influence storm flow intensity and
duration during winter.
Other Threats
Invasive fish species that prey on fry and juvenile salmon are likely problematic within the basin.
Bass and various sunfish species have been found within areas characterized by slow, warm
water. Efforts to eradicate these species could assist juvenile steelhead survival. Invasive aquatic
plant species (e.g., Ludwigia) have become established within the Laguna de Santa Rosa, and
provide ideal ambush habitat for predatory non-native fishes. Cattle grazing continues to occur
within some of the more rural areas and may contribute to riparian degradation and increased
erosion when fencing is not used to exclude animals from the stream environment. Low summer
flows are common throughout many Mark West Creek tributaries, largely a result of upstream
domestic and agricultural water diversions. Low summer baseflows likely lower juvenile
steelhead survival by decreasing benthic invertebrate production and increasing predation and
stranding risk (Sotoyome Resource Conservation District 2008).

Threat and stress analysis within the CAP workbook suggests summer and winter juvenile and
adult lifestages are likely most limiting steelhead productivity in the Mark West Creek watershed.
Water quality is poor throughout the summer within many of the channelized stream reaches,
largely as a result of poor canopy cover (elevated water temperatures) and urban/agricultural
effluent entering the aquatic environment (excess macrophyte growth and increased toxin load).
Over-wintering juvenile salmonid likely struggle to find suitable slow, off-channel and margin
shallow-water habitat necessary to ensure high survival to the smolt lifestage. Adult steelhead
likely encounter poor migratory habitat (e.g., few holding pools, excess flow velocity) throughout
the same channelized reaches, and the numerous road crossings throughout the watershed likely
delay upstream migration to varying degrees.
Address Channelization to Reduce Habitat Fragmentation
The distribution of properly functioning aquatic habitat within the watershed is interrupted and
disconnected by urban and agricultural land disturbance. The headwater reaches of Santa Rosa
Creek, Mark West Creek, and tributaries to Laguna de Santa Rosa represent intact, relatively
functional steelhead habitat, as do sections of the lower portion of the watershed. However, the
middle portions are dominated by urbanized landscapes and channelized stream reaches, which
offer little functional habitat for migrating, rearing or spawning steelhead. Creating set-back
levees and reconnecting existing floodplain habitat within select sections of these streams would
re-establish a continuum of functional steelhead habitat from headwaters to the lower end of the
basin.
Improve Riparian Function and Composition

Poor riparian habitat is likely limiting steelhead productivity throughout many sections of the
Mark West Creek watershed. Canopy cover was rated as sub-optimal canopy within fourteen of
eighteen sampled reaches (CDFW habitat surveys), and LWD volume was similarly poor.
Improving the function and composition by out-sloping channelized stream banks (widening
riparian zones) and planting native species will not only improve canopy cover and water quality,
but will improve LWD recruitment and increase the volume of wood-related cover in the stream
channel.
Improve Instream Habitat Quality and Quantity

Poor instream habitat conditions are prevalent throughout much of the watershed, due to the
degree of urban interface present within the Mark West Creek watershed and the effect this
interface has on inhibiting recruitment of wood and gravel from upslope sources. Active
restoration using structural measures will be required to address shelter values and pool: riffle
ratios. Recovery actions should focus on improving spawning habitat through gravel
augmentation projects and installing standard log/boulder habitat structures to increase adult
spawning and juvenile rearing habitat.
Investigate and Address Sediment Sources

Elevated instream sediment levels are a common problem throughout not only urban areas of the
watershed, but headwater sections as well. Restoration actions should focus on identifying and
prioritizing current sources of sediment within the basin. High priority sites should receive initial
restoration funding.
Improve Hydrology and Baseflows
Water conservation projects, water right purchases, and conservation easements should be
explored with willing landowners to protect and improve remaining flows and
riparian/floodplain areas. Existing riparian/floodplain areas should be protected by adherence
to County General Plan setback requirements and City ordinances where they exist, or developed
where they do not.
Literature Cited
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFW). 1953. Field correspondence regarding Mark
West Creek, to Inland Fisheries Branch, Region III, 28 July 1953. Unpublished CDFW
memo by R.R. Bruer. Yountville, CA. 1 p.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFW). 2006a. Stream habitat inventory: Mark West
Creek. April 14, 2006. 18 pp.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFW). 2006b. Stream habitat inventory: Santa Rosa
Creek. April 14, 2006. 27 pp.
Chapman, D.W. 1988. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds of
large salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:1-21.
Cordone, A.J., and D.W. Kelly. 1961. The influences of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life of
stream. California Fish and Game 47:189-228.
Entrix. 2004. Russian River Biological Assessment. Prepared for the Sonoma County Water
Agency. September 29, 2004.
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2006. 2006 CWA Section 303(d) List of
Water Qaulity Limited Segments Requiring TMDLs. Copy can be found at
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/epa/r1_06_30
3d_reqtmdls.pdf
Sonoma County Water Agency. 2002. Data Report 1999-2001: Russian River Basin Steelhead
and Coho Salmon Monitoring Program Pilot Study. September 2002. 60 p.
Sotoyome Resource Conservation District. 2008. Upper Mark West Watershed Management
Plan Phase 1: Watershed Characterization and Needs Assessment. Sotoyome RCD,
August 31, 2008. 36 pp.
Sustainable Land Stewardship Institute. 2002. Biological and physical/habitat assessment of

selected sites within the Santa Rosa watershed. 18 pp. [610 kb]
Suttle, K.B., M. E. Power, J. M. Levine, and C. McNeely. 2004. How fine sediment in riverbeds
impairs growth and survival of juvenile salmonids. Ecological Applications, 14(4), 2004,
pp. 969974.
Van Note, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummings, J. R. Sedell, and C. E. Cushing. 1980. The
River Continuum Concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 130-
137.
Mark West Creek CAP Viability Results
Current
Target Rating
Measurement
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 0% of
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 75
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km Good
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
Quantity & <50% of IP-Km <50% of IP-km
Sediment Distribution of or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km or <16 IP-km Poor
Spawning Gravels accessible* accessible*
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
>1 spawner
<1 spawner per
per IP-km to < low risk <1 Spawner per
IP-km to < low
low risk spawner IP-km
Size Viability Density risk spawner Poor
spawner density per (Reference
density per
density per Spence (2008) Spence)
Spence (2008)
Spence (2008)
Flow Conditions
Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Not
2 Eggs Condition Hydrology (Instantaneous
Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Specified
Condition)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow NMFS Flow NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk
Hydrology Redd Scour Fair
Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score 51-
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% (0.85mm) >17% (0.85mm)
Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) and >30% (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and and <30% and >30% Poor
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm) (6.4mm)
Gravel Quality
(Embeddedness)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Juveniles Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
Percent Primary
Habitat Complexity (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average Poor
Pools
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 0% of
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 67
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
Flow Conditions
Hydrology (Instantaneous Fair
Condition)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
Hydrology and/or Magnitude of Diversions/10 IP Diversions/10 Diversions/10 0 Diversions Diversions/10 Good
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
Riparian
Vegetation
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP 75 to 89% IP
<50% IP km >90% IP km <50% IP km
km (<20 C km (<20 C
Water Quality <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT Poor
coho IP coho IP
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Contaminants
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5 0.2 - 0.6
50-74% of 75-90% of
<50% of >90% of 75-90% of
Range Range
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Winter Rearing
Juveniles
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 0% of
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants
Properly
Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 0% of
NMFS Flow
Hydrology Passage Flows 51-75 Protocol: Risk Fair
Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score
Factor Score 58
>75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
Passage/Migration or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km >90% of IP-km Very Good
accessible*
No Evidence of
Contaminants
Smolt Smolt Smolt
Smolt
abundance to
produce low
risk spawner
density per
Spence (2008)
(2008) Spence (2008) (2008)
>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of 9.47% of
6 Hydrology Impervious Surfaces Fair
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of 11.6% of
Landscape Patterns Agriculture Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Good
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of 25-15% of
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of 55% of
<25% Intact 25-50% Intact 51-74% Intact >75% Intact <25% Intact
Species Composition Poor
2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6 5.5
Transport Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile
0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1
Sediment Streamside Road >1 Miles/Square Not
Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square
Transport Density (100 m) Mile Specified
Mile Mile Mile
Mark West Creek CAP Threat Results

1 Agriculture Medium Medium High High Low Medium High
2 Channel Modification High Medium High High Medium High High
3 Disease, Predation and Competition Low Low Medium Low Low Medium Medium
5 Suppression Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
8 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium
10 Recreational Areas and Activities Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium
11 Residential and Commercial Development Medium Medium High High Low High High
12 Roads and Railroads High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Low Low Medium Low Low Medium Medium
14 Water Diversion and Impoundments Low Low Medium Low Medium Medium Medium
Threat Status for Targets and Project High Medium High High Medium High Very High
Mark West Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Interior) Recovery Actions
MWC- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
MWC- Recovery Floodplain

CDFW, FEMA,
NMFS, NOAA
RC, Private
MWC- Landowners, Estimated costs based on similar costs in
CCCS- Floodplain Improve over-winter survival by increasing the Sonoma County, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity frequency and functionality of floodplain habitats. 2 20 USACE 4,762 4,762 4,762 4,762 19,047 site, setting and geographic specific.
CDFW, FEMA,
NMFS, NOAA
Create flood refuge habitat, such as hydrologically RC, Private
MWC- connected floodplains with riparian forest, removal of Landowners,
CCCS- Floodplain levees, and use streamway concept where Sonoma County,
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity appropriate. 2 25 USACE 0 Cost accounted for in another action step
CDFW, FEMA,
NMFS, NOAA
RC, Private
MWC- Implement actions that re-establish the hydrologic Landowners,
CCCS- Floodplain connection between stream channels and adjacent Sonoma County,
2.1.1.3 Action Step Connectivity floodplain habitat. 2 50 USACE 0 Cost accounted for in another action step
MWC- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
MWC- Recovery Improve frequency of primary pools, LWD, and

Encourage landowners to implement woody debris CDFW, NMFS,
MWC- restoration projects as part of their ongoing NOAA RC, Cost uncertain at this time, However, cost of
CCCS- operations in stream reaches where large woody Private incorporating LWD into ongoing operations is
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity debris is lacking. 3 100 Landowners 0 expected to be low. Action is considered In-Kind
Where feasible, increase woody cover in the pool

and flatwater habitat units throughout the Mark West
watershed, focusing on a combination of cover/scour
structures constructed with boulders and woody
debris within flatwater and pool locations. Work
MWC- should be done in conjunction with stream bank CDFW, NMFS,
CCCS- stabilization to prevent erosion (CDFW habitat NRCS, Private
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity inventory reports). 2 20 Landowners 19.50 19.50 19.50 19.50 78 Cost based on previous regional projects
Where feasible, design and engineer pool CDFW, NOAA

enhancement structures to increase the number and RC, NRCS,
MWC- quality of pools. This must be done where the banks Private Estimated costs based on similar costs in
CCCS- are stable or in conjunction with stream bank armor Landowners, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
6.1.1.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity to prevent erosion (CDFW stream habitat reports). 2 10 RCD 81.00 81.00 162 site, setting and geographic specific.
Many glide and run habitats should be converted to CDFW, NMFS,

MWC- pools through the addition of large woody debris, NOAA RC,
CCCS- especially within Mark West Creek tributaries (CDFW Private
6.1.1.4 Action Step Habitat Complexity stream habitat reports). 2 20 Landowners 0 Cost covered by above actions.
MWC- Recovery
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
MWC- Fence riparian areas within the watershed from NRCS, Private
CCCS- grazing by using fencing standards that allow other Landowners, Cost based on treating 1.3 miles (assume 1
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian wildlife to access the stream. 2 10 RCD 12.50 12.50 25 project/mile in 5% high IP) at a rate of $3.63/ft.
CDFW, City of
Rohnert Park,
City of Santa
Rosa, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
MWC- Promote streamside conservation measures, Private
CCCS- including conservation easements, setbacks, and Landowners, Promoting conservation measures is a low cost
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian riparian buffers (CDFG 2004). 3 100 Sonoma County 0 undertaking. Action is considered In-Kind
Focus riparian restoration within Santa Rosa,

Matanzas, Brush/Rincon, Piner, Paulin, Windsor and
Pool Creeks. Where appropriate, riparian surveys
should be continued above CDFW survey sections.
Santa Rosa Creek work should focus on survey
reach 1 and the channelized section (CDFW habitat
inventory report). Although passage barriers
preclude steelhead from using much of the Matanzas CDFW, NMFS,
Creek watershed, riparian restoration that addresses NOAA RC,
MWC- sediment and invasive plant sources within upper NRCS, Private Estimated costs based on similar costs in
CCCS- Matanzas Creek will likely improve habitat further Landowners, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian downstream in Santa Rosa Creek. 2 25 RCD 43.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 215 site, setting and geographic specific.
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
MWC- Mark West Tributaries, specifically Humbug, Porter, NRCS, Private Estimated costs based on similar costs in
CCCS- Horse Hill and Weeks Creeks are other high priority Landowners, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
7.1.1.4 Action Step Riparian creeks where riparian actions should be undertaken. 2 25 RCD 11 11 11 11 11 54 site, setting and geographic specific.
MWC- Recovery

MWC- responsive to wood recruitment or placement, and Cost based on riparian and wetland restoration
CCCS- develop a riparian strategy to ensure long term model at a rate of $73,793 and $213,307/project,
7.1.2.1 Action Step Riparian natural recruitment of wood via large tree retention. 3 10 Land Trusts 144.00 144.00 288 respectively.
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
MWC- NRCS, Private Estimated costs based on similar costs in
CCCS- Conduct conifer release to promote growth of larger Landowners, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
7.1.2.2 Action Step Riparian diameter trees where appropriate. 3 20 RCD 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 112 site, setting and geographic specific.
MWC- Recovery
CDFW, NMFS,
Conduct road and sediment reduction assessments NRCS, Private
MWC- to identify sediment-related and runoff-related Landowners,
CCCS- problems and determine level of hydrologic RCD, Sonoma Cost based best professional judgement of the
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment connectivity. 2 2 County 140 140 amount of roads needing to be inventoried
MWC- Provide incentives to restore high priority sites as CalFire, CDFW, Cost based on amount of incentives to restore
CCCS- determined by watershed analysis, CDFW or NMFS, Private high priority sites. Currently, incentive programs
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment CalFire. 3 20 Landowners TBD exist and should be explored and expanded.

incentive-based approaches to encourage and Bureau, NMFS,
MWC- support landowners who conduct operations in a NRCS, Private
CCCS- manner compatible with CCC steelhead and CC Landowners,
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment Chinook salmon recovery priorities. 3 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MWC-
CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, NMFS, Cost based on installing a minimum of 3 stream
MWC- Determine site-specific recommendations, including NRCS, Private flow temperature gauges at a rate of $500/gauge.
CCCS- incentives, to remedy high temperatures and Landowners, Cost does not account for data management or
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality implement accordingly (CDFG 2004). 2 5 RCD 1.50 2 maintenance.
Cost of promoting streamside conservation

MWC- Promote streamside conservation measures, measures is likely to be low, since most promotion
CCCS- including conservation easements, setbacks, and will come from already salaried CDFW and
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality riparian buffers (CDFG 2004). 2 100 CDFW, NMFS 0 NMFS personnel. Action is considered In-Kind
MWC-
CCCS- Recovery
10.1.2 Action Water Quality Reduce toxicity and pollutants

MWC- continuous water quality monitoring gauges at a
CCCS- Assess and remove sources of toxins from CDFW, NMFS, rate of $5,000/station. Cost does not account for
10.1.2.1 Action Step Water Quality watershed areas or streams. 2 10 RWQCB 7.50 7.50 15 data management or maintenance.
MWC-
CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
Consultants,
MWC- Develop standardized watershed assessments within Private
CCCS- sub-watersheds to define limiting factors specific to Landowners,
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability those areas. 3 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
Private
Consultants,
MWC- Utilize CDFW approved implementation, Private
CCCS- effectiveness, and validation monitoring protocols Landowners,
11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability when assessing efficacy of restoration efforts. 3 100 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in the Monitoring Chapter.
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
MWC- Sonoma County
CCCS- Monitor population status for response to recovery Water Agency,
11.1.1.3 Action Step Viability actions. 2 10 UC Extension 0 Cost accounted for in the Monitoring Chapter.
MWC- Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
Consultants,
MWC- Private Cost is difficult to determine at this point, and will
CCCS- Reduce discharge of chemical effluent and fertilizer Landowners, depend largely on the measures and technology
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture related to agricultural practices. 3 25 RCD, RWQCB TBD chosen to accomplish task.
MWC-
CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to riparian species
12.1.2 Action Agriculture composition and structure
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
MWC- Landowners, dependent on the linear distance of setbacks and
CCCS- Increase setbacks of existing agricultural activities RCD, Sonoma the cost to landowners of lost production from
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
MWC- Maintain intact and properly functioning riparian Landowners,
CCCS- buffers to filter and prevent fine sediment input from RCD, Sonoma
12.1.2.2 Action Step Agriculture entering streams. 3 100 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MWC-
CDFW, Farm
Incentive programs and incentive-based approaches Bureau, NRCS,
MWC- should be explored for landowners who conduct Private Cost based on amount and type of incentives to
CCCS- operations in a manner compatible with steelhead Landowners, employ. Currently, incentive programs are
12.1.3.1 Action Step Agriculture recovery requirements. 3 25 RCD TBD available and should be explored and expanded.
CDFW, Farm
MWC- other cooperative conservation programs) to reduce Landowners,
CCCS- sediment sources and improve riparian habitat within RCD, Sonoma Cost is TBD, since the total number and scope of
12.1.3.2 Action Step Agriculture the Mark West Creek watershed. 3 10 County TBD the future plans is unknown at this time.
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
MWC- Work within the agricultural community to educate Landowners,
CCCS- landowners and enhance practices that provide for RCD, Sonoma Cost of educating landowners will largely fall on
12.1.3.3 Action Step Agriculture functional watershed processes. 3 25 County 0 already salaried public employees.
MWC- Address the inadequacies of existing regulatory

MWC-
Developing legislation is not expected to be of
MWC- Develop legislation that will fund county planning for CDFW, NMFS, significant cost, and will likely involve the work of
CCCS- environmentally sound agricultural growth and water RCD, Sonoma already salaried public servants. Action is
12.2.1.1 Action Step Agriculture supply 3 10 County 0 considered In-Kind
MWC- Board of
CCCS- Limit salmonid habitat degradation resulting from Forestry, CalFire,
12.2.1.2 Action Step Agriculture conversion of forestland/open space to agriculture. 3 50 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Sonoma County shouldminimize conversion of open
space, rangeland, or TPZ to vineyards or other
MWC- agricultural uses that impact salmonids until a
CCCS- grading ordinance and land conversion ordinance are CDFW, NMFS,
12.2.1.3 Action Step Agriculture in place. 3 10 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MWC- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
MWC-
CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
FEMA, NMFS,
MWC- All proposed levees should be designed to account Private
CCCS- Channel for minimal maintenance associated with an intact Landowners,
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification and functioning riparian zone. 2 100 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Where new levees, maintenance on existing levees,
or similar flood control projects are planned, develop CDFW, Farm
setbacks to allow the river to respond to natural Bureau, NMFS,
MWC- hydrologic process and remain in equilibrium. At a Private Cost based on treating 1 mile (assume 1
CCCS- Channel minimum, setbacks should accommodate a 100 year Landowners, project/mile in 1% high IP) at a rate of
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification event. 3 10 Sonoma County 175.00 175.00 350 $349,828/mi.
CDFW, FEMA,
NMFS, NOAA
RC, Private
MWC- Set-back existing levees in strategic areas to Landowners,
CCCS- Channel increase flood-flow detention and promote flood- RCD, Sonoma
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification tolerant land uses. 2 30 County, USACE 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
CDFW, FEMA,
MWC- NMFS, Private
CCCS- Channel Avoid or minimize the effects from flood control Landowners,
13.1.1.4 Action Step Modification projects on salmonid habitat. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Thoroughly investigate the ultimate cause of channel Private
instability prior to engaging in site specific channel Consultants,
MWC- modifications and maintenance. Identify and target Private
CCCS- Channel remediation of watershed process disruption as an Landowners, Cost uncertain since number, scope and location
13.1.1.5 Action Step Modification overall priority. 3 100 Sonoma County TBD of future projects is unknown at this time.
MWC- CDFW, NMFS,

CCCS- Channel Discourage stabilization projects which will lead to Sonoma County, BMP that is not expected to increase project
13.1.1.6 Action Step Modification additional instability either up- or downstream. 3 100 USACE 0 costs. Action is considered In-Kind
MWC-
CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
CDFW, NMFS,
MWC- retention programs and move away from the practice Landowners, Program development may be at a small cost.
CCCS- Channel of removing instream large woody debris under high RCD, Sonoma Implementing program not expected to result in
CDFW, NMFS,
MWC- NRCS, Private
CCCS- Channel Eliminate the use of gabion baskets and undersized Landowners,
13.1.2.2 Action Step Modification rock within the bankfull channel. 3 100 RCD 0 BMP not expected to have any associated costs.
MWC- Commercial modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
MWC- Residential/
CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape
Educate county and city public works departments, CDFW, City of

MWC- Residential/ flood control districts, and planning departments, etc., Santa Rosa, Cost of training and encouraging partners to
CCCS- Commercial on the critical importance of maintaining riparian NMFS, Sonoma maintain riparian health is expected to be low.
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development vegetation, instream LWD, and LWD recruitment. 3 20 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MWC- Residential/ Design and implement education programs to CDFW, NMFS,

CCCS- Commercial promote public awareness of salmon and steelhead Public, Sonoma
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development habitat within urban creek settings. 3 5 County 75.00 75 Cost estimate from CDFG 2004.
Assess efficacy and necessity of ongoing stream Estimated cost of $50,000 for an assessment.
MWC- Residential/ maintenance practices and evaluate, avoid, minimize Cost of other resulting mitigation is unknown since
CCCS- Commercial and/or mitigate their impacts to rearing and migrating CDFW, NMFS, the number, location and scope of future projects
22.1.1.3 Action Step Development steelhead and Chinook salmon. 3 5 NOAA RC 50.00 50 is not known.
MWC- Residential/ Private

CCCS- Commercial Implement performance standards in Stormwater Landowners, Cost of implementing performance standards is
New development in all historic CCC steelhead and City of Rohnert

MWC- Residential/ CC Chinook salmon watersheds should minimize Park, City of
CCCS- Commercial storm-water runoff, changes in duration, or Santa Rosa,
22.1.1.5 Action Step Development magnitude of peak flow. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, City of
Rohnert Park,
City of Santa
Rosa, NMFS,
Private
MWC- Residential/ Identify areas at high risk of conversion, and develop Landowners, Cost of identifying and developing incentives to
CCCS- Commercial incentives and alternatives for landowners that RCD, Sonoma landowners expected to be low. Action is
22.1.1.6 Action Step Development discourage conversion. 3 25 County 0 considered In-Kind
MWC- Residential/ Encourage infill and high density developments over likely to incur any costs outside of the duties of
CCCS- Commercial dispersal of low density rural residential in CDFW, NMFS, already salaried state and federal workers.
22.1.1.7 Action Step Development undeveloped areas. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Design new developments to avoid or minimize CDFW, City of

impact to unstable slopes, wetlands, areas of high Rohnert Park,
MWC- Residential/ habitat value, and similarly constrained sites that City of Santa
CCCS- Commercial occur adjacent to a CCC steelhead or CC Chinook Rosa, NMFS, The cost of implementing this BMP is uncertain at
22.1.1.8 Action Step Development salmon watercourse. 3 100 Sonoma County TBD this time.
MWC- Residential/
CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
CDFW, City of
Promote the re-vegetation of the native riparian plant Santa Rosa,
community within inset floodplains and riparian NMFS, Private
MWC- Residential/ corridors to ameliorate instream temperature and Landowners,
CCCS- Commercial provide a source of future large woody debris Public, Sonoma
22.1.2.1 Action Step Development recruitment. 2 50 County TBD Cost is likely accounted for (see RIPARIAN).
CDFW, City of
Santa Rosa,
MWC- Residential/ NMFS, Private
CCCS- Commercial Minimize development within riparian zones and the Landowners, Implementing this BMP is not expected to incur
22.1.2.2 Action Step Development 100-year floodprone zones. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 appreciable costs. Action is considered In-Kind

Institutionalize programs to purchase Bureau, Land expected to be much cost. Buying the land, on the
MWC- Residential/ land/conservation easements to encourage the re- Trusts, NMFS, other hand, is likely to be very expensive. Cost based
CCCS- Commercial establishment and/or enhancement of natural riparian NRCS, RCD, on fair market value, land turnover, and participation
22.1.2.3 Action Step Development communities. 3 25 Sonoma County TBD from landowners.
Counties and municipalities should adopt a policy of CDFW, City of

managed retreat (removal of problematic Rohnert Park,
MWC- Residential/ infrastructure and replacement with native vegetation City of Santa
CCCS- Commercial or flood tolerant land uses) for areas highly Rosa, NMFS,
22.1.2.4 Action Step Development susceptible to, or previously damaged from, flooding. 3 50 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MWC- Residential/
CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
funding of larger detention devices in key watersheds CDFW, City of Investigating funding larger detention devices is
MWC- Residential/ with ongoing channel degradation or in sub- Santa Rosa, not expected to cost much. Implementing the
CCCS- Commercial watersheds where impervious surface area > 10 NMFS, Sonoma devices will be much more expensive. Action is
22.1.3.1 Action Step Development percent. 3 5 County 0 considered In-Kind
CDFW, City of
Santa Rosa,
MWC- Residential/ Create flood refuge habitat, such as hydrologically NMFS, Private
CCCS- Commercial connected floodplains with riparian forest, and use Landowners, Cost accounted for in other action steps (see
22.1.3.2 Action Step Development streamway concept where appropriate. 1 25 Sonoma County TBD FLOODPLAIN CONNECTIVITY).
floodplains or offchannel habitats in any historical
steelhead or chinook watersheds, and restoration is
MWC- Residential/ found feasible, encourage willing landowners to CDFW, NMFS, Encouraging landowners to restore floodplain
CCCS- Commercial restore these areas through conservation Private areas is not expected to cost much. Action is
MWC- Residential/
CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport
22.1.4 Action Development (road condition/density, dams, etc.)
distributed network rather than a few point City of Rohnert
MWC- Residential/ discharges, which can result in locally severe erosion Park, City of
CCCS- Commercial and disruption of riparian vegetation and instream Santa Rosa, Implementing this BMP is not expected to be very
22.1.4.1 Action Step Development habitat. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 costly. Action is considered In-Kind
Identify areas at increased risk of mass wasting and

MWC- Residential/ elevated fine sediment load, and decrease sediment Estimated costs based on similar costs in
CCCS- Commercial from transportation projects and land management CDFW, NMFS, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
22.1.4.2 Action Step Development activities in those areas (CDFG 2004). 3 5 Sonoma County 51 51 site, setting and geographic specific.
City of Rohnert
Park, City of
Santa Rosa,
MWC- Residential/ Minimize sediment from existing and future Private
CCCS- Commercial development to magnitudes appropriate to the Landowners, Cost of implementing this BMP is expected to be
22.1.4.3 Action Step Development geologic setting of the watershed 3 100 Sonoma County 0 low.
Residential/
MWC- Commercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
MWC- Residential/ Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
CCCS- Recovery Commercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
City of Rohnert
Toxic waste products from urban activities should Park, City of
MWC- Residential/ receive the appropriate treatment before being Santa Rosa,
CCCS- Commercial discharged into any body of water that may enter any Public, Sonoma Implementing this BMP is expected to be low
22.2.1.1 Action Step Development steelhead or Chinook salmon waters. 1 100 County, RWQCB 0 cost. Action is considered In-Kind
City of Rohnert
MWC- Residential/ Avoid or minimize the use of commercial and Park, City of
CCCS- Commercial industrial products (e.g. pesticides) with high potential Santa Rosa, Implementing this BMP is expected to be low
22.2.1.2 Action Step Development for contamination of local waterways. 2 100 Sonoma County 0 cost. Action is considered In-Kind
MWC- Residential/
CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape
CDFW, City of
Rohnert Park,
City of Santa
Develop legislation that will fund county planning for Rosa, NMFS,
environmentally sound growth and water supply and Private
MWC- Residential/ work in coordination with California Dept. of Housing, Landowners,
CCCS- Commercial Association of Bay Area Governments and other Public, Sonoma
22.2.2.1 Action Step Development government associations (CDFG 2004). 3 10 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MWC- Residential/
CCCS- Commercial Discourage Sonoma County from rezoning CDFW, NMFS,
22.2.2.2 Action Step Development forestlands to rural residential or other land uses. 3 20 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Rohnert Cost of ensuring enforcement of existing building

MWC- Residential/ Park, City of permits is expected to be low (i.e., covered as
CCCS- Commercial Enforce existing building permit programs to minimize Santa Rosa, part of already existing enforcement programs).
22.2.2.3 Action Step Development unpermitted construction. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MWC- Residential/ Develop policy and guidelines that address land
CCCS- Commercial conversion and attempt to minimize conversion- CDFW, NMFS,
22.2.2.4 Action Step Development related impacts within the aquatic environment. 3 20 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Minimize new construction in undeveloped areas
MWC- Residential/ within the 100-year flood prone zones in all historic
CCCS- Commercial CCC steelhead and CC Chinook salmon CDFW, NMFS,
22.2.2.5 Action Step Development watersheds. 3 5 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Encourage Sonoma County to develop and CDFW, City of

implement ordinances (e.g., Santa Cruz) to restrict Rohnert Park,
MWC- Residential/ subdivisions by requiring a minimum acreage limit for City of Santa
CCCS- Commercial parcelization and in concert with limits on water Rosa, NMFS,
22.2.2.6 Action Step Development supply and groundwater recharge areas. 3 5 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MWC-
Continue education of Caltrans, County road CDFW, NMFS,

engineers, and County maintenance staff regarding Private
watershed processes and the adverse effects of Consultants,
MWC- improper road construction and maintenance on Private
CCCS- salmonids and their habitats. Develop a Salmon Landowners,
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads Certification Program for road maintenance staff. 3 3 Sonoma County 100.00 100 Estimated cost for development of plan.
Reduce road densities by 10 percent over the next

10 years, prioritizing high risk areas. Restoration
MWC- projects that upgrade or decommission high risk
CCCS- roads should be considered an extremely high CDFW, NMFS, Cost based on decommissioning 140 miles of
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads priority for funding (e.g., PCSRF). 2 20 NOAA RC 368 368 368 368 1,470 road network at a rate of $21,000/mile.
NMFS and other stakeholders will work with RCD or CDFW, NMFS,
MWC- NRCS to encourage landowners to conduct NRCS, Private
CCCS- appropriate road assessments within high priority Landowners, No cost associated with encouraging landowners
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads watersheds. 3 5 RCD 0 to conduct road assessments.
Use best management practices for road Private

construction, maintenance, management and Consultants,
MWC- decommissioning (e.g. Hagans & Weaver, 1994; Private
CCCS- Sommarstrom, 2002; Oregon Department of Landowners, No cost associated with using best management
23.1.1.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads Transportation, 1999). 3 100 Sonoma County 0 practices. Action is considered In-Kind
Board of
Forestry, Private
MWC- For all rural (unpaved) and seasonal dirt roads apply Landowners,
CCCS- (at a minimum) the road standards outlined in the RCD, Sonoma Utilizing more stringent road standards will likely
23.1.1.5 Action Step Roads/Railroads California Forest Practice Rules. 3 100 County TBD increase costs to a small degree.
MWC-
Caltrans, CDFW,
Assess and implement actions that hydrologically Private
disconnect roads or reduce sediment sources. Consultants,
MWC- Decommission and rehabilitate riparian road systems Private
CCCS- and/or upgrade roads (and skid trails on forestlands) Landowners, Cost is uncertain due to unknown number,
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads that deliver sediment into adjacent watercourses. 2 30 Sonoma County TBD location and scope of future projects.
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
MWC- Develop a Road Sediment Reduction Plan that Consultants,
CCCS- prioritizes sites and outlines implementation and a Private Development of a Road Sediment Reduction Plan
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads timeline of necessary actions. 3 2 Landowners 100.00 100 may cost up to $100,000.
Board of
MWC- Forestry, Private
CCCS- Limit winter use of unsurfaced roads and recreational Landowners,
23.1.2.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads trails to decrease fine sediment loads. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MWC-
Conduct collaborative evaluations of priorities for CDFW, NMFS,
MWC- treatment of CCC steelhead and CC Chinook salmon Private Fish passage forum and other collaborative
CCCS- passage barriers, such as the Fish Passage Forum Consultants, evaluations are already in place. Action is
23.1.3.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads (CDFG 2004). 2 10 Public 0 considered In-Kind

MWC- (bridges, culverts, fills, and other crossings) must Caltrans, Private
CCCS- accommodate 100-year flood flows and associated Landowners, Utilizing more stringent crossing standards will
23.1.3.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads bedload and debris. 3 100 Sonoma County TBD likely increase costs to a small degree.

bridges (including railroad bridges) should be free Caltrans, CDFW,
MWC- span or constructed with the minimum number of NMFS, Private
CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation Landowners, Utilizing more stringent crossing standards will
23.1.3.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads and facilitate fish passage. 3 100 Sonoma County TBD likely increase costs to a small degree.
Use NMFS Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Caltrans, CDFW,

MWC- Stream Crossings (NMFS 2001a) and appropriate NMFS, Private
CCCS- barrier databases when developing new or retrofitting Landowners, Utilizing more stringent crossing standards will
23.1.3.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads existing road crossings. 2 100 Sonoma County TBD likely increase costs to a small degree.
MWC- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

MWC-
Develop a road upgrade fund to supplement FEMA
emergency repair funding so problem roads could be CDFW, NMFS,
upgraded to reduce sediment loading and improve Private
road reliability. Sonoma County should seek Consultants,
amendment of FEMA policies to allow improvements Private Cost based on amount of funding needed to
MWC- that prevent erosion and failure, particularly in Landowners, upgrade roads. Recommend conducting a road
CCCS- watersheds with steelhead and Chinook salmon RCD, Sonoma inventory to determine length and number of
23.2.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads habitat. 3 20 County TBD upgrades needed.
Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
MWC- Water Diversion mechanisms
CCCS-25.1 Objective /Impoundment
MWC- Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion (impaired water flow)
25.1.1 Action /Impoundment

budget model to characterize surface stream flows CDFW, County
within Russian River tributaries, to allow for Planning, Farm
comparisons between impaired and unimpaired Bureau, NMFS,
conditions, with an emphasis on summer base flow NOAA NWS,
conditions relative to rearing juvenile salmonids. NOAA RC,
These data will reduce uncertainty, provide greater NRCS, Private
temporal and spatial focus on impaired reaches and Consultants,
MWC- greater certainty for reaches that have water Private
CCCS- Water Diversion available for consumptive uses and be useful as a Landowners, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
CDFW, County
Planning, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
To resolve frost protection/fisheries conflicts over NOAA NWS,
spring baseflows evaluate alternatives such as: NOAA RC,
develop information about prioritizing tributaries and NRCS, Private
locations for offstream storage; develop criteria for Consultants,
sizing offstream storage; develop criteria making Private
MWC- compensatory releases from large dams; provide Landowners, Cost based on number and type of alternatives to
CCCS- Water Diversion policy and funding for the above actions to maximize RCD, Water employ to reduce conflicts between fisheries and
25.1.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment benefits for fisheries and agriculture 1 5 Agencies TBD frost protection.
CDFW, County
Planning, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NOAA NWS,
NOAA RC,
NRCS, Private
Consultants,
MWC- weather prediction capabilities in support of finer Landowners,
CCCS- Water Diversion scale frost protection capabilities for the benefit of RCD, Water
Upper Russian River Population

Role within DPS: Functionally Independent Population

Although no statistically rigorous estimations of historic and current steelhead abundance exist
for the Russian River watershed, the existing data does suggest a precipitous decline in
abundance over the past several decades (see Rusian River Watershed Overview). The number
of steelhead currently distributed among the 6 different Russian River populations is unknown,
although the distribution and quantity of available habitat within the basin suggest a high
proportion originate from the Upper Russian River population discussed here. Juvenile
steelhead abundance estimates exist from the 1960s and 1970s for some of the larger tributary
systems, suggesting the Upper Russian steelhead population was much larger and widespread
prior to the 1990s. For instance, the abundance of young-of-the-year steelhead in Forsythe
Creek was estimated at 150-200 per 100 feet of stream length in 1963, whereas a more recent
sampling in 1999 observed very low numbers of juvenile steelhead within the stream (CDFG
2006).
In 2003, the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) conducted an Upper Russian River
Steelhead Distribution Study to evaluate the distribution of steelhead during summer
conditions and assess habitat along the Russian River (SCWA 2003). Steelhead were observed
in all 4 study reaches; however, their distribution and numbers varied substantially. Of 1,436
steelhead observed in the 37 sample segments between Ukiah and Healdsburg, steelhead were
found in the upper portion of the Ukiah reach, throughout most the Canyon reach, and
infrequently in the Alexander Valley and Healdsburg reaches. Steelhead comprised only <1% to
5% of all fish counted. The largest numbers of steelhead were observed in the Canyon reach at
265 steelhead/km followed by the Ukiah reach at 37 steelhead/km. The Alexander Valley and
Healdsburg reaches had relatively few steelhead observations at <1 and 7 steelhead/km,
respectively. Fish numbers were determined by visually counting fish during dive surveys and
were not population estimates (SCWA 2003).
Wild steelhead are widely distributed throughout the Upper Russian watershed, although
passage barriers preclude access to some stream reaches. Since the 1980s, the Upper Russian
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Upper Russian 448

Vol. IV, Central California Coast Steelhead River
River steelhead population has been augmented to a high degree through hatchery releases.
Coyote Valley Fish Facility (CVFF) was constructed in 1991 and operates just below Coyote
Valley Dam on the East Fork Russian River. The facility has an escapement goal of 4,000 adult
steelhead and annually releases up to 200,000 steelhead smolts into the mainstem only (NMFS
2008). Additionally, surplus hatchery steelhead are relocated to numerous urban tributaries by
volunteer of the Ukiah Rod and Gun Club through annual review and agreement by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and NMFS biologists.
History of Land Use

Both Ukiah and Hopland, the two largest cities within the Upper Russian watershed, became
incorporated in the 1850s. Early commerce and development revolved around agriculture,
timber harvesting and cattle grazing, with hops and fruit trees representing the largest acreage
of cropland. Cattle grazing likely occurred throughout much of the available low elevation, oak
chaparral foothills not converted for agriculture or actively logged. The timber industry, which
was largely concentrated within the redwood/conifer-dominated watersheds north and west of
Ukiah, was a steady employer during the late 1800s and early 1900s, but it wasnt until the
1940s that the industry substantially surged. Today, although the urban footprint of Ukiah and
Hopland has grown, much of the low-lying irrigable landscape remains in agricultural
production (largely wine grapes, with smaller fruit tree orchards interspersed).

The majority (90 percent) of the Upper Russian watershed is privately owned, with the
remaining area comprising public lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(8 percent), the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the state of California. Small pockets of
Forsythe and Ackerman Creek are managed for timber production and energy companies and
utilities produce electricity from geothermal sources within Big Sulphur Creek. The majority of
the Upper Russian watershed lies within Mendocino County, which is a partner within the 5
Counties (5C) Salmonid Conservation Program. Through the 5C Program, five participating
counties (Humboldt, Del Norte, Trinity, Siskiyou, and Mendocino) work toward improving
their plans, policies, and practices to improve or provide salmonid habitat (for more
information, see http://www.5counties.org/). A major accomplishment was the development of
the Five Counties Road Maintenance Program in 2007, which has established best management
practices (BMPs) for urban and rural road management and a programmatic assessment of all
county managed roads and culverts between 2003 and 2005.

The following habitat indicators were rated Poor through the CAP analysis: tree diameter,
floodplain connectivity, large wood frequency, shelter rating, gravel quality (embeddedness),
canopy cover, temperature, estuary and lagoon quality and extent, percent primary pools, and
riparian vegetation species composition. Recovery strategies will typically focus on improving
these habitat attributes, although strategies that address other attributes may also be developed
where their implementation is critical to restoring properly functioning habitat conditions
within the watershed.
Current Conditions
our CAP viability analysis. The Upper Russian River CAP Viability Table results are provided
Estuary: Quality and Extent

Estuary rearing has been documented as an important life-history pattern for juvenile steelhead
within coastal watersheds of the central coast of California, with higher survival rates
associated with steelhead that rear within coastal lagoon habitat versus steelhead that rear
exclusively within tributary habitat (Bond et al. 2008). Estuary conditions have a rating of Poor
for summer rearing juvenile steelhead. For the last several decades, the Russian River estuary
has been managed during the summer as an open, tidally-influenced estuary in order to
alleviate flooding risks. However, the shift from a natural, perched-lagoon condition to a
managed, open estuary condition has likely reduced summer rearing habitat quality and
quantity (NMFS 2008). Please see the Russian River Overview for a complete discussion.

Logs and rootwads are important habitat-forming components within alluvial stream systems,
and their juvenile steelhead are typically more abundant in streams with abundant woody
debris. The volume of large woody debris is low throughout much of the Upper Russian
watershed, as indicated by low large woody debris (LWD) volume in Ackerman, Jack Smith
and Alder creeks (CDFW data). Nearly all stream habitat surveys conducted by CDFW within
the Upper Russian watershed recommend restoration actions aimed at increasing shelter
through placement of large wood within the stream channel.

Passage/Migration: Mouth or Confluence & Physical Barriers
Adult and juvenile steelhead passage is impaired within many tributaries in the basin, largely
due to severe channel incision in the mainstem river that interrupts flow connectivity with
tributary reaches (CDFG 2002). Coyote Valley Dam forms the largest impoundment within the
system, effectively blocking upstream access into much of the East Fork Russian River. The
Willow Water District Dam on the mainstem river precludes upstream passage at some flows.
Numerous smaller dams and impoundments (often supporting agricultural and grazing
operations) exist within tributary streams. Natural geothermal activity precludes steelhead
utilization of upper Big Sulphur, and Vichy Creeks.

Inundated floodplain habitat provides high-quality rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids
during winter and spring, which can improve growth rates and ultimately, long-term survival
(Sommer et al. 2001, Jeffres et al. 2008). Smolt and adult steelhead utilize floodplain habitats for
feeding and holding during winter months respectively. Floodplain connectivity is generally
poor throughout much of the Upper Russian watershed. Stream channelization has
straightened stream sections to increase flood conveyance in urban areas, impacting floodplain
connectivity by physically isolating floodplain habitat from flood flows. As channelized
streams tend to incise at a faster rate than unaltered stream channels, channel incision can lower
streambed elevations, further isolating the channel from adjacent floodplain habitat. Removing
aggregate through gravel mining has also caused severe incision within the Russian River
mainstem, causing a head cut upstream into the lower portions of some tributaries. This
condition is apparent within the lower sections of several mid-watershed tributary reaches
including Robinson, McNab, and Morrison creeks (Coey 2010).

The Upper Russian River CAP analysis rated shelter condition as Poor for summer rearing
juveniles throughout much of the watershed; these conditions were likely a direct result of
documented poor LWD volume (CDFW data). Habitat complexity created by submerged LWD
likely comprised a large component of available shelter within streams located in forested
landscapes of the upper river tributaries. As part of their stream habitat inventory program,
CDFW recommended pool habitat restoration within all but three of the sampled tributaries of
the Upper Russian watershed (Alder Creek, Orrs Creek, and Parsons Creek).

Sediment conditions have a rating of Poor for the egg and summer rearing juvenile lifestages.
High instream sediment levels impair steelhead survival throughout most Upper Russian
tributaries and the mainstem Russian River. Only 39 percent of surveyed tributaries were rated

Good or better for embeddedness as part of CDFGs stream habitat inventory report, and high
sediment concentrations within Coyote Valley Dam water releases degrade instream habitat
quality and function within the Russian River mainstem upstream of Hopland (NMFS 2008).
Spawning gravel quantity is not likely a limiting factor within upper tributary reaches since
only three streams were noted as having limited spawning gravel during CDFG habitat surveys
(Alder Creek, Orrs Creek, and Fisher Creek). However, the mainstem river in the area of Ukiah
is a degraded reach, and the sparse riffle habitats are consistently used by spawning Chinook
salmon and steelhead. Down-cutting occurs in lower tributary reaches near the confluence with
the Russian River, as these lower tributary reaches scour to reach equilibrium with the
degraded mainstem Russian River stream bed (Steiner 1996). In those conditions, spawning
gravel can be lost and the water table lowered. Forsythe Creek has downcut as much as 10 feet
within the vicinity of the Highway 101 bridge since 1949 (Steiner 1996).

Juvenile salmonids rely on sight feeding and likely have reduced growth rates due to the
exposure to elevated turbidity. Flow releases from Lake Mendocino continue to cause elevated
turbidity in the mainstem Russian River, and turbid discharges from Coyote Valley Dam can
extend well past Hopland during summer months (McKeon pers comm 2010). Releases from
Lake Mendocino maintain turbid conditions for long periods of time, often maintaining higher
than normal turbidity throughout the spring and summer months. Turbidity levels fall to lower
levels as streams clear after winter storm events, ultimately resulting in deposition of
suspended sediments. Turbidity may also affect food production and spawning gravels in the
mainstem by increasing embeddedness as fine material settles into stream gravels.

Steelhead presence is correlated with water temperature (SCWA 2003). Survey site maximum
temperatures in the Ukiah and Canyon reaches were 22 degrees C and 22.5 degrees C,
respectively, which are above the 20.5 degrees C considered suitable temperature condition for
young steelhead. The highest temperatures occurred in the Alexander Valley and Healdsburg
reaches at 25 degrees C and 24 degrees C, respectively. These areas had the lowest steelhead
density found in the survey. Prolonged exposure of steelhead at these temperatures may result
in behavioral changes or mortality; however, steelhead observed by SCWA during Russian
River dive surveys appeared healthy and vigorous, and not stressed or lethargic from high
water temperatures (SCWA 2003).

Altered streamflow patterns likely decrease juvenile steelhead survival within the Upper
Russian River watershed. Russian River water is released from Lake Mendocino (the reservoir

formed by CVD) for flood control and under the requirements of the State Water Resources
Control Boards (SWRCB) Decision 1610 (D1610) for water supply. D1610 establishes minimum
flow requirements for both Dry Creek and the Russian River. Minimum streamflows under
D1610 are specified for four different reaches in the Russian River watershed, assuring high
enough summer flows to meet the diversion requirements as well as river-based recreational
uses.
The negative impact of Coyote Valley Dam releases on steelhead habitat has been well
documented (Steiner 1996, NMFS 2008) with high summer releases. These high flows create
unsuitable water velocities for rearing fish. However, the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative
being implemented as part of NMFS biological opinion on Russian River water operations
(NMFS 2008) requires the Sonoma County Water Agency to petition the state water board for
lower mainstem flow requirements that will improve steelhead rearing conditions within the
mainstem Russian River by 2016. Tributary reaches often experience the opposite effect during
summer months as irrigation diversions and water impoundments appreciably lower tributary
flows, causing loss of habitat and stranding. During late winter and early spring months,
sudden, instantaneous diversions conducted to protect grape vines have dewatered reaches of
stream and caused the loss of rearing juvenile steelhead (Deitch et al. 2008, NMFS 2009).

Riparian resources provide streamflow resiliency, sources of food, and a buffering effect, all of
which reduce erosion and high summer temperatures for juvenile steelhead. However, an
estimated 70 to 90% of Russian River riparian habitat has been lost since European colonization
of the area (Steiner 1996). Impaired riparian stability, often caused by stream bank
armoring/clearing, invasive species establishment, or riparian grazing, has been identified as a
limiting factor for salmonids within the Russian River (CDFG stream habitat reports). Riparian
stability is an especially High threat within most of the west-side tributaries near Ukiah, such as
Ackerman, Doolin, Orrs, and McNabb creeks (CDFG stream habitat reports). Cattle grazing
within the riparian zones of Big Sulphur Creek has degraded riparian habitat function and
increased erosion rates (CDFG 2002).

As discussed previously in the Steelhead Abundance and Distribution section, the density and
abundance of steelhead within the Upper Russian population area are greatly reduced from
historical estimates (CDFG reports). However, moderate numbers of steelhead continue to
persist throughout much of Big Sulphur Creek and several of the larger tributaries draining the
northwest portion of the watershed (e.g., Robinson, Ackerman, Forsythe, etc.).

High instream temperatures during summer were noted as a limiting factor within several
tributary systems, especially within the Big Sulphur watershed (CDFG habitat reports).
Threats
Upper Russian River CAP Results). Recovery strategies will likely focus on ameliorating threats
rated as High; however, some strategies may address Medium and Low threats when the
strategy is essential to recovery efforts.
Agriculture
Although agriculture comprises only 8% of the land acreage of the Upper Russian River
watershed, most agriculture operations occur in low-lying floodplains adjacent to the Russian
River mainstem and tributaries, which worsens the severity of associated impacts . Many of the
creeks in the Ukiah Valley are channelized to prevent flooding and erosion of adjacent
farmland. This channelization can in turn lead to channel bed scouring and degradation. The
down-cutting of streambeds within these alluvial fans, combined with agricultural water
diversion and groundwater pumping, has likely contributed to the disconnected hydrology
between headwater and mainstem reaches. Agriculture lands without cover crops can also
contribute sediment into the stream channel during runoff periods.
Several stream channels within the Ukiah area have been diverted out of their natural channels
and now flow through flood control channels or road-side ditches (e.g., Orrs Creek and Doolin
Creek). Flood control channels are often straightened and simplified, and usually feature some
form of hardened bank stabilization that can impair the natural hydrologic and geomorphic
stream processes that create and maintain diversified steelhead habitat.
Hatcheries
The CVFF releases up to 200,000 steelhead smolts as mitigation for lost habitat behind Coyote
Valley Dam. Since steelhead reared in the Don Clausen Fish Hatchery (aka Warm Springs
Hatchery, of which CVFF is a satellite facility) are no more divergent relative to the local natural
populations than what would be expected between closely related populations within the DPS,
these hatchery reared steelhead are listed as part of the CCC steelhead DPS (71 FR 834; January
5, 2006). Therefore, the risk of impacting the population via artificial propagation at the two
hatcheries (e.g., genetic and demographic impacts, increased competition) is low. Wild fish are

now introgressed into the hatchery population following a Hatchery and Genetic Management
Plan.

Although much of the Upper Russian watershed is rural and sparsely populated, the most
heavily populated area (i.e., Ukiah and the surrounding area) is located within the most
productive watersheds (e.g., Ackerman Creek, Forsythe Creek, and the West Fork Russian
River). Prior to the advent of logging and intensive agricultural and urban development, these
west-side streams were likely conifer-dominated watersheds with high quality habitat and
frequent perennial flow.

The Upper Russian watershed is characterized by a Mediterranean-type climate, with dry, hot
summers and moderate rainfall that occurs primarily between November and March (CDFG
2002). Generally speaking, the east side of the watershed is likely drier than the west, as
suggested by the difference in vegetation (i.e., the east-side is oak chaparral dominated; the
west-side is generally conifer in higher elevations), with the noted exception being the high
elevation areas in the Big Sulphur Creek drainage that regularly receive high rainfall amounts.
Due to these drier conditions, the east side watersheds of the Upper Russian may be prone to a
high incidence of wildfire during multi-year droughts. These conditions create temperatures
and low flow periods that are on the extremes of preferred conditions for steelhead, and during
drought periods, they make habitat conditions unsuitable.

Several large impoundments impair steelhead migration on the mainstem within the Upper
Russian River population, and numerous smaller dams preclude or impair steelhead migration
into sections of the watershed. Water diversions can impact rearing steelhead during both
summer and winter by lowering baseflows, stranding fish in isolated pool habitats or, in some
cases, completely drying the stream channel. In addition to diversions from rural residential
users, diversions from cannabis production has increased since California legalized medicinal
use in 1996. Tributary streams, such as Feliz, Robinson, Seward, and the upper mainstem
Russian River, have notable cannabis operations that contribute to reduced surface flow during
the summer and fall months.
Other Threats
Finally, predation of wild steelhead juveniles by hatchery smolts is likely low, since most
hatchery smolts migrate rapidly to the ocean following release (NMFS 2008). Road-related

erosion can be a significant source of instream sediment within certain areas of the watershed
(e.g., in the northwest corner where intensive logging has occurred). Geothermal energy
production has degraded downstream water quality within certain sections of Big Sulphur
Creek (CDFG 2002).
Threat and condition analysis within the CAP analysis suggests summer and winter juvenile
survival is likely a limiting factor affecting steelhead abundance within the Upper Russian River
watershed. Poor riparian habitat condition and widespread channel incision have impaired
floodplain-stream channel connectivity during high-flow conditions, likely resulting in low
winter habitat volumes and correspondingly low juvenile survival rates. Survival through the
summer rearing period is constrained by turbidity in early spring, and limited wetted habitat
due to low streamflows and poor riparian shading likely elevate stream temperatures in
summer. Restoration actions should target addressing these issues within the mainstem and
high habitat potential stream reaches.
Improve Riparian Function, Canopy Cover and LWD volume

Re-establishing native riparian species in high priority riparian corridors will lower water
temperatures, improve LWD recruitment, and limit bank erosion. Where appropriate,
wood/boulder structures should be constructed and set within simplified stream reaches to
scour pool habitat, sort spawning gravel, and create complex habitat.

Restoration efforts that place wood in streams and restore riparian function are needed to
improve shelter ratings and pool volumes. Restoration of large wood in the upper mainstem
Russian River below the East and West fork confluence should be investigated to create staging
pools for migrating adults. This upper mainstem reach maintains consistent flow and
temperature during the summer due to releases from Coyote Valley Dam. Improvement of
instream cover and pool depths may provide improved juvenile rearing conditions and
migration/holding habitat for adult salmonids in the fall and winter months.

Problem roads and active erosion sites already identified from existing road sediment surveys
should be prioritized, and restoration actions should be implemented by Mendocino County
Department of Transportation. Additionally, remaining roads (city, county, and private) within
Sonoma and Mendocino counties should be addressed as part of a comprehensive sediment

reduction and transportation plan for the entire basin. Future road construction should utilize
BMPs to prevent altering watershed hydrologic processes, sediment transport, and fish passage,
and avoid or minimize construction of roads within riparian zones. BMPs to prevent or
minimize sediment from entering into the stream environment from agriculture, road building
and maintenance, and cattle grazing within riparian areas should be implemented.
Improve Water Quality: Turbidity

A feasibility study to address turbidity issues from Coyote Dam should be completed and
solutions implemented by the USACE. One alternative could include installation of a multi-
level outlet structure to minimize the discharge of suspended sediment during critical periods
of the steelhead lifecycle.
Investigate and Address Channel Degradation in Tributaries and the Mainstem Russian
River
Analysis of severe channel degradation (which has caused water tables to lower and has
dewatered many of these channels) should consider whether site-specific or watershed-wide
solutions will minimize channel degradation at affected sites. The need for gravel
augmentation that would alleviate the lack of course sediment transport from the East Branch
Russian River due to Coyote Valley Dam should be investigated.
Address Impaired Tributary Hydrology

Low tributary flows likely impair juvenile steelhead survival during both spring and summer,
although the mechanism by which these flow effects manifest is different for each season and
stream. In spring, acute streamflow pumping in response to frost events can cause rapid
dewatering of the stream channel. Conversely, summer low flows are more of a chronic, long-
term effect brought about largely by steady agricultural and residential stream diversions and
well pumping. Restoration actions should foster coordination between landowners during low-
flow conditions to minimize acute dewatering episodes, and encourage the use of alternative
frost protection strategies (e.g., wind fans, off-channel reservoirs, etc.), many of which have
already been successfully employed throughout the basin.
Increase Abundance and Distribution

Mitigation and enhancement goals exist for hatcheries, and the risks of artificial propagation are
minimized as long as CDFW continues to follow the Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan.
Recommendations include modifying the smolt release goals to proportionally increase the
numbers of fish imprinted and released from CVFF, expanding the number of upper river
spawners, improving the potential to meet CVFF adult enhancement goals, and decreasing the

need for trucking adult surplus steelhead from Dry Creek to the upper river (Wilson B. pers
comm 2011).
Evaluate and Improve the Regulated Flow Structure

Current efforts between NMFS and the NWS California/Nevada River Forecasting Center,
Monterey Weather Forecasting Office, the Office of Hydrologic Development (OHD), SCWA
and the USACE seek to balance and sustain fisheries flows while maximizing reservoir capture
of watershed runoff. These efforts involving forecast-based reservoir operations for flood
control and conservation, modeling watershed runoff and improvement of atmospheric rainfall,
and river forecasts to identify opportunistic periods for diversion and bypass should be
supported. Based on this evaluation and information, work with the USACE to modify the
rule curve associated with storage and releases from Coyote Dam in the interest of fisheries
flows. USACE should continue to evaluate the effects of ramping on juvenile salmonids, and
modify flow ramping rates to avoid stranding.

Literature Cited
California Department of Fish and Game. 2006. Stream inventory report: Forsythe Creek. 25
pp.
CDFG. 2002. Draft Russian River Basin Fisheries Restoration Plan. July 2002. 331 pp.
Coey, R. 2010. Robert Coey personal communication.
Bond, M. H., S. A. Hayes, C. V. Hanson, and R. B. MacFarlane. 2008. Marine survival of

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) enhanced by a seasonally closed estuary. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic. 65: 22422252.

Jeffres C. A., J. J. Opperman, and P. B. Moyle. 2008. Ephemeral floodplain habitats provide best
growth conditions for juvenile Chinook salmon in a California river. Environ Biol Fish
(83) 449458.
Naiman R.J., Bilby R.E., eds. 1998. River Ecology and Management: Lessons From the Pacific
Coastal Ecoregion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
NMFS. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and
California.
NMFS. 2008. Biological Opinion for Water Supply, Flood Control Operations, and Channel
Maintenance conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Sonoma County
Water Agency, and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water
Conservation Improvement District in the Russian River. Issued September 24, 2008.
386 pp.
NMFS. 2009. Frost Protection Threat Assessment for Threatened and Endangered Salmonids in
the Russian River Watershed. Draft report prepared for the State Water Resources
Control Board Public Workshop on Frost Protection, November 18, 2009. November 10,
2009. 10 pp.

McKeon, J. 2010. John McKeon personal communication.
Shirvell C. S. 1990. Role of instream rootwads as juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
and steelhead trout (O. mykiss) cover habitat under varying stream flows. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 852-861.
Sonoma County Water Agency, 2003. Upper Russian River Steelhead Distribution Study
Sommer, T.R., M.L. Nobriga, W.C. Harrell, W. Batham, and W.J. Kimmerer. 2001. Floodplain
rearing of juvenile chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic. 58: 325333.
Steiner Environmental Consulting. 1996. A history of the salmonid decline in the Russian
River. Prepared for the Sonoma County Water Agency and the California Coastal
Conservancy. Steiner Environmental Consulting. Potter Valley, CA. 86 pp.
Wilson, B. 2011. Brett Wilson personal communication.

Upper Russian River CAP Viability Results
Current
Target Rating
Measurement
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
25% of streams/
IP-km (>1.3 Key
Habitat Complexity Frequency (BFW 10- (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Poor
Pieces/100
100 meters) Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 22% of sreams/
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 0.013% of
Hydrology Passage Flows Fair
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km

50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants
>1 spawner
low risk spawner
spawner density per
Spence (2008)
Flow Conditions
2 Eggs Condition Hydrology (Instantaneous Fair
Condition)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% (0.85mm) 15-17%
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 41% of
Gravel Quality
(Embeddedness)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)

Summer streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-km
Landscape
3 Rearing Water Quality Turbidity maintains maintains maintains maintains maintains Fair
Context
Juveniles severity score of severity score severity score severity score severity score of
Properly
Condition Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent Functioning Poor
Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Large Wood 25% of streams/
Frequency (Bankfull IP-km (>1.3 Key
Habitat Complexity (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Poor
Width 10-100 Pieces/100
Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100
meters) meters)
Percent Primary
Pools
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 0.013% of
Flow Conditions Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk
Hydrology Fair
(Baseflow) Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score 51-
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
Flow Conditions
Condition)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75

<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
Riparian
Vegetation
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 41% of
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP 75 to 89% IP
<50% IP km >90% IP km <50% IP km
km (<20 C km (<20 C
coho IP coho IP
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Contaminants
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5 0.2 - 0.6

50-74% of 75-90% of
<50% of >90% of 50-74% of
Viability Spatial Structure Historical Historical Fair
Range Range
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Winter Rearing
Juveniles
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Large Wood 25% of streams/
meters) meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 41% of
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity

No Evidence of
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Not
Specified
Properly
Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of 0.013% of
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% IP-Km (>6 50-74% IP-Km 75-90% IP-Km >90% IP-Km (>6 >90% IP-km (>6
Smoltification Temperature Very Good
No Evidence of
Contaminants

Smolt Smolt Smolt
Smolt
abundance to
produce low
risk spawner
density per
Spence (2008)
(2008) Spence (2008) (2008)
>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of 0.846% of
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of 5.583% of
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of <15% of
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of 8% of
2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6 2.5
Transport Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile
0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1 0.3
Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Good
Mile Mile Mile Mile

Upper Russian River CAP Threat Results

1 Agriculture Medium High Medium Medium Low High High
2 Channel Modification High Medium High High Medium Medium High
3 Disease, Predation and Competition Low Not Specified Medium Low Low Medium Medium
5 Suppression Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
6 Fishing and Collecting Low Not Specified Low Not Specified Low Not Specified Low
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
8 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
9 Mining Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
11 Residential and Commercial Development Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High High
12 Roads and Railroads Low High Medium High Low High High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Low Low High Low Low Low Medium
14 Water Diversion and Impoundments Medium Medium High Medium Medium High High
Threat Status for Targets and Project High High High High Medium High Very High

Upper Russian, Central California Coast Steelhead (Interior) Recovery Actions
UR-CCCS- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
UR-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain
CDFW, FEMA,
Reestablish the hydrologic connection between the Mendocino
stream channel and adjacent floodplain habitat. County, NMFS,
Work should be prioritized within Ukiah Valley Private Cost based on treating 12 miles with similar
UR-CCCS- Floodplain downstream of Lake Mendocino (CDFW stream Landowners, treatment and costs in the Dry Creek Valley (over
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity habitat reports). 2 15 USACE 21,667 21,667 21,667 65,000 6 miles).
Create flood refuge habitat, such as by: 1)

hydrologically connecting floodplains with riparian
forest; 2) removing or setting back levees; or 3) using County Planning,
the streamway concept where appropriate. Installing FEMA, Private
UR-CCCS- Floodplain shelter components (LWD, boulders, etc.) Landowners,
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity appropriate to the channel type. 2 10 USACE 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
UR-CCCS- Floodplain Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
UR-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain
CDFW, Cities,
UR-CCCS- Floodplain Minimize encroachment of landuse into existing Counties, NMFS, This recommendation should be considered
2.2.1.1 Action Step Connectivity floodplains. 3 20 USACE 0 standard policy. Action is considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
UR-CCCS- Recovery
Restore passage in high priority areas of the Upper
Russian River Watershed as identified by CDFW,
NMFS, the RCD, the County of Mendocino, Caltrans, Cost based on adult escapement and juvenile
and existing fish passage databases NMFS' CDFW, City migration model for 35 barriers (8 dams and 24
UR-CCCS- Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Planning, County impassable road crossings) at a rate of $36,379
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage Crossings (NMFS 2001a). 1 10 Planning, NMFS 3,932 3,932 7,863 and $188,264/project, respectively.
CDFW,
Barriers on mainstem Russian River (memorial Mendocino
beach and Willow Water District Dam) should be County, NMFS,
UR-CCCS- assessed by a fish passage specialist and modified if Sonoma County,
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage needed. 1 10 Water Agencies 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Barriers within Big Sulphur including Little Sulphur, CDFW, NMFS,

Wildhorse, and Hummingbird Creeks should be NOAA RC,
assessed by a fish passage specialist and modified if NRCS, Private
UR-CCCS- needed. Several of these partial barriers have been Landowners,
5.1.1.3 Action Step Passage impacted by nearby roads (CDFG 2002). 1 10 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Fish passage evaluation would likely be done by

UR-CCCS- CDFW, NMFS, NMFS or CDFW personnel at a low or no cost
5.1.1.4 Action Step Passage Evaluate railroad stream crossing on McNabb Creek. 1 2 NOAA RC 0 basis. Action is considered In-Kind
Natural barriers on Alder, Anna Belcher, Frasier,

Lovers Gulch and Squaw creeks should not be
modified prior to consultation with NMFS and CDFW
UR-CCCS- geneticists, in order to potentially protect resident CDFW, NMFS,
5.1.1.5 Action Step Passage rainbow trout populations (CDFG 2002). 3 2 NOAA RC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Recovery Rehabilitate and enhance passage into tributaries
5.1.2 Action Passage (aggradation/degradation)

Investigate the need for fish ladders and resting Assessing passage needs would likely be done by
UR-CCCS- pools/cover for migrating fish within tributaries near CDFW, NMFS, CDFW or NMFS fish passage specialists at a low
5.1.2.1 Action Step Passage and within the City of Ukiah (CDFG 2002). 1 2 NOAA RC 0 or no cost basis. Action is considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Recovery Improve frequency of primary pools, LWD, and
6.1.1 Action Habitat Complexity shelters.
UR-CCCS- Complete habitat surveys within the West Fork
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity Russian River watershed (CDFG 2002). 2 5 CDFW 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
restoration projects as part of their ongoing NRCS, Private
UR-CCCS- operations in stream reaches where large woody Landowners,
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity debris is lacking. 2 100 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Encourage bio-engineering projects to address CDFW, NOAA

6.1.1.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity erosion issues on private lands. 2 3 RC, NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Continue bio-engineering projects with adjacent
UR-CCCS- landowners within the Forsythe Creek watershed CDFW, NOAA
6.1.1.4 Action Step Habitat Complexity (CDFG 2002). 3 3 RC, NRCS, RCD 50.00 50 Cost is estimated.
UR-CCCS- Recovery
California
Conservations
Corps, CDFW,
Improve instream habitat complexity such that target Private
criteria for primary and staging pool depths and Landowners,
shelter value is achieved within mainstem and Russian River
tributary habitats utilized by chinook. Priority streams Wild Steelhead Estimated costs based on similar costs in
UR-CCCS- would includeAckerman, Feliz, Robinson, Pieta and Society, Trout geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity West Branch Russian River Creeks. 1 2 Unlimited 520 520 site, setting and geographic specific.
Enhance east branch and mainstem migration and Cost and duration unclear at this time since
resting habitats with LWD, boulders, and other CDFW, NMFS, number, location and scope of future projects is
UR-CCCS- instream features to increase habitat complexity and NOAA RC, uncertain. Cost for stream complexity estimated
6.1.2.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity improve staging pool frequency and depth 1 25 NRCS, RCD TBD at $26,000/mile.
CDFW, NOAA
Maintain current LWD, boulders, and other structure- RC, Private
providing features which provide stream complexity, Consultants, Cost of maintaining existing structures are usually
UR-CCCS- pool frequency, and depth when evaluating permits Private incorporated within the restoration construction
6.1.2.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity for stream or bank modification. 3 100 Landowners 0 cost. Action is considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Recovery
Assess riparian canopy and impacts of exotic CDFW, NMFS,

vegetation (e.g., Arundo donax, ivy, etc.), prioritize NOAA RC, Estimated costs based on similar costs in
UR-CCCS- and develop riparian habitat reclamation and Private geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian enhancement programs (CDFG 2004). 2 20 Consultants 163 163 163 163 650 site, setting and geographic specific.
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
Fence riparian areas within the Upper Russian River NRCS, Private
UR-CCCS- watershed from grazing by using fencing standards Landowners, Cost based on treating 8.3 miles (assume 1
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian that allow other wildlife to access the stream. 2 5 RCD 160.00 160 project/mile in 5% high IP) at a rate of $3.63/ft.
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
UR-CCCS- including conservation easements, setbacks, and Landowners,
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian riparian buffers (CDFG 2004). 2 100 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in other actions steps.

Exclusion fencing and off-stream water development

should be explored and implemented within the Big
Sulphur watershed to address livestock damage in CDFW, NMFS, Cost is TBD since the size, scope and location of
riparian areas. Initial efforts should target degraded NOAA RC, future efforts is uncertain at this time. Cost for
conditions within steep south and west facing NRCS, Private exclusion fencing likely already accounted for and
UR-CCCS- tributaries, such as the Squaw Creek sub-watershed, Landowners, cost estimate for off-stream water development is
7.1.1.4 Action Step Riparian and within Little Sulphur and North Branch creeks. 2 5 RCD TBD $5,000/station.
UR-CCCS- Recovery
UR-CCCS- Manage riparian areas for their site potential Private
7.1.2.1 Action Step Riparian composition and structure. 3 100 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NOAA
RC, Private Estimated costs based on similar costs in
UR-CCCS- Conduct conifer release to promote growth of larger Landowners, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
7.1.2.2 Action Step Riparian diameter trees where appropriate. 3 20 RCD 22 22 22 22 88 site, setting and geographic specific.
UR-CCCS- Recovery
Provide incentives to restore high priority sites as
UR-CCCS- determined by watershed analysis, CDFW, or CalFire, CDFW, Low cost to provide incentives. Action is
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment CalFire. 3 100 NMFS 0 considered In-Kind

support landowners who conduct operations in a NRCS, Private
UR-CCCS- manner compatible with CCC steelhead and CC Landowners, Low cost to solicit cooperation. Action is
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment Chinook salmon recovery priorities. 3 5 RCD 0 considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Recovery
8.1.2 Action Sediment Improve quantity and distribution of spawning gravels
Cost of improving spawning habitat within the
CDFW, NMFS, above-mentioned creeks is unknown currently,
Improve spawning gravel abundance within Alder NRCS, Private and needs further investigation. Cost estimate for
UR-CCCS- Creek, Orrs Creek, and Fisher Creek (CDFW stream Landowners, spawning gravel augmentation estimated at
8.1.2.1 Action Step Sediment survey reports). 2 3 RCD TBD $32/cu. yd.
eroding adjacent banks within Squaw Creek. The
UR-CCCS- jams should be analyzed for possible removal or Analysis likely to be done by NMFS or CDFW
8.1.2.2 Action Step Sediment modification (CDFG 2002). 2 2 CDFW, NMFS 0 personnel. Action is considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Recovery
Develop and fund a feasibility study to address the
UR-CCCS- significant turbidity issues from Lake Mendocino Mendocino Cost highly variable due to operation of Lake
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality outlet 1 2 County, USACE TBD Mendocino.
Fund and implement recommendations from Mendocino

UR-CCCS- proposed feasibility study to address significant County, USACE, Cost based on identified recommendations from
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality turbidity issues from the Lake Mendocino outlet 1 5 Water Agencies TBD plan.
UR-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, NMFS,
Plant native vegetation to promote streamside NOAA RC,
shade: increase the canopy by planting native NRCS, Private
UR-CCCS- species where shade canopy is not at acceptable Landowners,
10.1.2.1 Action Step Water Quality levels. 2 20 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.

UR-CCCS- Explore releasing cooler flow out of Walker Dam Work likely done by NMFS or CDFW engineering
10.1.2.2 Action Step Water Quality (CDFG 2002). 2 2 CDFW, NMFS 0 and biological staff. Action is considered In-Kind

baseline conditions and judge the efficacy of
restoration actions. High priority streams include
tributary and mainstem reaches within Big Sulphur
Creek, Oat Valley Creek, Coleman Creek,
Commiskey Creek, Gibson Creek, Johnson Creek, CDFW, NMFS, Cost based on installing a minimum of 3 stream
McDonald Creek, Morrison Creek, WB Russian NRCS, Private flow temperature gauges at a rate of $500/gauge.
UR-CCCS- River, Corral Creek, and Walker Creek (CDFW Landowners, Cost does not account for data management or
10.1.2.3 Action Step Water Quality stream survey reports). 3 10 RCD 0.75 0.75 2 maintenance.
UR-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and

CDFW, NMFS,
Develop standardized watershed assessments within NRCS, Private
UR-CCCS- sub-watersheds to define limiting factors specific to Landowners,
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability those areas. 2 20 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in the Monitoring Chapter.
CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
Utilize CDFW approved implementation, Private
UR-CCCS- effectiveness, and validation monitoring protocols Landowners,
11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability when assessing efficacy of restoration efforts. 3 100 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in the Monitoring Chapter.
UR-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
12.1.1 Action Agriculture and diversity
UR-CCCS- steelhead and CC Chinook salmon recovery Landowners, outside of already existing federal and state and
CDFW, NMFS,
UR-CCCS- Streamline permit processing where landowners are SWRCB, cost much, and may save money through future
UR-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape
CDFW, Farm
Support and implement Best Management Practices Bureau, NMFS,
such as those in the Fish Friendly Farming program Private
UR-CCCS- (California Land Stewardship Institute), or other Landowners,
Coordination efforts are expected to be low,
Coordinate with the agencies that authorize mainly comprising already in place staff salaries
UR-CCCS- conversions to minimize conversions in key CalFire, CDFW, at the state and federal level. Action is
12.1.2.2 Action Step Agriculture watersheds and discourage forestland conversions. 3 25 NMFS 0 considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport
UR-CCCS- participating in sediment reduction planning and Landowners,


RCD, NRCS, Fish Friendly Farming program or other Bureau, NMFS,
cooperative conservation programs) to address NRCS, Private
UR-CCCS- sediment source reduction, riparian habitat, forest Landowners, Cost of completing Farm Conservation Plan
UR-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
UR-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
CDFW,
Mendocino
County, NMFS,
Thoroughly investigate the ultimate cause of channel Private
instability prior to engaging in site specific channel Consultants,
modifications and maintenance. Identify and target Private
UR-CCCS- Channel remediation of watershed process disruption as an Landowners,
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification overall priority. 2 100 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW,
Mendocino
County, NMFS,
UR-CCCS- Channel Discourage stabilization projects which will lead to Sonoma County, BMP that is not expected to increase project
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification additional instability either up- or downstream. 2 100 USACE 0 costs.
CDFW,
Mendocino
County, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
Landowners,
UR-CCCS- Channel Eliminate the use of gabion baskets and undersized RCD, Sonoma
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification rock within the bankfull channel. 3 100 County, USACE 0 BMP not expected to have any associated costs.
CDFW, FEMA,
Mendocino
County, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
Private
UR-CCCS- Channel increase flood-flow detention and promote flood- RCD, Sonoma Cost based on treating 1.6 mile (assume 1
13.1.1.4 Action Step Modification tolerant land uses. 2 10 County, USACE 280.00 280.00 560 project/mile in 1% high IP) at a rate of $349,828/m
UR-CCCS- Channel Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
UR-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
CDFW, Farm
Bureau,
Where new levees or similar flood control projects Mendocino
are planned, develop setbacks to allow the river to County, NMFS,
respond to natural hydrologic process and remain in Private
UR-CCCS- Channel equilibrium. At a minimum, setbacks should Landowners,
13.2.1.1 Action Step Modification accommodate a 100 year event. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, FEMA,
Mendocino
County, NMFS,
Private
UR-CCCS- Channel Minimize the effects of flood control projects or other Landowners,
13.2.1.2 Action Step Modification channel modifications on steelhead habitat. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Modify Federal, State, city and county regulatory and CDFW, County
planning processes to minimize new construction of of Mendocino,
permanent infrastructure that will adversely affect NMFS, Public,
watershed processes, particularly within the 100-year Sonoma County,
UR-CCCS- Channel flood prone zones in all historic CCC steelhead and State, Federal,
13.2.1.3 Action Step Modification CC Chinook salmon watersheds. 3 10 Cities 0 Action is considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Channel Develop Bank Stabilization and Floodplain
13.2.1.4 Action Step Modification Guidelines for use by private and public entities. 3 2 CDFW, NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
CDFW, Land
Trusts,
Mendocino
County, NMFS,
retention programs and move away from the practice Landowners, Program development may be at a small cost.
UR-CCCS- Channel of removing instream large woody debris under high RCD, Sonoma Implementing program not expected to result in
Develop a mitigation policy that requires In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Channel replacement of removed large woody debris at a 3:1 CDFW, NMFS, Cost is TBD since the location, scope and size of
13.2.2.2 Action Step Modification ratio. 3 100 USACE TBD future mitigation efforts is unknown at this time.
UR-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
13.2.3 Action Modification species composition and structure
FEMA,
Mendocino
County, NMFS,
Private
All proposed levees should be designed to account Landowners, Cost associated with design changes to levees is
UR-CCCS- Channel for minimal maintenance associated with an intact Sonoma County, expected to be small. Action is considered In-
13.2.3.1 Action Step Modification and functioning riparian zone. 2 100 USACE 0 Kind

infrastructure and replacement with native vegetation Mendocino
UR-CCCS- Channel or flood tolerant land uses) for areas highly County, Sonoma
13.2.3.2 Action Step Modification susceptible to, or previously damaged from, flooding. 2 100 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
16.1 Objective Fishing/Collecting mechanisms
16.1.1 Action Fishing/Collecting and diversity
Modify Title 14, California Code of Regulations

Section 8.00 (b) to include a low flow closure specific
to the Russian River based on a minimum low flow of
UR-CCCS- 350 cfs at the Department of Water Resources CDFW, NMFS,
16.1.1.1 Action Step Fishing/Collecting gauging station at Hacienda (HAC). 1 5 Public 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Work with CDFW to modify existing sport fishing

UR-CCCS- regulations and the sport steelhead angling season CDFW, NMFS,
16.1.1.2 Action Step Fishing/Collecting to minimize impacts to Chinook salmon. 2 5 Public 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Increase enforcement and patrol during the

UR-CCCS- steelhead and general fishing seasons in the upper CDFW, NMFS,
16.1.1.3 Action Step Fishing/Collecting and middle river area to reduce poaching. 2 5 Public 0 Action is considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Address other natural or manmade factors affecting
17.1 Objective Hatcheries the species' continued existence
17.1.1 Action Hatcheries and diversity

Manage Russian River Hatcheries following a

Hatchery Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) which
is regularly updated to include adaptive management
UR-CCCS- strategies and recommendations CDFW, NMFS,
17.1.1.1 Action Step Hatcheries 1 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Evaluate the need for revising release numbers,
release sizes, release locations and strategies in the
context of meeting recovery goals and mitigation
requirements of both Russian River Hatcheries
(DCFH and CVFF). Update and revise the HGMP
UR-CCCS- according to proposed changes and CDFW, NMFS,
17.1.1.2 Action Step Hatcheries recommendations 1 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Preserve and manage the remaining genetic and CDFW, NMFS,

UR-CCCS- phenotypic characteristics that promote life history NOAA SWFSC,
17.1.1.3 Action Step Hatcheries variability in both hatchery and wild populations. 1 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Evaluate hatchery utilization in the context of
increasing abundance and spatial distribution of
UR-CCCS- steelhead in the Russian River and the larger CCC CDFW, NMFS,
17.1.1.4 Action Step Hatcheries DPS. 1 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Increase the proportion of releases from Coyote CDFW, NMFS,

UR-CCCS- Valley Fish Facility to expand and increase the NOAA SWFSC,
17.1.1.5 Action Step Hatcheries numbers of upper river spawners 1 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
If stocking is re-initiated, implement changes

UR-CCCS- identified in Hatchery Genetic Management Plans to CDFW, NMFS,
17.1.1.6 Action Step Hatcheries improve genetic and rearing management 1 5 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
If stocking is re-initiated, conduct or increase the
proportion of releases from Coyote Valley Fish
UR-CCCS- Facility to expand and increase the numbers of upper CDFW, NMFS,
17.1.1.7 Action Step Hatcheries river spawners 1 10 USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
20.1 Objective Mining range
UR-CCCS- Recovery complexity (altered pool complexity and/or pool riffle
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
Private
Consultants,
UR-CCCS- improve, maintain or prevent impacts to habitat Landowners,
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
Private
Consultants,
Develop and enhance staging pool habitats and Private
UR-CCCS- thalweg depth where geomorphic conditions dictate Landowners, Cost accounted for in other action steps (see
20.1.1.2 Action Step Mining and allow. 2 20 USACE 0 HABITAT COMPLEXITY)
UR-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
Private
Consultants,
UR-CCCS- where structure is beneficial to migration and resting Landowners,

CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
Private
Consultants,
Private
UR-CCCS- Develop and enhance offchannel habitats such as Landowners, Cost accounted for in other action steps (see
20.1.2.2 Action Step Mining alcoves to promote fry and juvenile rearing habitat. 2 20 USACE 0 FLOODPLAIN CONNECTIVITY)
UR-CCCS- Commercial modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
Residential/
UR-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
CDFW, Cities,
Counties, NMFS,
Private
Consultants,
Residential/ Improve education and awareness of agencies, Private
UR-CCCS- Commercial landowners and the public regarding salmonid Landowners,

Residential/ flood control districts, and planning departments, etc., Cost of training and encouraging partners to
UR-CCCS- Commercial on the critical importance of maintaining riparian CDFW, Cities, maintain riparian health is expected to be low.
Residential/ Design and implement education programs to CDFW, Cities,
UR-CCCS- Commercial promote public awareness of salmon and steelhead Counties, NMFS,

Residential/ maintenance practices and evaluate, avoid, minimize Counties, NMFS,
UR-CCCS- Commercial and/or mitigate their impacts to rearing and migrating NOAA RC,
Residential/
UR-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape
Residential/ with ongoing channel degradation or in sub- Investigating funding larger detention devices is
UR-CCCS- Commercial watersheds where impervious surface area > 10 CDFW, Cities, not expected to cost much. Implementing the
CDFW, Cities,
Residential/ Create flood refuge habitat, such as hydrologically Counties, NMFS,
UR-CCCS- Commercial connected floodplains with riparian forest, and use Private Cost accounted for in above action step (see
22.1.2.2 Action Step Development streamway concept where appropriate. 2 25 Landowners 0 FLOODPLAIN CONNECTIVITY).
Residential/ found feasible, encourage willing landowners to Trusts, NMFS, Encouraging landowners to restore floodplain
UR-CCCS- Commercial restore these areas through conservation Private areas is not expected to cost much. Action is
California
Coastal
Conservancy,
CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
Residential/ Purchase conservation easements from landowners Private Cost of purchasing land/conservation easements
UR-CCCS- Commercial that currently have grazing or agricultural operations Landowners, is highly variable and depends on number, size,
22.1.2.4 Action Step Development along the estuary. 2 10 RCD TBD fair market value, and landowner participation.

CDFW,
Counties, NMFS,
Residential/ Identify areas at high risk of conversion, and develop Private Cost of identifying and developing incentives to
UR-CCCS- Commercial incentives and alternatives for landowners that Landowners, landowners expected to be low. Action is
Design new developments to avoid or minimize
impacts to unstable slopes, wetlands, areas of high
Residential/ habitat value, and similarly constrained sites that
UR-CCCS- Commercial occur adjacent to a CCC steelhead or CC Chinook CDFW, Cities, The cost of implementing this BMP is uncertain at
22.1.2.6 Action Step Development salmon watercourse. 3 100 Counties, NMFS TBD this time.

Residential/ infrastructure and replacement with native vegetation
UR-CCCS- Commercial or flood tolerant land uses) for areas highly CDFW, Cities,
Residential/ Encourage infill and high density developments over likely to incur any costs outside of the duties of
UR-CCCS- Commercial dispersal of low density rural residential in CDFW, Cities, already salaried state and federal workers.
UR-CCCS- Recovery Commercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Residential/ discharges, which can result in locally severe erosion
UR-CCCS- Commercial and disruption of riparian vegetation and instream
22.1.3.1 Action Step Development habitat. 2 100 Cities, Counties 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/
UR-CCCS- Commercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
Residential/
UR-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
Mendocino
Residential/ County, Private
UR-CCCS- Commercial Implement performance standards in Stormwater Landowners, Cost of implementing performance standards is
UR-CCCS- Recovery Commercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Cities,
Residential/ Avoid or minimize the use of commercial and Mendocino
UR-CCCS- Commercial industrial products (e.g. pesticides) with high potential County, Sonoma Implementing this BMP is expected to be low
22.2.2.1 Action Step Development for contamination of local waterways. 2 100 County 0 cost. Action is considered In-Kind

Residential/ receive the appropriate treatment before being
UR-CCCS- Commercial discharged into any body of water that may enter any Cities, Counties, Implementing this BMP is expected to be low
22.2.2.2 Action Step Development steelhead or Chinook salmon waters. 2 100 Public, RWQCB 0 cost. Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/
UR-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape

Institutionalize programs to purchase Bureau, Land expected to be much cost. Buying the land, on the
Residential/ land/conservation easements to encourage the re- Trusts, NMFS, other hand, is likely to be very expensive. Cost based
UR-CCCS- Commercial establishment and/or enhancement of natural riparian NRCS, RCD, on fair market value, land turnover, and participation
22.2.3.1 Action Step Development communities. 3 25 Sonoma County TBD from landowners.

Residential/
UR-CCCS- Commercial Discourage Sonoma County from rezoning CDFW, NMFS, The cost of discouraging forestland conversion is

Residential/ permits is expected to be low (i.e., covered as
UR-CCCS- Commercial Enforce existing building permit programs to minimize part of already existing enforcement programs).
Residential/ work in coordination with California Dept. of Housing, Private
UR-CCCS- Commercial Association of Bay Area Governments and other Landowners,
UR-CCCS- Commercial within the 100-year flood prone zones in all historical CDFW, NMFS,
Residential/ Work with Mendocino County to develop more CDFW, NMFS, Cost is expected to be low since work will largely
UR-CCCS- Commercial protective regulations in regard to exurban RWQCB, be carried out by federal, state and local staff.
Residential/ acreage limit for parcelization and in concert with Mendocino
UR-CCCS- Commercial limits on water supply and groundwater recharge County, NMFS, Encouraging the county is not expected to result
UR-CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
Conduct road and sediment reduction assessments Cost based on road inventory of 280 miles of
to identify sediment-related and runoff-related CDFW, County road network at a rate of $957/mile and an
UR-CCCS- problems and determine level of hydrologic of Mendocino, erosion assessment of 25% of total watershed
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads connectivity. 2 10 NMFS 140 140 280 acres at a rate of $12.62/acre.
Cost estimate based on 50 miles of road and
approximately $1,000 per mile for road inventory
UR-CCCS- Initiate road assessments and landslide mapping in CDFW, NMFS, and $1,000/mile for sediment assessment (NMFS
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads the Forsythe Creek watershed (CDFG 2002). 2 5 NOAA RC 100.00 100 2008).
Provide incentives to restore high priority sites as Cost based on amount and type of incentives to
UR-CCCS- determined by watershed analysis, CDFW, or CalFire, CDFW, employ. Currently, incentive programs exist and
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads CalFire. 3 100 NMFS TBD should be explored and expanded.

support landowners who conduct operations in a NRCS, Private
UR-CCCS- manner compatible with CCC steelhead and CC Landowners, Low cost to solicit cooperation. Action is
23.1.1.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads Chinook salmon recovery priorities. 3 5 RCD 0 considered In-Kind
CDFW,
Mendocino
County, NMFS,
Private
Consultants, Cost of upgrading lowgap road is unknown at this
UR-CCCS- Upgrade Lowgap Road as per Mendocino County Private time. Cost for upgrading estimated at
23.1.1.5 Action Step Roads/Railroads DOT evaluation. 2 5 Landowners TBD $21,000/mile.
CDFW,
Mendocino
UR-CCCS- Implement recommendations outlined within the County, NMFS,
23.1.1.6 Action Step Roads/Railroads Eldridge Creek Road Survey. 2 10 NRCS, RCD TBD Cost based on feasibility of recommendation.

eroding adjacent banks within Squaw Creek. The
UR-CCCS- jams should be analyzed for possible removal or Analysis likely to be done by NMFS or CDFW
23.1.1.7 Action Step Roads/Railroads modification (CDFG 2002). 2 2 CDFW, NMFS 0 personnel. Action is considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Severe Weather Address other natural or manmade factors affecting
UR-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
All local and state planning and development should

consider, and provide contingencies for, droughts in
UR-CCCS- Severe Weather a manner compatible with CCC steelhead and CC Cities, Counties,
24.1.1.1 Action Step Patterns Chinook salmon recovery needs. 2 20 Water Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Establish an emergency drought operations center

(EDOC), (e.g., Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, 2001), comprised of the SWRCB, CDFW,
NMFS, and others to develop conservation
UR-CCCS- Severe Weather measures for augmenting water supplies and CDFW, NMFS, Cost based on amount of emergency
24.1.1.2 Action Step Patterns mitigating the effects of drought on fish. 2 100 SWRCB TBD conservation measures to take.

UR-CCCS- Severe Weather water-use conflicts and impacts on fish and wildlife Landowners,
Evaluate the rate and volume of water diversions

and in streams and tributaries and, where
appropriate, minimize water withdrawals that could CDFW, NMFS,
impact steelhead and Chinook salmon. When Private
feasible, use alternatives to water such as dust Consultants,
palliative (including EPA-certified compounds) that Private
UR-CCCS- Severe Weather are consistent with maintaining or improving water Landowners, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
24.1.1.4 Action Step Patterns quality (CDFG 2004). 2 20 SWRCB 16.25 16.25 16.25 16.25 65 a rate of $65,084/project.
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
Work with land owners or public agencies to acquire Landowners,
UR-CCCS- Severe Weather water that would be utilized to minimize effects of SWRCB, Water Cost difficult to estimate due to uncertainty with
24.1.1.5 Action Step Patterns droughts. 2 100 Agencies TBD the cost of water, number of participants, etc.
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
Implement water conservation strategies that provide Landowners,
for drought contingencies without relying on SWRCB,
UR-CCCS- Severe Weather interception of surface flows or groundwater USACE, Water
24.1.1.6 Action Step Patterns depletion. 2 100 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Manage reservoirs and dam releases to maintain Private
suitable rearing temperatures and migratory flows in Landowners,
UR-CCCS- Severe Weather downstream habitats (e.g., pulse flow programs for SWRCB, Water
24.1.1.7 Action Step Patterns adult upstream migration and smolt outmigration). 2 100 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, CDFW
Law
UR-CCCS- Severe Weather depletion of summer base flows from unauthorized NMFS, NMFS
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
UR-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

UR-CCCS- Water Diversion Implement changes to D1610 as specified within the CDFW, NMFS,
25.1.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment Russian River Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008). 1 15 Water Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Support current efforts to balance and sustain

fisheries flows while maximizing reservoir capture of CDFW, NMFS,
watershed runoff. These efforts involving forecast- NOAA NWS,
based reservoir operations for flood control and Private
conservation, modeling watershed runoff, and Landowners,
improvement of atmospheric rainfall and river SWRCB,
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion forecasts to identify opportunistic periods for USACE, Water Coordination done largely by agency staff and
25.1.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment diversion and bypass should be supported. 1 5 Agencies 0 affected landowners. Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
NRCS, Private Promotion largely done through federal, state and
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion Promote water conservation best practices such as Landowners, local partnerships with interested NGO's. Action
25.1.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment drip irrigation for vineyards. 2 5 Public, RCD 0 is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
NRCS, Private
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion Promote the use of reclaimed water for agricultural or Landowners, Promotion likely done largely by agency and NGO
25.1.1.4 Action Step /Impoundment other uses. 2 5 Public, RCD 0 partnerships. Action is considered In-Kind
Provide incentives to water rights holders within

tributaries willing to convert some or all of their water
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion right to instream use via petition change of use and CDFW, NMFS, Cost based on amount and type of incentives to
25.1.1.5 Action Step /Impoundment California Water Code 1707 (CDFG 2004). 3 10 Water Agencies TBD provide.
UR-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
25.1.2 Action /Impoundment (reduced large wood and/or shelter)
Implement instream habitat restoration within the CDFW, NMFS, Estimated costs based on similar costs in
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion coldwater influence of the East Branch and along the USACE, Water geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
25.1.2.1 Action Step /Impoundment mainstem Russian River (NMFS 2008). 1 10 Agencies 15,000 15,000 30,000 site, setting and geographic specific.
Evaluate the potential and develop Safe Harbor
Agreements for landowners participating in habitat
enhancement along the mainstem and East NMFS, Private
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion Branch. Landowners,
25.1.2.2 Action Step /Impoundment 1 5 Water Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to estuary (impaired
25.1.3 Action /Impoundment quality and extent)
Manage dam releases to minimize the influence on
lagoon formation in support of the Russian River CDFW, NMFS,
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion Biological Opinion USACE, Water
25.1.3.1 Action Step /Impoundment 1 5 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Landowners along the East Branch should
coordinate water withdrawals with Water Agencies,
in the interest of providing reliable releases from
Lake Mendocino, and managing spring flow releases CDFW, NMFS,
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion in support of efforts to maintain a freshwater lagoon SWRCB, Water
25.1.3.2 Action Step /Impoundment in the estuary. 1 10 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
UR-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology


temporal and spatial focus on impaired reaches and NOAA RC, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
greater certainty for reaches that have water NRCS, Private a rate of $65,084/project. This recommendation
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion available for consumptive uses and be useful as a Landowners, should be coordinated with other action steps to
25.2.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment decision-support tool for other programs. 1 5 RCD 65.00 65 reduce cost and redundancy.
CDFW, County
Planning, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NOAA NWS,
NOAA RC,
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion scale frost protection capabilities for the benefit of RCD, Water
CDFW, County
compensatory releases from large dams; provide Landowners, Cost based on number and type of measures
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion policy and funding for the above actions to maximize RCD, Water taken to reduce conflicts between fisheries and
25.2.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment benefits for fisheries and agriculture. 1 5 Agencies TBD frost protection.

downstream flows, regulating season of diversion,
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion and promoting and implementing off-stream storage CDFW, Cost is TBD, since the number, location and
25.2.1.4 Action Step /Impoundment solutions (CDFG 2004). 1 25 Counties, NMFS TBD scope of future actions is unknown at this time.
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion so that water allocations can be readily quantified by CDFW, NMFS,
25.2.1.5 Action Step /Impoundment watershed. 2 5 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion use based on the needs of steelhead and authorized CDFW, NMFS, No cost expected for requesting SWRCB review
25.2.1.6 Action Step /Impoundment diverters (CDFG 2004). 2 10 SWRCB 0 of water use. Action is considered In-Kind
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion Support the development and implementation of CDFW, NMFS,
25.2.1.7 Action Step /Impoundment groundwater use regulations. 3 10 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, CDFW
Law
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion Improve compliance with existing water resource NMFS, NMFS already employed agency enforcement personnel.
25.2.1.8 Action Step /Impoundment regulations via monitoring and enforcement. 3 100 OLE, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
migratory reaches for effects on the natural Cost is will be an evaluation largely done by
UR-CCCS- Water Diversion hydrograph and spawning gravel recruitment CDFW, NMFS, already staffed federal, state and local agencies.
25.2.1.9 Action Step /Impoundment downstream (CDFG 2004). 3 100 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Interior Diversity Stratum Populations
Crocker Creek
Gill Creek
Miller Creek
Sausal Creek

Limited sampling has documented low to moderate numbers of juvenile steelhead in Crocker
Creek, Gill Creek, Miller Creek, and Sausal Creek; no monitoring has been done to document
numbers of adult steelhead returning to these creeks to spawn.
CDFG conducted biological sampling along much of Crocker Creek in 1998 and reported finding
juvenile steelhead at only one location, a site located downstream from an old KOA dam (CDFG
2006a). The dam, which was located about 0.6 miles from the creeks confluence with the Russian
River, was subsequently removed in 2002 to promote upstream migration of adult steelhead. On
June 14, 2007, NMFS staff surveyed stream habitat along a 1.2 mile contiguous segment of Crocker
Creek and observed juvenile steelhead distributed throughout all but the very upstream end of
the segment. One mile upstream from the mouth of Crocker Creek the streams substrate is
dominated by large boulders and a series of six foot high vertical waterfalls with very shallow
pools for upstream migrants to jump from, suggesting that the boulder cascade and vertical drops
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Interior 483

are not passable to upstream migrating steelhead at most or all flows (NMFS 2007). Therefore,
this point is probably the upstream natural limit to anadromy (i.e., the upstream natural
boundary of steelhead distribution in Crocker Creek).
CDFG (2006b) reports moderate abundance of juvenile steelhead at several sites on Gill Creek in
1998. This survey indicates that the best spawning and rearing habitat and highest numbers of
juvenile steelhead in Gill Creek are in the middle portion of that creek and in its South Fork.
However, for that survey, CDFG did not have landowner access to upper Gill Creek beyond a
point 1,000 feet upstream from the creeks confluence with its South Fork. NMFS (2007), which
surveyed stream habitat along 1.1 miles of non-contiguous reaches on Gill Creek on June 5, 2007,
reported observing juvenile steelhead distributed throughout each of the reaches that it assessed.
CDFG last surveyed Miller Creek in July 2001. During that stream habitat inventory, fish
sampling was not undertaken. The report for that habitat survey (CDFG (2006c) states that the
Department of Fish & Game had previously conducted stream surveys of Miller Creek in October
1958 and August 1974. That 2006 report indicates that no fish were observed during the 1958
survey when flow was minimal, and it suggests that during the 1974 survey, flows were minimal
and the spawning areas were highly silted; however, it provides no data on steelhead abundance
or distribution for 1974. NMFS (2007) reports that juvenile steelhead were observed distributed
throughout a 2.0 mile segment of lower Miller Creek that was inventoried on April 27, 2007. Both
CDFG (2006c) and NMFS (2007) indicate that a 14-foot high, natural waterfall located 2.9 miles
upstream from the Russian River is the upstream limit of anadromy on Miller Creek. MRC (2003)
reported low densities of steelhead at index reaches in Miller Creek during the summers of 2000,
2001, and 2002, but that in the fall of those years steelhead were present only in 2001. MRC
concludes that oversummer survivorship of steelhead was minimal in Miller Creek during
those three years.
CDFG (1974) reports moderate to high densities of steelhead in Sausal Creek during early August
1974. They report 25 juvenile steelhead/100 feet of stream in Grapevine Creek and upper Sausal
Creek, densities of about 100 juvenile steelhead/100 feet in Sausal Creek between the mouth of
Grapevine Creek and the mouth of George Young Creek, and densities of 50 steelhead/100 feet of
stream from the mouth of George Young Creek downstream to where the creek dries up, mile
above the Pine Flat Road Bridge. In the three years 2000-2002, MRC sampled the segment of
Sausal Creek where CDFW earlier reported that the creek begins to annually dry up (i.e., in the
vicinity of Pine Flat Road Bridge). MRC (2003) reports that this segment was intermittent by July
in each of the three years, but that low to moderate levels of juvenile steelhead were present
during both summer and fall surveys.

History of Land Use, Land Management and Current Resources
Crocker, Miller, Gill, and Sausal Creeks (together with Gird Creek) are the principal Russian River
watersheds within Sonoma Countys Alexander Valley, an area with a long history of agricultural
production. The headwaters of these streams, which enter the east side of the Russian River
between Cloverdale and Healdsburg, originate in the upland hills along the western edge of the
Mayacama Mountains. During the first half of the 20th century, the Alexander Valley was known
for its fruit production, primarily pears and prunes. During the past century, this area has also
supported substantial cattle ranching and some sheep farming. Today these four small
watersheds continue to support livestock grazing and viticulture although much of their
headwaters are undeveloped mixed hardwood-conifer forest. During the late 1960s, Alexander
Valley began to become an important center for the production of premium wine grapes. The
valley currently supports about 15,000 acres of vineyards, most of which are in the lowlands
bordering the Russian River; about 2,000 of these acres are within the Crocker, Gill, Miller, and
Sausal Creek watersheds (Table 1).
Table 1. Acreage of vineyards, forest, grasslands and number of housing units in the Crocker
Creek, Gill Creek, Miller Creek, and Sausal Creek watersheds.
Watershed Vineyard Grassland Forested Housing
Stream Area Acreage1 Acreage2 Acreage2 units in
(Acres) (% watershed) (% watershed) (% watershed) watershed3
76 341 1677
Crocker Creek 2085 94
(4) (16) (80)
230 855 2356
Gill Creek 3654 102
(6) (23) (65)
516 801 2016
Miller Creek 3211 21
(16) (25) (62)
1163 2310 4123
Sausal Creek 8100 47
(14) (29) (51)
1 data from UC Hopland extension (2007)
2 CA Department of Forestry (2002)
3 Census 2000 Block data (migrated), CA Department of Forestry (2010)
NMFS (2007) reports that land use adjacent to the most downstream 0.25 mile segment of Crocker
Creek (downstream from River Road) is primarily rural residential. They report that upstream
from the River Road crossing, riparian encroachment from current land use activities is non-
existent in the approximately 1.0 mile segment accessible to steelhead; however, the removal of
the KOA dam has caused major bank failure that eliminated riparian canopy along two long

segments of Crocker Creek. NMFS (2007) reports that the most upstream 0.2 mile segment of
Crocker Creek that is accessible to steelhead is in a canyon where riparian vegetation is
dominated by mature trees and canopy closure is high. CDFG (2006a) states that the Crocker
Creek watershed is privately owned and that most of the land surrounding the most upstream
areas of the creek and its upper tributaries are managed as open grassland for livestock.
CDFG (2006b) states that the Gill Creek watershed is privately owned and managed for grazing
and vineyards. Land use adjacent to the 600 foot segment of creek downstream from River Road
is primarily viticulture. This lower segment is artificially channelized with levies and revetments
on both banks (NMFS 2008). In contrast, along the approximately 0.6 mile long segment that ends
0.9 miles upstream from the Russian River, land use encroachment of the riparian zone is low,
and riparian vegetation is dominated by either mature hardwoods with high canopy closure or
by oak savannas (NMFS 2008). A substantial portion of the Gill Creek watershed (i.e., the
segment beyond a point 1,000 feet upstream from the creeks confluence with its South Fork) has
been inaccessible to public resource agencies, and thus the condition of stream habitats in the
upper watershed is unknown.
CDFG (2006c) states that the Miller Creek watershed is entirely privately owned and is managed
primarily for vineyard development, with some dispersed residential development. NMFS
(2007), which surveyed the most downstream 2.0 miles of Miller Creek, confirmed that Miller
Creek is closely bordered by vineyards especially in the lowermost 0.75 miles.
There is very limited information concerning land use within the Sausal Creek watershed.
However, historically this watershed has supported livestock ranching and extensive viticulture.
Conditions
Impaired conditions result directly or indirectly from human activities, and are expected to
continue until restored and/or the threat acting on the conditions is abated. Using a Rapid
Assessment Protocol and existing data, NMFS staff rated 12 potential habitat related conditions
to determine their effect on five lifestages of steelhead (adult, eggs, summer rearing juveniles,
winter rearing juveniles, and migratory smolts) in Crocker, Gill, Miller, and Sausal Creeks (See
Interior Diversity Stratum Rapid Assessment Stress Results). The steelhead populations in these
streams all face the same principal habitat conditions: a general lack of stream habitat complexity
and impaired gravel quality. In addition, water diversions for small domestic use and
agricultural irrigation probably appreciably diminish streamflow and the quality of steelhead
habitat in Miller and Sausal Creeks. Consequently, the following conditions were rated as High
for their effects on the steelhead populations in these watersheds: 1) Habitat Complexity: Large

Wood & Shelter, 2) Sediment: Gravel Quality & Distribution of Spawning Gravels, and 3)
Hydrology: Baseflow & Passage Flows for summer rearing juveniles. Recovery strategies will
focus on reducing these effects and improving conditions needed to ensure population viability
and functioning watershed processes.
The following briefly summarizes information on those conditions that were rated as Fair or Poor
for their effects on steelhead populations in these four watersheds:


Riparian conditions in Crocker and Gill Creek are generally not altered to levels that pose more
than a minor effect to steelhead. Riparian conditions are degraded in Miller Creek where the
lower half of the stream is closely bordered by vineyards and canopy closure is low. The
condition of riparian vegetation along the upper two-thirds of Sausal Creek has not been
evaluated since CDFGs 1974 survey, but at that time riparian canopy was roughly only 40-50%
along major segments. More recent information shows that lower Sausal Creek has been heavily
channelized to an extent that the riparian vegetation is probably a Medium condition to the
steelhead population. However, riparian conditions in lower Sausal Creek have improved since
2004 when a riparian habitat improvement project removed giant reed (Arundo donax) and other
invasive plant species, and native riparian species were planted. In addition, a stream bank
stabilization project in 2007-2008 planted willow matting and reduced the bank slope along a
reach of lower Sausal Creek.
Loss of high quality riparian vegetation can expose a stream to increased solar radiation, thereby
increasing water temperatures beyond the tolerance of steelhead. CDFG (1974) describes water
temperatures that exceed steelhead tolerance levels in segments of upper Sausal Creek. Low
quality riparian vegetation can also reduce the supply of potential large woody debris, which
plays an important role in creating rearing habitat for juvenile steelhead and temporary holding
areas for adult fish.

Except for Crocker Creek, each of these streams has reaches where channel maintenance projects
have disconnected significant portions of the stream from its floodplain. During the period 2004-
2006, a levee was removed from a segment bordering Miller Creek, yet even after this work,
NMFS (2007) reported that substantial portions of Miller Creek continue to be heavily
channelized. Likewise, lower Sausal Creek is heavily channelized in its lower mile. Current

conditions in much of the upper portions of Sausal Creek and its principal tributaries are not
known because landowners have precluded access for stream surveys during the past several
decades.

During summer, streamflows are exceedingly low or non-existent in much of Miller Creek and
the lower two plus miles of Sausal Creek (CDFG 1974; MSC 2003; CDFG 2006c). Even in late
April 2007, streamflow was discontinuous in the lower 0.6 miles of Miller Creek (NMFS 2008).
State water right records indicate cancellation of applications for permits to store 3,285 and 700
acre-feet of water diverted from Sausal Creek and Miller Creeks, respectively, because of
viticulture. The current status of water diversions in these watersheds is not known; however,
about 15 percent of each of these watersheds is vineyards, which utilize approximately 2 acre-feet
of water per cultivated acre.
In Crocker Creek and Gill Creek, crop irrigation and residential housing are not currently
developed to a level that would cause moderate or major effects to streamflows. However,
increased residential development could eventually impair summer streamflows in these two
watersheds with resulting impacts to steelhead.

Years of farming practices and flood maintenance have resulted in the substantial loss of large
woody debris (LWD) in each of the four focus watersheds in the Alexander Valley. CDFG (2006a,
2006b, and 2006c) and NMFS (2007) recommend adding large woody debris throughout Crocker,
Gill, and Miller Creeks in order to increase complex cover (shelter) for fishes and channel scouring
that deepens natural pools. The existing low level of instream cover directly reduces the quality
of these streams as rearing habitat for juvenile steelhead. Channel simplification due to the loss
of large woody debris and bank stabilization projects has also created high velocity flume-like
environments during runoff events in the lower reaches of each of the four watersheds. Such
high velocity conditions probably limit the number of days that adult steelhead can migrate up
these creeks.

Surveys of Crocker, Gill, and Miller Creeks indicate that major segments of these streams have
high levels of fine sediment embedded in their gravel and cobble substrates (CDFG 2006a, 2006b,
2006c; NMFS 2008). CDFG (1974) and MSC (2003) indicate that the streambeds in lower and
middle Sausal Creek also have detrimental levels of fine sediments.

Livestock, channel modifications, the proximity of roads that parallel each stream, and road
crossings all likely contribute to stream bank erosion processes that have increased the load of
fine sediments in these streams. These sediments, which are composed mostly of sand, silt and
clay particles, smother stream gravels and cobbles, diminish the capacity of the stream substrates
to support steelhead egg incubation and the production of highly valuable aquatic invertebrates
upon which steelhead feed. That loss of invertebrate production can directly impact growth rates
and survival of rearing juvenile steelhead.
Conditions Rated as Fair or Good

Adverse hydrologic gravel scouring, impaired migration, altered pool frequency and pool/riffle
ratio, impaired stream temperature, and impaired water quality associated with increased
turbidity or toxicity are all rated as having Fair or Good for their effects on steelhead. The most
significant man-made obstacle to upstream passage of adults in these streams is the remnant of
the old River Road crossing on Gill Creek (just downstream from the current crossing), where
broken concrete and other debris pose a severe impediment to fish passage (NMFS 2008). In
addition, stream channelization in the lower 2.0 miles of Miller Creek has greatly reduced the
number and complexity of pools and left few resting spots for adult steelhead, so that upstream
migration is probably limited to a narrow range of flows. Stream temperatures are generally
suitable for steelhead in most of these creeks; although CDFG (1974) indicates that in Sausal Creek
during early August when air temperature was 90F, water temperatures exceeded 80F at two
points in the upper and middle segments of the creek (about 1000 feet below the confluence of
Grapevine Creek and near the confluence of George Young Creek). They note that canopy closure
was relatively low (40-50%) in these segments; however, there is no more recent survey data
available for these reaches in Sausal Creek. Because there are insufficient data concerning levels
of toxic materials (e.g., pesticides, fungicides, etc.) in all four of these streams, water quality
monitoring for toxins is warranted, especially for Sausal, Miller, and Gill Creeks, which support
considerable crop production.
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats rated as High (See Interior Diversity Stratum
Rapid Assessment Threats Table). Recovery strategies will focus on ameliorating primary threats;
however, some strategies may address other threat categories when the strategy is essential to
recovery efforts.
Agriculture
Agriculture is an existing and future threat to steelhead populations in each of these small
tributaries to the Russian River. Although only 4%-6% of the Crocker Creek and Gill Creek
watersheds are developed as vineyards, this industry could potentially expand its acreage in

these as well as the adjacent Miller and Sausal watersheds where vineyards already occupy about
15% of the acreage. This is a likely future threat given the high value of Alexander Valley grapes
and the continued increase in the number of wineries in this area. Viticulture and wineries often
affect stream habitats by forcing streams into stabilized hardened channels by removing large
instream woody debris for purposes of limiting natural flood processes that create and maintain
quality steelhead habitat and by increasing erosion through the construction of roads and
croplands that closely follow stream banks. Little is known about the seasonal concentrations of
fungicides, herbicides, or pesticides in tributaries that flow through agricultural lands bordering
the Russian River. Thus, it would be prudent to monitor the water quality of these streams to
ensure that concentrations of common toxins associated with regional agricultural activities are
not deleterious to steelhead.
The threat of agricultural water diversions and impoundments to steelhead is described below
under the section Water Diversions and Impoundments.
Channel modification (e.g., floodplain and riparian removal) has greatly impacted salmonid
resources across the Interior Diversity Stratum and its watersheds. Simplification of streams
through bank revetment and channel straightening disconnect streams from their floodplain. As
a result, complex riffle-pool habitats needed by summer-rearing juvenile steelhead are lost.
Likewise, winter rearing habitat is compromised when resident steelhead cannot find refugia
from high velocities and are flushed from headwater reaches into marginal downstream habitat.
Low velocity holding pools needed by migrating adult steelhead are also lost. In many areas,
channel modification has caused channel incision, over-steepened banks, high erosional forces
and gravel embeddedness, and ultimately loss of riparian trees.
The lower 0.3 miles of Gill Creek and the lower 2 miles of Miller Creek are channelized so that
upstream migrating adults have few resting spots and rearing habitat is negligible. Little is
known about current channel conditions in the perennial flowing portions of Sausal Creek or in
the upper portions of Gill Creek (upstream from a point 1000 feet upstream from the confluence
of Gill Creeks South Fork).

Livestock grazing is known to adversely affect salmon and trout populations especially if cattle
have access to and utilize riparian areas in large numbers for prolonged periods (Ballard and
Krueger 2005). Depending on the period of time, and the numbers of animals utilizing these
areas, cattle may adversely affect steelhead by disrupting spawning or feeding behaviors,
trampling or smothering redds, and crushing individual juvenile salmonids. Livestock grazing

can affect the riparian environment by changing and reducing vegetation or by eliminating
riparian areas through channel widening, channel aggradation, or lowering the water table.
(Armour et al. 1991). Moreover, the most apparent effects of livestock grazing on fish habitat are
the reductions of shade, cover, and terrestrial food supply, and resultant increases in stream
temperature and sedimentation through bank degradation and soil erosion. (Armour et al. 1991)
or Ibid.
Livestock grazing is an ongoing threat to steelhead in both the Crocker Creek and Gill Creek
watersheds (CDFG 2006a, 2006b, NMFS 2008); there are no records of livestock impacts to Miller
Creek.

Although residential housing density is currently low in the four watersheds, residential housing
development is an ongoing threat to the steelhead populations in these streams. Residential
development is typically accompanied by new roads, removal of riparian vegetation and habitat,
increased stream sedimentation, and reduced summer flows. Water supply for rural housing
typically comes from wells placed within a few hundred feet of streams. Such wells have the
capacity to draw down aquifers and/or directly deplete the subterranean flow of streams.
Average water use for a single family of four in California, including outdoor water use, is about
175,000 gallons per year (Consol 2010), or about 0.54 acre-feet of water per home. Any water
supply for new homes near Crocker, Gill, Miller, or Sausal Creeks has a reasonable likelihood of
affecting summer surface flows in these streams, even if by only a small amount. The construction
of dozens of new homes near any of these creeks could cause a significant cumulative depletion
of summer surface flows with resulting impacts to steelhead.
Roads and Railroads

Existing roads along Crocker, Gill, and Miller Creek adversely affect steelhead habitat. CDFG
(2006a, 2006b,and 2006c) all recommend that active and potential sediment sources related to the
road systems in their respective study streams be mapped, and treated according to their
potential to cause stream sedimentation. Likewise, NMFS (2007) specifically suggests that the
box culvert at the River Road crossing on Crocker Creek should be replaced with a larger culvert
or free span bridge, and the remnants of the old River Road crossing at Gill Creek should be
removed to facilitate upstream passage of adult steelhead. In addition NMFS (2007) recommends
an assessment of roads in the Gill Creek and Miller Creek watersheds to identify erosion
treatment sites. The condition of roads in the Sausal Creek watershed also needs to be assessed
to determine any needs for remediation.

Water diversions for agricultural crop production are a likely ongoing threat to the recovery of
steelhead in Miller and Sausal Creeks. About 15 percent of the Miller and Sausal Creek
watersheds are currently managed vineyards, a crop that typically uses about 2 acre-feet of water
per year. Direct diversion of streamflow for heat protection and irrigation during dry summer
months has the potential to significantly reduce surface flows and dewater salmonid rearing
habitats. Diverting streamflows to storage during the relatively wet winter months for later use
during the low flow season can also be deleterious if adequate bypass flows are not maintained.
The magnitude of this threat is unclear because of very limited data concerning water diversion
practices in these watersheds; however, given 1) the significant acreage of viticulture, 2) the
approximately 2 acre-feet/acre water demand of viticulture, 3) that summer streamflows are
generally very low (<1 cfs) in many stream segments, and 4) the near absence of precipitation
during the months of June through October in most years, the diversion of streamflow is likely a
significant threat to the steelhead populations in Miller and Sausal Creek. If crop production
increases in Crocker or Gill Creeks, then those streams will probably also be threatened by the
effects of increased water diversions.

Our analysis of habitat-related conditions indicate that steelhead populations in Crocker and Gill
Creeks are probably currently limited by the availability of juvenile rearing habitat and general
lack of deep pools and other velocity refugia for winter migrating adult steelhead. High levels of
sediment in the substrates of these streams may also affect steelhead densities by reducing the
survival of incubating eggs, pool volume, and growth rates of juvenile fish deprived of a healthy
macroinvertebrate forage base. The specific habitat conditions limiting the steelhead population
in Miller creek are varied. The limited amount of quality rearing habitat is undoubtedly a major
factor. Miller Creek has low availability of high quality pools with shelter for both juvenile
rearing and migrating adults and high levels of fine sediments in its substrates. It also experiences
extremely low flows probably in part due to irrigation practices in the watershed. Likewise,
irrigation of about 14% of the Sausal Creek watershed may be having an effect on summer flows
in this creek; however, there is a paucity of information on the status of steelhead and their
habitats in Sausal Creek.

threats discussed above although strategies that address other indicators may also be developed
the watershed. The general recovery strategies for the populations in this stratum are discussed

below with more detailed and site-specific recovery actions provided in the Interior Diversity
Stratum Rapid Assessment Recovery Actions Table.
Efforts to recover steelhead populations in these four tributaries to the Russian River should focus
on the following: (1) conserving (Gill and Crocker) and restoring (Miller and Sausal) streamflows;
(2) restoring complex pool habitats by increasing large woody debris and/or boulder structures;
(3) restoring the integrity of riparian habitats impacted by livestock grazing; and, (4) reducing the
incidence of stream sedimentation by mapping and then treating road-related sediment sources.
Those stream segments that contain properly functioning habitats for steelhead should be
conserved and protected from activities that disconnect them from their floodplains or cause
channelization or sedimentation.

Literature Cited
Armour, C.L., D.A. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1991. AFS Position Statement: The effects of livestock
grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems. Fisheries 16:7-11.
Ballard, T.M., and Krueger, W.C., 2005. Cattle and Salmon II: Interactions between Cattle and
Spawning Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in a Northeastern Oregon
Riparian Ecosystem. Rangeland Ecology & Management, Vol. 58, No. 3 (May, 2005), pp.
274-278.
CDFG. 2006a. California Department of Fish and Game stream inventory report: Crocker
Creek, report revised April 14, 2006, report completed 2000. California Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Region III, Yountville, CA.
CDFG. 2006b. California Department of Fish and Game stream inventory report: Gill Creek,
report revised April 14, 2006, report completed 2000. California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Region III, Yountville, CA.
CDFG. 2006c. California Department of Fish and Game stream inventory report: Miller Creek,
report revised April 14, 2006, report completed 2005. California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Region III, Yountville, CA.
Consul Inc. 2010. Water use in the California residential home. Prepared for California
Homebuilding Foundation. January 2010. 13pp.
MRC. 2003. Salmonid juvenile density monitoring in Sonoma County streams, synthesis of a
ten-year study (1993-2002). Prepared by Merritt Smith Consulting. Prepared for City of
Santa Rosa. 52 pp.
NMFS. 2007. Habitat restoration and conservation plan for anadromous salmonid habitat in
selected tributaries of the Russian River basin. Draft report dated November 16, 2007.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Santa Rosa, CA.

CCC Steelhead DPS: Interior Stratum (Miller/Gill/Crocker/Sausal)

P = Poor
Riparian Vegetation: Composition, Cover & Tree Diameter F G
Velocity Refuge: Floodplain Connectivity F F F

Hydrology: Redd Scour F
Hydrology: Baseflow & Passage Flows G G P G
Passage/Migration: Mouth or Confluence & Physical Barriers F F G G
Habitat Complexity: Percent Primary Pools & Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratios F P P
Habitat Complexity: Large Wood & Shelter P P P G
Sediment: Gravel Quality & Distribution of Spawning Gravels F P P F
Viability: Density, Abundance & Spatial Structure F F F
Water Quality: Temperature F G
Water Quality: Turbidity & Toxicity G G G G

CCC Steelhead DPS: Interior Stratum (Miller/Gill/Crocker/Sausal)
Stresses






Quality & Quantity
Pool/Riffle Ratio
Temperatures
Diversity
Shelter
Events
Extent
Threat Scores
L: Low
M: Medium
H: High
Agriculture M L M L L M M H L L
Channel Modification M L H M M H H H H M L
Fire, Fuel Management, and Fire Suppression L L L L L M M M L L

Livestock Farming and Ranching M L L L L M M H M L
Logging and Wood Harvesting H L L L L M M M M L
Residential and Commercial Development M L M M L H H H M L
Roads and Railroads L L L L M L L H L M
Severe Weather Patterns L L L L H L L L M M L
Water Diversions and Impoundments M L L L H L L L L H M L

Crocker Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Interior) Recovery Actions
CrC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
CrC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
Encourage retention and recruitment of large woody
CrC-CCCS- Channel debris to rehabilitate existing stream complexity, pool CDFW, RCD,
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification frequency, and depth. 2 10 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Private
CrC-CCCS- Channel Projects should seek alternatives to bank hardening Landowners,
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification and promote bioengineering solutions where feasible. 2 50 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Identify areas within modified channels where habitat Cost based to treat 1.2 miles (assume 1
CrC-CCCS- Channel features can be installed that provided shelter and CDFW, NOAA project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification velocity refuge for migrating steelhead. 2 5 RC, RCD 32.00 32 $26,000/mile.
CrC-CCCS- Recovery Channel substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
13.1.2 Action Modification quantity)
Sediment levels in Crocker Creek were exceptionally

high in 2007 as a result of dam removal in 2001. Re-
investigate sediment levels in the creek to determine
CrC-CCCS- Channel whether it remains a significant impediment to
13.1.2.1 Action Step Modification steelhead recovery 2 3 CDFW, NMFS 15.00 15 Cost based on previous regional projects
If new surveys indicate that sedimentation remains a
significant impact to steelhead habitat, develop and Cost based on amount of habitat needing
CrC-CCCS- Channel implement plans for controlling erosion and reducing CDFW, NOAA restoration. Cost for stream restoration estimated
13.1.2.2 Action Step Modification sedimentation 2 5 RC, RCD TBD at $26,000/mile.
CrC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
CrC-CCCS- Recovery complexity (altered pool complexity and/or pool riffle
Identify areas where livestock have access to CDFW,
CrC-CCCS- riparian vegetation, develop plan to fence livestock NCRWQB,
18.1.1.1 Action Step Livestock from areas 3 10 NRCS, RCD 18.50 18.50 37 Cost based on previous regional projects
CDFW, NRCS,
Private
CrC-CCCS- Landowners,
18.1.1.2 Action Step Livestock Plant vegetation to stabilize stream bank. 3 10 RCD 49.75 49.75 100 Cost based on previous regional projects
CDFW, NRCS,
Private Cost based on amount of water sources needing
CrC-CCCS- Landowners, to be relocated. Cost estimated for off-channel
18.1.1.3 Action Step Livestock Relocate instream livestock watering sources 3 20 RCD TBD water source at $5,000/site.
CDFW,
NCRWQB,
NRCS, Private Cost based on amount of stream crossings
CrC-CCCS- Where necessary, establish predetermined stream Landowners, needed. Cost likely accounted for in riparian
18.1.1.4 Action Step Livestock crossings when herding cattle between pastures. 3 10 RCD TBD exclusion fencing above.
CrC-CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
NRCS, Private
CrC-CCCS- Assess grazing impact on riparian condition, Landowners,
18.1.2.1 Action Step Livestock identifying opportunities for improvement. 3 25 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Develop and fund riparian restoration and bank
CrC-CCCS- stabilization projects to regain riparian corridors CDFW, NRCS,
18.1.2.2 Action Step Livestock damaged from livestock and other causes. 3 10 RCD 49.75 49.75 100
CrC-CCCS- Commercial modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or

Residential/
CrC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
22.1.1 Action Development (reduced large wood and/or shelter)
CDFW, NRCS,
Residential/ Private Cost based on treating 1 mile (assume 1
CrC-CCCS- Commercial Landowners, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development Add large woody debris to reach optimal frequencies 2 5 RCD 26.00 26 $26,000/mile.
Residential/ NRCS, Private
CrC-CCCS- Commercial Avoid the removal of large wood and other shelter Landowners,
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development components from the stream system 2 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/ Encourage landowners to implement restoration

CrC-CCCS- Commercial projects as part of their ongoing operations in stream
22.1.1.3 Action Step Development reaches where large woody debris is lacking. 2 10 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/ Preserve snags, leave downed wood on the banks or NRCS, Private
CrC-CCCS- Commercial in the stream, and encourage multi-age stands within Landowners,
22.1.1.4 Action Step Development existing corridors. 2 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/ Prevent or minimize impairment to instream
CrC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
22.1.2 Action Development quantity)
NRCS, Private
Residential/ Landowners,
CrC-CCCS- Commercial Minimize development within riparian zones and the RCD, Sonoma
22.1.2.1 Action Step Development 100-year floodprone zones. 2 20 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CrC-CCCS- Commercial within the 100-year flood prone zones in all historical
Residential/
CrC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
Establish appropriately sized and properly functioning NRCS, Private
Residential/ riparian buffers adjacent to watercourses that have a Landowners,
CrC-CCCS- Commercial potential to deliver sediment to spawning and rearing RCD, Sonoma
22.1.3.1 Action Step Development habitat. 2 10 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/ Maintain intact and properly functioning riparian NRCS, Private
CrC-CCCS- Commercial buffers to filter and prevent fine sediment input from Landowners,
22.1.3.2 Action Step Development entering streams. 2 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NRCS,
Residential/ Re-establish native plant communities in riparian Private
CrC-CCCS- Commercial zones with a goal of increasing stream canopy to Landowners,
22.1.3.3 Action Step Development 80% 2 10 RCD TBD
Work with private landowners to promote the re-

vegetation of the native riparian plant community
Residential/ within inset floodplains and riparian corridors to
CrC-CCCS- Commercial ameliorate instream temperature and provide a
22.1.3.4 Action Step Development source of future large woody debris recruitment. 3 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/
CrC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
Cost based on amount of incentive for rain
CDFW, collection systems, number needed, and
Residential/ NCRWQB, landowner participation. Currently, incentive
CrC-CCCS- Commercial Develop an incentive program for rain collection NRCS, Sonoma programs exist and should be explored and
22.1.4.1 Action Step Development systems. 2 5 County TBD expanded.
Residential/ Encourage the use of native vegetation in new Sonoma County,

CrC-CCCS- Commercial landscaping to reduce the need for watering and Sonoma County
22.1.4.2 Action Step Development application of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. 2 20 Water Agency 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Residential/
CrC-CCCS- Commercial See WATER DIVERSIONS for specific actions and
22.1.4.3 Action Step Development areas
Residential/
CrC-CCCS- Commercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
Residential/
CrC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
Residential/ Develop riparian setbacks/buffers where they do not
CrC-CCCS- Commercial currently occur, and enforce requirements of local
Residential/
CrC-CCCS- Commercial Enforce requirements of local regulations and
Residential/
CrC-CCCS- Commercial Increase monitoring and enforcement of illegal bank
22.2.1.3 Action Step Development or shoreline stabilization activities. 3 50 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/
CrC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
Residential/ Encourage the State Division of Water Rights to CDFW, NMFS,

CrC-CCCS- Commercial evaluate water rights compliance in all sub- Sonoma County
22.2.2.1 Action Step Development watersheds where new development is proposed. 2 100 Water Agency 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CrC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
All bridges associated with new roads and railroads
or replacement bridges should be free span or
CrC-CCCS- constructed with the minimal amount of impairment to CalTrans,
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads the stream channel. 2 20 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Assess existing road networks and implement CDFW,

CrC-CCCS- actions that hydrologically disconnect roads and NCRWQB, RCD, Cost based on road inventory of 7 miles of road at
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads reduce sediment sources 2 10 Sonoma County 3.35 3.35 7 a rate of $957/mile.
Private
CrC-CCCS- Landowners,
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads Minimize placing new roadways within riparian zones. 3 100 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Replace problematic culverts and low flow crossings
CrC-CCCS- in Class 1 streams with bridges or appropriate cost CalTrans, Cost based on replacing culvert at a rate of
23.1.1.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads effective designs. 2 10 Sonoma County 115.50 115.50 231 $230,411.
CrC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
Continue education of County road engineers and
maintenance staff regarding watershed processes
and the adverse effects of improper road
CrC-CCCS- construction and maintenance on salmonids and their
23.2.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads habitats. 2 20 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Develop grading ordinance for maintenance and
CrC-CCCS- building of private roads that minimizes the effects to
23.2.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads steelhead. 2 5 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or

CrC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County
CrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Water Agency,
25.1.1.1 Action Step Impoundment Assess and map water diversions (CDFG 2004). 2 10 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Private
Landowners,
CrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Sonoma County,
25.1.1.2 Action Step Impoundment Minimize new or increased summer diversions. 2 20 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Collaborate with landowners to minimize impacts on
CrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ summer base flow from riparian water diversion CDFW, NMFS,
25.1.1.3 Action Step Impoundment activities. 2 5 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Work with partners to ensure that current and future
water diversions (surface or groundwater) do not CDFW, NMFS,
CrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ impair water quality conditions in summer or fall Sonoma County,
25.1.1.4 Action Step Impoundment rearing reaches. 3 100 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Gill Greek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Interior) Recovery Actions
GlC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
GlC-CCCS- Recovery
NCRWQB,
NRCS, RCD, Cost based on installing a minimum of 3
GlC-CCCS- Evaluate water quality below likely sources of Sonoma County continuous water quality stations at a rate of
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality contamination. 2 5 Water Agency 15.00 15 $5,000/station.
GlC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
NRCS, Private Cost based on treating 1.4 miles (assume 1
GlC-CCCS- Landowners, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture Add large woody debris to reach optimal frequencies 2 5 RCD 36.00 36 $26,000/mile.
GlC-CCCS- Avoid the removal of large wood and other shelter Private
12.1.1.2 Action Step Agriculture components from the stream system 2 20 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Encourage landowners to implement restoration

GlC-CCCS- projects as part of their ongoing operations in stream CDFW, NMFS,
12.1.1.3 Action Step Agriculture reaches where large woody debris is lacking. 2 5 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Preserve snags, leave downed wood on the banks or NRCS, Private
GlC-CCCS- in the stream, and encourage multi-age stands within Landowners,
12.1.1.4 Action Step Agriculture existing corridors. 2 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GlC-CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
GlC-CCCS- Address agricultural activities that promote the NCRWQB,

12.1.2.1 Action Step Agriculture delivery of sediment and runoff to stream channels. 2 5 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Complete Farm Conservation Plans (through the
SRCD, NRCS, Fish Friendly Farming program or Farm Bureau,
other cooperative conservation programs) to reduce NRCS, Private
GlC-CCCS- sediment sources and improve riparian habitat within Landowners, Cost is TBD, since the total number and scope of
12.1.2.2 Action Step Agriculture the watershed. 2 20 RCD 50.00 50.00 100 the future plans is unknown at this time.
Promote agricultural practices that protect and
GlC-CCCS- restore CCC steelhead habitat by working with the Farm Bureau,
12.1.2.3 Action Step Agriculture agricultural community. 3 30 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Work with vineyard owners to assess the
GlC-CCCS- effectiveness of erosion control measures throughout NRCS, RCD,
12.1.2.4 Action Step Agriculture the winter period. 2 5 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Maintain adequate stream corridor buffers to filter NRCS, Private
GlC-CCCS- and prevent fine sediment input from entering the Landowners,
12.1.2.5 Action Step Agriculture creek 2 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GlC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
riparian buffers adjacent to watercourses that have a Landowners,
GlC-CCCS- potential to deliver sediment to spawning and rearing RCD, Sonoma
12.1.3.1 Action Step Agriculture habitat. 2 10 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NRCS, Private
Landowners,
GlC-CCCS- Reduce the encroachment of agricultural activities in RCD, Sonoma
12.1.3.2 Action Step Agriculture areas within 100 feet of the stream bank 2 10 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NRCS, Private
Maintain functional riparian stream buffers that Landowners,
GlC-CCCS- provide desirable stream canopy cover adjacent to RCD, Sonoma
12.1.3.3 Action Step Agriculture agricultural land activities. 2 20 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Re-establish native plant communities in riparian NRCS, Private
GlC-CCCS- zones with a goal of increasing stream canopy to Landowners,
12.1.3.4 Action Step Agriculture 80% 2 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GlC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
Work within the agricultural community to educate

GlC-CCCS- landowners and enhance practices that provide for
12.1.4.1 Action Step Agriculture functional watershed processes. 2 20 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GlC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
GlC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
GlC-CCCS- currently occur, and enforce requirements of local
GlC-CCCS- Enforce requirements of local regulations and CDFW, Sonoma

12.2.1.2 Action Step Agriculture riparian/setbacks 2 10 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Work with regulatory agencies and landowners to CDFW Law
discourage marijuana cultivation and/or control Enforcement,
riparian removal, water use and toxic inputs known to NCRWQB,
GlC-CCCS- have adverse affects to CCC steelhead stream NMFS OLE,
12.2.1.3 Action Step Agriculture habitats. 2 5 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GlC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
GlC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
Corps, Private
Landowners,
GlC-CCCS- Channel Evaluate whether proposed stabilization projects will RCD, Sonoma
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification lead to additional instability either up- or downstream. 2 20 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Private
GlC-CCCS- Channel increase flood-flow detention and promote flood- RCD, Sonoma
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification tolerant land uses. 3 10 County TBD
Where riprap and other bank hardening is necessary,

integrate other habitat-forming features including CDFW, Corps,
large woody debris, riparian plantings, bank Private
GlC-CCCS- Channel setbacks, or other methodologies to minimize habitat Landowners,
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification alteration effects. 2 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GlC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and
Remove remnants of the old River Road crossing CDFW, NOAA

GlC-CCCS- Channel (just downstream of current crossing) to improve fish RC, Sonoma Cost based on providing passage at a partial
13.1.2.1 Action Step Modification passage in lower Gill Creek 2 5 County 104.00 104 barrier at a rate of $103,137/project.
Ensure all future bank stabilization projects minimize CDFW, Corps,
rip-rap, thoroughly evaluate all alternatives to rip-rap, NMFS, Private
GlC-CCCS- Channel and at minimum incorporate fish habitat complexity Landowners,
13.1.2.2 Action Step Modification features. 3 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Incorporate velocity refuge habitat features in all
GlC-CCCS- Channel future and existing engineered and modified
13.1.2.3 Action Step Modification channels. 2 20 Corps, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GlC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
CDFW, NMFS,
Encourage retention and recruitment of large woody Private
GlC-CCCS- Channel debris to rehabilitate existing stream complexity, pool Landowners,
13.1.3.1 Action Step Modification frequency, and depth. 2 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind

CDFW, Private
GlC-CCCS- Channel Projects should seek alternatives to bank hardening Landowners,
CDFW, NMFS,
Identify areas within modified channels where habitat Private Cost based on treating 1.4 miles (assume 1
GlC-CCCS- Channel features can be installed that provided shelter and Landowners, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
13.1.3.3 Action Step Modification velocity refuge for migrating steelhead. 2 5 RCD 36.00 36 $26,000/mile.
GlC-CCCS- Recovery Channel substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
CDFW, Five
Counties
Salmonid
Develop Bank Stabilization Guidelines for private and Conservation
GlC-CCCS- Channel public entities targeting fine sediment reduction in Program, NMFS,
13.1.4.1 Action Step Modification efforts to improve instream gravel quality. 3 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GlC-CCCS- Recovery Channel complexity (altered pool complexity and/or pool:riffle
13.1.5 Action Modification ratios)
NOAA RC,
Design channel modifying projects to fully minimize Private
GlC-CCCS- Channel and mitigate effects and, where possible, remedy Landowners,
13.1.5.1 Action Step Modification existing poor conditions. 2 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GlC-CCCS- Channel debris to rehabilitate existing stream complexity, pool NRCS, RCD,
Minimize any future channel modification in
GlC-CCCS- Channel potentially high value seasonal habitat and migration CDFW, Corps,
13.1.5.3 Action Step Modification (staging) areas. 2 20 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GlC-CCCS- Recovery complexity (altered pool complexity and/or pool riffle
CDFW,
NCRWQB,
Identify areas where livestock have access to NRCS, RCD,
GlC-CCCS- riparian vegetation, develop plan to fence livestock Private Cost based on riparian restoration monitoring at a
18.1.1.1 Action Step Livestock from areas 2 5 Landowner 74.00 74 rate of $73,793/project.
NRCS, RCD, Cost on number of livestock watering sources to
GlC-CCCS- Private be relocated is unknown. Cost estimated at
18.1.1.2 Action Step Livestock Relocate instream livestock watering sources 2 10 Landowner TBD $5,000/site.
NCRWQB,
NRCS, RCD,
GlC-CCCS- Where necessary, establish predetermined stream Private
18.1.1.3 Action Step Livestock crossings when herding cattle between pastures. 2 10 Landowner 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NCRWQB,
NRCS, RCD,
Sonoma County,
GlC-CCCS- Assess grazing impact on riparian condition, Private
18.1.2.1 Action Step Livestock identifying opportunities for improvement. 3 50 Landowner 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Develop and fund riparian restoration and bank Estimated costs based on similar costs in
GlC-CCCS- stabilization projects to regain riparian corridors CDFW, NOAA geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
18.1.2.2 Action Step Livestock damaged from livestock and other causes. 2 5 RC, NRCS, RCD 83 83 site, setting and geographic specific.
CDFW, NRCS,
GlC-CCCS- Exclude cattle from entering and trampling steelhead RCD, Private Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
18.1.2.3 Action Step Livestock spawning and rearing habitat. 2 5 Landowner 9.60 10 project/mile in 5% high IP) at a rate of $3.63/ft.

GlC-CCCS- /Commercial modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
Residential
GlC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity
22.1.1 Action Development (reduced large wood and/or shelter)
Residential Cost based on treating 1.4 miles (assume 1
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial CDFW, NOAA project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development Add large woody debris to reach optimal frequencies 2 5 RC, NRCS, RCD 36.00 36 $26,000/mile.
Residential NRCS, Private
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial Avoid the removal of large wood and other shelter Landowners,
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development components from the stream system 2 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential Encourage landowners to implement restoration

GlC-CCCS- /Commercial projects as part of their ongoing operations in stream
22.1.1.3 Action Step Development reaches where large woody debris is lacking. 2 10 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential Preserve snags, leave downed wood on the banks or NRCS, Private
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial in the stream, and encourage multi-age stands within Landowners,
22.1.1.4 Action Step Development existing corridors. 2 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential Prevent or minimize impairment to instream
GlC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
22.1.2 Action Development quantity)
NRCS, Private
Residential Maintain adequate stream corridor buffers to filter Landowners,
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial and prevent fine sediment input from entering Miller RCD, Sonoma
22.1.2.1 Action Step Development Creek 2 10 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential Private
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial Minimize development within riparian zones and the Landowners,
22.1.2.2 Action Step Development 100-year floodprone zones. 2 10 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential Minimize new construction in undeveloped areas
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial within the 100-year flood prone zones in all historical
Residential
GlC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
Residential riparian buffers adjacent to watercourses that have a Landowners,
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial potential to deliver sediment to spawning and rearing RCD, Sonoma
22.1.3.1 Action Step Development habitat. 2 10 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Private
Residential Maintain intact and properly functioning riparian Landowners,
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial buffers to filter and prevent fine sediment input from RCD, Sonoma
22.1.3.2 Action Step Development entering streams. 2 10 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NOAA RC,
NRCS, Private
Residential Re-establish native plant communities in riparian Landowners,
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial zones with a goal of increasing stream canopy to RCD, Sonoma
22.1.3.3 Action Step Development 80% 2 10 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential
GlC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
Cost based on amount of incentives to supply for

Residential NMFS, Sonoma rain collection systems. Currently, incentive
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial Develop an incentive program for rain collection County Water programs exist and should be explored and
22.1.4.1 Action Step Development systems. 2 10 Agency, SWRCB TBD expanded.
Residential Encourage the use of native vegetation in new

GlC-CCCS- /Commercial landscaping to reduce the need for watering and Sonoma County
22.1.4.2 Action Step Development application of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. 2 10 Water Agency 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Residential
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial See WATER DIVERSIONS for specific actions and
22.1.4.3 Action Step Development areas
Residential Prevent or minimize impairment to instream habitat
GlC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial complexity (altered pool frequency and/or pool riffle
22.1.5 Action Development ratio)
NOAA RC,
Residential Design channel modification projects to fully minimize Private
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial and mitigate effects and, where possible, remedy Landowners,
22.1.5.1 Action Step Development poor conditions 2 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential Encourage retention and recruitment of Large Woody CDFW, NMFS,
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial Debris to rehabilitate existing stream complexity, pool RCD, Sonoma
22.1.5.2 Action Step Development frequency, and depth 2 10 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Corps,
NMFS, Sonoma
Residential County, Sonoma
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial Minimize any future channel modification in County Water
22.1.5.3 Action Step Development potentially high value seasonal habitat 2 10 Agency 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
Residential
GlC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
Residential Develop riparian setbacks/buffers where they do not
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial currently occur, and enforce requirements of local
Residential
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial Enforce requirements of local regulations and
Residential
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial Increase monitoring and enforcement of illegal bank CDFW, Corps,
22.2.1.3 Action Step Development or shoreline stabilization activities. 2 10 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential
GlC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
CDFW, NMFS,
Residential Encourage the State Division of Water Rights to Sonoma County
GlC-CCCS- /Commercial evaluate water rights compliance in all sub- Water Agency,
22.2.2.1 Action Step Development watersheds where new development is proposed. 3 5 Trout Unlimited 0 Action is considered In-Kind
or replacement bridges should be free span or NOAA RC,
GlC-CCCS- constructed with the minimal amount of impairment to NRCS, Sonoma
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads the stream channel. 2 10 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NRCS,
Private
Assess existing road networks and implement Landowners,
GlC-CCCS- actions that hydrologically disconnect roads and RCD, Sonoma Cost based on road inventory for 15 miles of road
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads reduce sediment sources 2 10 County 7.50 7.50 15 at a rate of $957/mile.
NCRWQB,
Private
GlC-CCCS- Landowners,

Conduct actions that hydrologically disconnect roads,

particular attention to addressing sedimentation at
GlC-CCCS- road crossing the mainstem just upstream of the NRCS, RCD, Action may be considered In-Kind if other work is
23.1.1.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads mouth of South Fork Gill Creek. 2 10 Sonoma County TBD in progress
NRCS, Private
Landowners,
GlC-CCCS- Limit winter use of unsurfaced roads and recreational RCD, Sonoma
23.1.1.5 Action Step Roads/Railroads trails to decrease fine sediment loads. 3 100 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Protect channel migration zones and their riparian
GlC-CCCS- areas by designing new roads to allow streams to NRCS, RCD,
23.1.1.6 Action Step Roads/Railroads meander in historical patterns. 2 10 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Work with private landowners to upgrade existing
high priority riparian roads (including private roads or
GlC-CCCS- driveways), or those identified in a sediment NRCS, RCD,
23.1.1.7 Action Step Roads/Railroads reduction plan. 2 10 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Minimize new road construction within the watershed NRCS, Private
in general, and within 200 meters of the riparian Landowners,
GlC-CCCS- corridor in particular. Limit construction of new road RCD, Sonoma
23.1.1.8 Action Step Roads/Railroads crossings. 2 20 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GlC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
GlC-CCCS- construction and maintenance on salmonids and their NMFS, NRCS,
GlC-CCCS- building of private roads that minimizes the effects to
modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion range
25.1 Objective /Impoundment
GlC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
CDFW, NMFS,
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion Adequately screen water diversions to prevent NRCS, RCD,
25.1.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment entrainment of all steelhead life stages. 2 5 SWRCB TBD
CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion Water Agency,
25.1.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment Assess and map water diversions (CDFG 2004). 2 10 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Private
Landowners,
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion Sonoma County,
25.1.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment Minimize new or increased summer diversions. 2 20 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion summer base flow from riparian water diversion CDFW, NMFS,
25.1.1.4 Action Step /Impoundment activities. 2 5 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion Coordinate timing of water diversions to minimize the Landowners,
25.1.1.5 Action Step /Impoundment likelihood of fish stranding and stream dewatering. 2 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Develop strategies to reduce impacts of well NRCS, Private
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion pumping on summer and fall instream water Landowners,
25.1.1.6 Action Step /Impoundment temperatures and baseflows. 2 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Work with partners to ensure that current and future CDFW, NMFS,
water diversions (surface or groundwater) do not NRCS, Private
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion impair water quality conditions in summer or fall Landowners,
25.1.1.7 Action Step /Impoundment rearing reaches. 2 10 RCD, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Evaluate the feasibility and potential benefit of
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion consolidating diversions to a centralized location CDFW, NRCS,
25.1.1.8 Action Step /Impoundment lower in the watershed. 2 5 RCD TBD
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion Promote the use of reclaimed water for agricultural or Sonoma County
25.1.1.9 Action Step /Impoundment other uses. 2 5 Water Agency 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion water diversion (e.g., storage tanks for rural CDFW, NMFS,
25.1.1.10 Action Step /Impoundment residential users). 2 5 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NRCS, Private
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion Promote irrigation efficiency projects for agricultural Landowners,
25.1.1.11 Action Step /Impoundment uses in the watershed. 2 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
GlC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
Evaluate and monitor streambed alteration program
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion compliance related to all water diversions (CDFG
25.2.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment 2004). 2 10 CDFW, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion Improve compliance with existing water resource

25.2.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment regulations via monitoring and enforcement. 2 5 CDFW, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County,
Sonoma County
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion Support SWRCB in regulating the use of streamside Water Agency,
25.2.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment wells and groundwater. 2 5 Trout Unlimited 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County,
Sonoma County
Water Agency,
SWRCB, The
Nature
GlC-CCCS- Water Diversion Support the development and implementation of Conservancy,
25.2.1.4 Action Step /Impoundment groundwater use regulations. 2 10 Trout Unlimited 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Miller Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Interior) Recovery Actions
MlrC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
MlrC-CCCS- Recovery
NCRWQB,
NRCS, RCD, Cost based on installing a minimum of 3
MlrC-CCCS- Evaluate water quality below likely sources of Sonoma County continuous water quality monitoring stations at a
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality contamination. 2 5 Water Agency 15.00 15 rate of $5,000/station.
MlrC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

NRCS, Private Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
MlrC-CCCS- Landowners, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture Add large woody debris to reach optimal frequencies 2 5 RCD 13.00 13 $26,000/mile.
MlrC-CCCS- Avoid the removal of large wood and other shelter Private

MlrC-CCCS- projects as part of their ongoing operations in stream CDFW, NMFS,
MlrC-CCCS- in the stream, and encourage multi-age stands within Landowners,
MlrC-CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
MlrC-CCCS- Address agricultural activities that promote the NCRWQB,

SRCD, NRCS, Fish Friendly Farming program or Farm Bureau,
other cooperative conservation programs) to reduce NRCS, Private
MlrC-CCCS- sediment sources and improve riparian habitat within Landowners, Cost is TBD, since the total number and scope of
12.1.2.2 Action Step Agriculture the watershed. 2 20 RCD TBD the future plans is unknown at this time.
MlrC-CCCS- restore CCC steelhead habitat by working with the Farm Bureau,
MlrC-CCCS- effectiveness of erosion control measures throughout NRCS, RCD,
MlrC-CCCS- and prevent fine sediment input from entering the Landowners,
MlrC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian

riparian buffers adjacent to watercourses that have a Landowners,
MlrC-CCCS- potential to deliver sediment to spawning and rearing RCD, Sonoma
12.1.3.1 Action Step Agriculture habitat. 2 10 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NRCS, Private
Landowners,
MlrC-CCCS- Reduce the encroachment of agricultural activities in RCD, Sonoma

NRCS, Private
MlrC-CCCS- provide desirable stream canopy cover adjacent to RCD, Sonoma
Re-establish native plant communities in riparian NRCS, Private Estimated costs based on similar costs in
MlrC-CCCS- zones with a goal of increasing stream canopy to Landowners, geographic area - actual costs TBD as costs are
12.1.3.4 Action Step Agriculture 80% 2 10 RCD 41.50 41.50 82 site, setting and geographic specific.
MlrC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain


MlrC-CCCS- landowners and enhance practices that provide for
MlrC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

MlrC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian


MlrC-CCCS- currently occur, and enforce requirements of local
MlrC-CCCS- Enforce requirements of local regulations and CDFW, Sonoma


MlrC-CCCS- riparian removal, water use and toxic inputs known to NCRWQB,
12.2.1.3 Action Step Agriculture have adverse affects to steelhead stream habitats. 2 5 NMFS OLE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MlrC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
MlrC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

Corps, Private
Landowners,
MlrC-CCCS- Channel Evaluate whether proposed stabilization projects will RCD, Sonoma
Private
MlrC-CCCS- Channel increase flood-flow detention and promote flood- RCD, Sonoma
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification tolerant land uses. 3 10 County 25.00 25.00 50

integrate other habitat-forming features including CDFW, Corps,
large woody debris, riparian plantings, bank Private
MlrC-CCCS- Channel setbacks, or other methodologies to minimize habitat Landowners,
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification alteration effects. 2 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MlrC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

MlrC-CCCS- Channel and at minimum incorporate fish habitat complexity Landowners,

Corps, NMFS,
Private
Conduct rehabilitation activities that restore channels Landowners, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
MlrC-CCCS- Channel and floodplains to extend the duration of spring and RCD, Sonoma project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
13.1.2.2 Action Step Modification summer stream flows. 3 10 County 6.50 6.50 13 $26,000/mile.
Incorporate velocity refuge habitat features in all Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
MlrC-CCCS- Channel future and existing engineered and modified project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
13.1.2.4 Action Step Modification channels. 2 20 Corps, RCD 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 13 $26,000/mile.
MlrC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

CDFW, NMFS,
MlrC-CCCS- Channel debris to rehabilitate existing stream complexity, pool Landowners,
CDFW, Private
MlrC-CCCS- Channel Projects should seek alternatives to bank hardening Landowners,
Develop and implement stream maintenance plans
that minimize impacts to salmonid habitat complexity
MlrC-CCCS- Channel features (LWD, root wads, boulders) in modified and
13.1.3.3 Action Step Modification engineered channels. 2 10 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Identify areas within modified channels where habitat Private
MlrC-CCCS- Channel features can be installed that provided shelter and Landowners,
13.1.3.4 Action Step Modification velocity refuge for migrating steelhead. 2 5 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
MlrC-CCCS- Recovery Channel substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
CDFW, Five
Counties
Salmonid
Develop Bank Stabilization Guidelines for private and Conservation
MlrC-CCCS- Channel public entities targeting fine sediment reduction in Program, NMFS,
13.1.4.1 Action Step Modification efforts to improve instream gravel quality. 3 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MlrC-CCCS- Recovery Channel complexity (altered pool complexity and/or pool: riffle
Encourage retention and recruitment of large woody CDFW, Sonoma

MlrC-CCCS- Channel debris to rehabilitate existing stream complexity, pool County, NMFS,
Minimize any future channel modification in CDFW, Sonoma

MlrC-CCCS- Channel potentially high value seasonal habitat and migration County, NMFS,
13.1.5.2 Action Step Modification (staging) areas. 3 100 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MlrC-CCCS- constructed with the minimal amount of impairment to NRCS, Sonoma
CDFW, NRCS,
Private
MlrC-CCCS- actions that hydrologically disconnect roads and RCD, Sonoma Cost based on road inventory for 10 miles at a
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads reduce sediment sources 2 10 County 4.80 4.80 10 rate of $957/mile.

NCRWQB,
Private
MlrC-CCCS- Landowners,
NRCS, Private
Landowners,
MlrC-CCCS- Limit winter use of unsurfaced roads and recreational RCD, Sonoma
MlrC-CCCS- areas by designing new roads to allow streams to NRCS, RCD,
MlrC-CCCS- driveways), or those identified in a sediment NRCS, RCD,
23.1.1.6 Action Step Roads/Railroads reduction plan. 2 10 Sonoma County TBD
MlrC-CCCS- corridor in particular. Limit construction of new road RCD, Sonoma
MlrC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

MlrC-CCCS- construction and maintenance on salmonids and their NMFS, NRCS,
MlrC-CCCS- building of private roads that minimizes the effects to
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
MlrC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

CDFW, NMFS,
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Adequately screen water diversions to prevent NRCS, RCD,
25.1.1.1 Action Step Impoundment entrainment of all steelhead life stages. 2 5 SWRCB TBD
CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Water Agency,
Private
Landowners,
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Sonoma County,
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ summer base flow from riparian water diversion CDFW, NMFS,
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Coordinate timing of water diversions to minimize the Landowners,
25.1.1.5 Action Step Impoundment likelihood of fish stranding and stream dewatering. 2 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind

CDFW, NMFS,
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ pumping on summer and fall instream water Landowners,
25.1.1.6 Action Step Impoundment temperatures and baseflows. 2 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
water diversions (surface or groundwater) do not impair NRCS, Private
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ water quality conditions in summer or fall rearing Landowners,
25.1.1.7 Action Step Impoundment reaches. 2 10 RCD, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ consolidating diversions to a centralized location CDFW, NRCS,
25.1.1.8 Action Step Impoundment lower in the watershed. 2 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Promote the use of reclaimed water for agricultural or Sonoma County
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ water diversion (e.g., storage tanks for rural CDFW, NMFS, Cost based on amount and size of storage tanks
25.1.1.10 Action Step Impoundment residential users). 2 5 NRCS, RCD TBD needed. Cost estimated at $500/tank.
NRCS, Private
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Promote irrigation efficiency projects for agricultural Landowners,
25.1.1.11 Action Step Impoundment uses in the watershed. 2 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

MlrC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ compliance related to all water diversions (CDFG
25.2.1.1 Action Step Impoundment 2004). 2 10 CDFW 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Sonoma County
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Water Agency, Cost is variable upon landowner participation, but
25.2.1.2 Action Step Impoundment Implement forbearance program. 2 5 SWRCB TBD estimated at $7,716/landowner/year.
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Improve compliance with existing water resource

25.2.1.3 Action Step Impoundment regulations via monitoring and enforcement. 2 5 CDFW, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County,
Sonoma County
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Support SWRCB in regulating the use of streamside Water Agency,
25.2.1.4 Action Step Impoundment wells and groundwater. 2 5 Trout Unlimited 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County,
Sonoma County
Water Agency,
SWRCB, The
Nature
MlrC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Support the development and implementation of Conservancy,
25.2.1.5 Action Step Impoundment groundwater use regulations. 2 10 Trout Unlimited 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Sausal Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Interior) Recovery Actions
SaC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
SaC-CCCS- Recovery
NCRWQB, Cost based to establish a minimum of 3

NRCS, RCD, continuous water quality monitoring stations at a
SaC-CCCS- Evaluate water quality below likely sources of Sonoma County rate of $5,000/station. Cost does not account for
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality contamination. 2 5 Water Agency 15.00 15 data management or maintenance.
SaC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

Collaborate with landowners and Resource

Conservation District on survey of stream's pool
SaC-CCCS- frequency, pool shelter, stream substrate
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture embeddedness and riparian vegetation structure 2 5 CDFW, NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SaC-CCCS- Avoid the removal of large wood and other shelter Private

SaC-CCCS- projects as part of their ongoing operations in stream CDFW, NMFS,
SaC-CCCS- in the stream, and encourage multi-age stands within Landowners,
SaC-CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
SaC-CCCS- Address agricultural activities that promote the NCRWQB,

SaC-CCCS- and prevent fine sediment input from entering the Landowners,
SaC-CCCS- restore CCC steelhead habitat by working with the Farm Bureau,
SaC-CCCS- effectiveness of erosion control measures throughout NRCS, RCD,
SaC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian

NRCS, Private
Landowners,
SaC-CCCS- Reduce the encroachment of agricultural activities in RCD, Sonoma
NRCS, Private
SaC-CCCS- provide desirable stream canopy cover adjacent to RCD, Sonoma
Maintain intact and properly functioning riparian NRCS, Private
SaC-CCCS- buffers to filter and prevent fine sediment input from Landowners,
12.1.3.3 Action Step Agriculture entering streams. 2 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Re-establish native plant communities in riparian NRCS, Private Cost based on treating 0.2 miles (assume 1
SaC-CCCS- zones with a goal of increasing stream canopy to Landowners, project/mile in 5% high IP with 20 acres/mile) at a
12.1.3.4 Action Step Agriculture 80% 2 10 RCD 42.00 42.00 83 rate of $20,719/acre.
SaC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain


SaC-CCCS- landowners and enhance practices that provide for
SaC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

SaC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian

SaC-CCCS- currently occur, and enforce requirements of local
SaC-CCCS- Enforce requirements of local regulations and CDFW, Sonoma


SaC-CCCS- riparian removal, water use and toxic inputs known to NCRWQB,
12.2.1.3 Action Step Agriculture have adverse affects to steelhead stream habitats. 2 5 NMFS OLE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SaC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
SaC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

Corps, Private
Landowners,
SaC-CCCS- Channel Evaluate whether proposed stabilization projects will RCD, Sonoma

integrate other habitat-forming features including
large woody debris, riparian plantings, bank CDFW, Corps,
setbacks, or other methodologies to minimize habitat Private
SaC-CCCS- Channel alteration effects. Landowners,
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification 2 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SaC-CCCS- Recovery Channel complexity (altered pool complexity and/or pool: riffle
Collaborate with landowners and Resource

Conservation District in survey of stream's pool
SaC-CCCS- Channel frequency, pool shelter, substrate embeddedness,
13.1.2.1 Action Step Modification and riparian vegetation composition and structure 2 5 CDFW, NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SaC-CCCS- Channel debris to rehabilitate existing stream complexity, pool NRCS, RCD,
Minimize any future channel modification in
SaC-CCCS- Channel potentially high value seasonal habitat and migration CDFW, Corps,
13.1.2.3 Action Step Modification (staging) areas. 2 20 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SaC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity


CDFW, NMFS,
SaC-CCCS- Channel debris to rehabilitate existing stream complexity, pool Landowners,
CDFW, Corps,
Stream modification projects should seek Private
SaC-CCCS- Channel alternatives to bank hardening and promote Landowners,
13.1.3.2 Action Step Modification bioengineering solutions where feasible. 2 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Develop and implement stream maintenance plans
that minimize impacts to salmonid habitat complexity
SaC-CCCS- Channel features (LWD, root wads, boulders) in modified and
13.1.3.3 Action Step Modification engineered channels. 2 5 Sonoma County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Identify areas within modified channels where habitat Private
SaC-CCCS- Channel features can be installed that provide shelter and Landowners,
13.1.3.4 Action Step Modification velocity refuge for migrating steelhead. 2 5 RCD TBD
SaC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

SaC-CCCS- Channel and at minimum incorporate fish habitat complexity Landowners,
Incorporate velocity refuge habitat features in all

SaC-CCCS- Channel future and existing engineered and modified Cost based to treat 0.20 mile (assume 1
13.1.4.2 Action Step Modification channels. 2 20 Corps, RCD 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 214 project/mile) at a rate of $1,070,400/mile.
SaC-CCCS- Recovery complexity (altered pool complexity and/or pool: riffle
Identify areas where livestock have access to CDFW,
SaC-CCCS- riparian vegetation, develop plan to fence livestock NCRWQB, Cost based to treat 0.2 miles (assume 1
18.1.1.1 Action Step Livestock from areas 2 5 NRCS, RCD 3.90 4 project/mile in 5% high IP) at a rate of $3.63/ft.
Cost based on number of stream crossings to
SaC-CCCS- Where necessary, establish predetermined stream NCRWQB, establish. Cost should be minimal if included in
18.1.1.2 Action Step Livestock crossings when herding cattle between pastures. 2 10 NRCS, RCD TBD above action step.
Cost based on treating 0.2 mile (assume 1

project/mile in 5% high IP; assumes 20 acres per
mile) at a rate of $20,719/acre for riparian planting
and $26,000/mile for stream complexity. Costs
Develop and fund riparian restoration and bank only for bank stabilization component. Costs for
SaC-CCCS- stabilization projects to regain riparian corridors CDFW, NOAA riparian planting covered under other recovery
18.1.2.1 Action Step Livestock damaged from livestock and other causes. 2 5 RC, NRCS, RCD 104.00 104 actions - See Riparian.
SaC-CCCS- CDFW, NRCS,

18.1.2.2 Action Step Livestock Fence livestock out of riparian zones. 2 5 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Cost based on number of instream livestock
SaC-CCCS- watering sources to relocate. Cost estimate for
18.1.2.3 Action Step Livestock Relocate instream livestock watering sources 2 5 NRCS, RCD TBD off-channel water source is $5,000/site.

SaC-CCCS- constructed with the minimal amount of impairment to NRCS, Sonoma
CDFW, NRCS,
Private
SaC-CCCS- actions that hydrologically disconnect roads and RCD, Sonoma Cost based on road inventory of 20 miles of road
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads reduce sediment sources 2 10 County 10.00 10.00 20 at a rate of $957/mile.
NCRWQB,
Private
SaC-CCCS- Landowners,
NRCS, Private
Landowners,
SaC-CCCS- Limit winter use of unsurfaced roads and recreational RCD, Sonoma
SaC-CCCS- areas by designing new roads to allow streams to NRCS, RCD,
CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
Replace problematic culverts and low flow crossings Private
SaC-CCCS- in Class 1 streams with bridges or appropriate cost Landowners, Cost based to treat 1 stream crossing at a rate of
23.1.1.6 Action Step Roads/Railroads effective designs. 2 10 RCD 115.50 115.50 231 $230,411/project.
SaC-CCCS- driveways), or those identified in a sediment NRCS, RCD, Cost based to upgrade 5 miles of road at a rate of
23.1.1.7 Action Step Roads/Railroads reduction plan. 2 10 Sonoma County 52.50 52.50 105 $21,000/mile.
SaC-CCCS- corridor in particular. Limit construction of new road RCD, Sonoma
SaC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

SaC-CCCS- construction and maintenance on salmonids and their NMFS, NRCS,
SaC-CCCS- building of private roads that minimizes the effects to
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
SaC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

CDFW, NMFS,
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Adequately screen water diversions to prevent NRCS, RCD,
25.1.1.1 Action Step Impoundment entrainment of all steelhead life stages. 2 5 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Water Agency,
Private
Landowners,
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Sonoma County,
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ summer base flow from riparian water diversion CDFW, NMFS,
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Coordinate timing of water diversions to minimize the Landowners,
25.1.1.5 Action Step Impoundment likelihood of fish stranding and stream dewatering. 2 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ pumping on summer and fall instream water Landowners,
25.1.1.6 Action Step Impoundment temperatures and baseflows. 2 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
water diversions (surface or groundwater) do not NRCS, Private
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ impair water quality conditions in summer or fall Landowners,
25.1.1.7 Action Step Impoundment rearing reaches. 2 10 RCD, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Cost based on landowner participation and
Establish a forbearance program, using water CDFW, NMFS, amount of water storage needed. Cost estimate
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ storage tanks to decrease diversion during periods of NRCS, RCD, for forbearance program estimated at
25.1.1.8 Action Step Impoundment low flow 2 5 SWRCB TBD $7,716/landowner.
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ consolidating diversions to a centralized location CDFW, NRCS,
25.1.1.9 Action Step Impoundment lower in the watershed. 2 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Promote the use of reclaimed water for agricultural or Sonoma County
water diversion (e.g., storage tanks for rural
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ residential users). CDFW, NMFS,
25.1.1.11 Action Step Impoundment 2 5 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NRCS, Private
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Promote irrigation efficiency projects for agricultural Landowners,
25.1.1.12 Action Step Impoundment uses in the watershed. 2 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

SaC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ compliance related to all water diversions (CDFG
25.2.1.1 Action Step Impoundment 2004). 2 10 CDFW 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Improve compliance with existing water resource

SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ regulations via monitoring and enforcement.
25.2.1.2 Action Step Impoundment 2 5 CDFW, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County,
Sonoma County
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Support SWRCB in regulating the use of streamside Water Agency,
25.2.1.3 Action Step Impoundment wells and groundwater. 2 5 Trout Unlimited 0 Action is considered In-Kind

CDFW, NMFS,
Sonoma County,
Sonoma County
Water Agency,
SWRCB, The
Nature
SaC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Support the development and implementation of Conservancy,
25.2.1.4 Action Step Impoundment groundwater use regulations. 2 10 Trout Unlimited 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum
This stratum includes populations of steelhead that spawn in tributaries to San Francisco (SF)
Bay, but otherwise exhibit environmental characteristics more similar to coastal watersheds.
These watersheds drain the eastern slopes of the coastal mountains that separate San Francisco
Bay from the Pacific Ocean.
Assessment of the Supporting populations:
Corte Madera Creek
Guadalupe River
Novato Creek
Stevens Creek
Coastal S.F. Bay Rapid Assessment
o Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio
o Miller Creek (Marin Co.)
o San Mateo Creek
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Coastal San Francisco Bay 520
CCC steelhead Coastal S.F. Bay Diversity Stratum, Populations, Historical Status, Populations

Coastal S.F. Arroyo Corte Madera del D Supporting 6.8 6-12 39-80
Bay Presidio
Corte Madera Creek I Essential 19.8 39.5 800
Guadalupe River I Essential 50.8 35.2 1,800
Miller Creek (Marin Co.) D Supporting 9.1 6-12 53-107
Novato Creek I Essential 28.7 38.2 1,100
San Francisquito Creek I Essential 35.6 37.3 1,300
San Mateo Creek I Supporting 6.7 6-12 38-78
Stevens Creek I Essential 22.7 39.1 900
Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum Recovery Target 5,900
CCC steelhead Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum
Corte Madera Creek Population

Diversity Stratum: Coastal San Francisco Bay
Spawner Density Target: 800 adults

We are not aware of any systematic adult or juvenile fish surveys conducted within the Corte
Madera Creek watershed, so accurately estimating current or past adult or juvenile fish
abundance is difficult. Although estimates of steelhead abundance are not available, we did find
several references of steelhead observations from Corte Madera Creek and its tributaries are
available. Leidy et al. (2005) reports observations of steelhead in Corte Madera Creek from several
sources and concluded that the Corte Madera Creek watershed historically supported steelhead
runs and continues to support O. mykiss populations in its main stem and in various tributaries.
Overall, steelhead are distributed in Corte Madera Creek and some of its remaining tributaries in
low densities (Rich 2000). Data were insufficient to determine whether or not density of steelhead
has increased or decreased over time in the Corte Madera Creek watershed. Leidy et al. (2005)
reference a report by Ross Taylor and Associates stating that the Flood Control channel in lower
Corte Madera Creek blocks passage into the watershed, however steelhead are known to enter
the upper watershed under some flow conditions (L Williams, Marin County Public Works,
personal communication, 2014). Ross Taylor and Associates (2006) and Michael Love and
Associates and Jeff Anderson and Associates (2007) report many other significant barriers to
anadromy throughout the watershed.
History of Land Use

The County of Marin has reporting on the human settlement history of the Corte Madera Creek
watershed and states that the Coast Miwok were the earliest residents of the watershed and
utilized the entire watershed 1 . In the early 1800s, Mexican ranchos were established in the
watershed. During that same period timber harvest and cattle ranching were two common land-
uses in the watershed. In the late 1800s, agricultural activities, such as the development of
orchards, vineyards, poultry farms, and dairies, within the watershed became more diverse. By
1925 the last big farm in the watershed was sold to developers. Development in the watershed
increased substantially when the North Pacific Railroad Coast Railroad built two rail lines in the
1 http://www.marinwatersheds.org/ross_valley.html
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Corte Madera 523

Corte Madera Creek watershed. Construction of the Golden Gate Bridge in 1937 coincided with
a surge in human population within the watershed. There is much infrastructure in the
watershed to support residential development. Stream channels throughout the watershed have
been highly channelized to control flooding. In 1971, the Army Corps of Engineers completed
construction of three units of the Corte Madera Creek Flood Control Project. The remaining three
units of the Corps flood project have yet to be constructed. Highway 101 crosses the lower
watershed and there is a high density of roads, bridges, and water delivery and drainage systems
in the area developed for urban uses. Some stream reaches have been leveed, and rerouted. The
Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District operates the Golden Gate Ferry service
in Larkspur.

The area of the Corte Madera Creek watershed developed for residential or commercial uses fills
much of the valley floor. Much of the slopes and ridgetops of the watershed are owned or
managed by the Marin County Open Space District or Marin Municipal Water District. The
largest city in the watershed is Larkspur, and largest towns are Corte Madera, San Anselmo,
Fairfax, and Ross; other communities in the watershed include, Kentfield, Kent, Sleepy Hollow,
and Greenbrae; there is residential development outside those cities in the watershed, e.g., Kent
Woodlands. The US Census Bureau reported that human population increased about 5 percent
in the cities within the Corte Madera Creek watershed between 2000 and 2010 (from 49,491 to
52,240 people). We found no projections for human population for cities within the Corte Madera
Creek watershed. The County of Marin Countywide Plan 2 projects continued growth of the
human population within the Upper Ross Valley and Lower Ross Valley areas, the areas
containing the Corte Madera Creek watershed, with a theoretical buildout of 62,934 people, about
a 15 percent increase over the 2000 human population of the planning area of 54,506. About two-
thirds of the Corte Madera Creek watershed is in private ownership, with most of the remaining
property owned/managed as parks, open space, or watershed protection 3 (Table 1).
Several agencies or special districts operate within the Corte Madera Creek watershed that may
have an effect on aquatic habitat within the watershed. The Marin Municipal Water District
(MMWD) is the source of treated water for residents within the Corte Madera Creek watershed.
In 2011, the Marin County Public Works conducted a Ross Valley Watershed Programs Capitol
Improvement Study (Marin County Public Works 2011). This study identified four critical
reaches in which to maximize channel capacity (Fairfax Creek, Sleepy Hollow Creek, San
Anselmo Creek, and Corte Madera Creek and its tributary Ross Creek) (Marin County Public
2 http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/fm/cwpdocs/CWP_CD2.pdf
3 NMFS GIS data Corte Madera Creek Watershed Characterization.

Works 2011). The Ross Valley Sanitary District provides sewage collection, wastewater
treatment, and some recycling programs to homes within the Corte Madera Creek watershed.
The Marin Sanitary Service provides solid waste and yard waste handling to homes within the
Corte Madera Creek watershed. The Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority
provide household hazardous waste collection, recycling and disposal information for residents
and businesses, and ensure the County's compliance with recycling mandates. The Marin
Resource Conservation District provides technical assistance to private landowners on soil
erosion and resource conservation matters. The County of Marin Open Space District manages
select County-owned lands to preserve, protect, and enrich the natural aspect of those properties.
Also, some open space parcels provide recreational opportunities.

The following key attributes were rated Poor through the CAP process for steelhead in Corte
Madera Creek: Estuary/Lagoon, Habitat Complexity, Hydrology, Landscape Patterns,
Passage/Migration, Riparian Vegetation, Sediment, Sediment Transport, Velocity Refuge,
Viability, and Water Quality.
Current Conditions
our CAP viability analysis. The Corte Madera Creek CAP Viability Table results are provided

Systematic data related to riparian tree diameter and correlation to adult steelhead habitat within
the Corte Madera Creek watershed are not available. However, poor riparian conditions are
common throughout much of the urbanized portions of the Corte Madera Creek watershed, and
have likely resulted in elevated summer water temperature, high substrate embeddedness levels,
prevalent streambank erosion, and limited recruitment of large woody debris for rearing
salmonids. Tree diameter was used as an indicator of riparian function based on the average
diameter at breast height of a stand of trees within a buffer that extends 100 meters back from the
edge of the active channel. Within the Corte Madera Creek watershed there are few places in
which native riparian tree vegetation extends 100 meters back from the edge of the active channel
without interruption. In the headwater areas of the watershed, the condition of the riparian
vegetation is likely related to anthropogenic factors (e.g., Phoenix Dam, or historic logging and
grazing) and natural conditions based on local geology, and hydrologic conditions. Within the

urbanized portion of the watershed, this is certainly attributable to anthropogenic factors, as there
is much encroachment of the riparian areas of Corte Madera Creek and its tributaries. Riparian
Conditions have an overall rating of Poor due to continued flood-control practices and urban
development practices in the lower watershed. Threats contributing significantly to this condition
include: Channel Modification; Residential and Commercial Development; and Roads and
Railroads.

The Corte Madera Creek watershed has a high density of roads. There are 9.0 miles of roads per
square mile of Corte Madera Creek watershed and 8.8 miles of roads per square mile of riparian
buffer (NMFS GIS). Road networks within the Corte Madera Creek watershed are largely paved
systems associated with urban development, and represent a significant source of the total
impervious surface within the basin. There are also several rural and fire service roads in the
watershed on the ridgetops and other areas outside of the urbanized portions of the watershed.
Roadways amplify storm flow intensity and duration during winter, and deliver road-born
pollution (e.g., oils, urban runoff, etc.) and eroded sediments directly to the aquatic system.
Threats contributing significantly to this stress include: Channel Modification; Residential and
Commercial Development; and Roads and Railroads.

The tidal reaches of the system are heavily impacted and have been modified for flood
management (Marin County Public Works 2015). In the 1960s, the Army Corps of Engineers
designed and constructed an earthen trapezoidal channel on the lower 4.5 miles of creek through
the towns of Corte Madera, Larkspur, Kentfield, and Ross. Lower Corte Madera Creek has been
widened and straightened. These lower reaches are sediment aggradation and storage zones for
upland and tidally-derived sediment. Between 1967 and 1971, the Corps channelized a two-mile
portion of Corte Madera Creek from Kentfield near the mouth to the confluence of San Anselmo
and Sleepy Hollow Creeks (Leidy et al. 2005). This concrete channel disconnected much of the
seasonal or tidal wetlands from the stream. There are some tidal wetlands in the lowermost
reaches, however restoration opportunities are limited by adjacent development. The estuarine
riparian vegetation community has been greatly modified and likely reduced as well and this
may affect the water temperature regime and the amount of allochthonous food items available
to steelhead. The majority of the area has been converted for urban or commercial uses, as much
of Larkspur and Corte Madera were built on historic wetlands. Urban and commercial land-uses
may lead to inputs of pollutants that may reach Corte Madera Creek as stormwater. All of these
factors reduce the quality of aquatic and riparian habitat, and reduce opportunities for rearing of
juvenile steelhead. Estuary: Quality and Extent conditions have an overall Poor rating due to
continued flood-control practices and historical urban development practices (adjacent to the

land side of levees) in the lower watershed. Threats contributing significantly to this condition
include: Channel Modification; Residential and Commercial Development; and Roads and
Railroads.

Periodic inundation of floodplains by streams provides several ecological functions beneficial to
salmonids, including: coarse sediment sorting, fine sediment storage, groundwater recharge,
velocity refuge, formation and maintenance of off-channel habitats, and enhanced forage
production. Floodplain connectivity is associated with more diverse and productive food webs.
Specific data related to floodplain connectivity are not available. However, based on the amount
of urbanization with encroachment into riparian areas, channel modification, bank stabilization,
and wetland reclamation found throughout the watershed (visible on satellite photographs
available on web sites), floodplain connectivity is poor in the watershed and impaired. Threats
contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification; Residential and

The Corte Madera Creek watershed has many factors that increase the intensity of storm runoff
or confine the channel, including high levels of impervious surfaces, culverted tributaries,
disconnected floodplains, channel simplification and hardening, and channelization. Both
increased storm run-off and confined channels lead to increased velocity of streamflow and
streambed scour. Periods of high streamflow coincide with steelhead spawning periods and
increased streambed scour reduces the potential spawning success of steelhead. Threats

Specific data related to water flow are not available for the Corte Madera Creek watershed.
Phoenix Dam is present on Ross Creek and affects streamflow, sediment transport, and fish
migration. Other smaller dams are present within the Corte Madera Creek watershed and there
is likely some withdrawal of water from these dams or by other riparian users, albeit at a small
or moderate amount. The urbanized areas in this watershed have experienced stream
channelization and increases in the amount of impervious surfaces. Stream channelization
generally cuts off the floodplain access for the stream and leads to accelerated water discharge,
which may lead to further bank instability and channel incision. Impervious surfaces reduce
rainwater infiltration and natural groundwater recharge, leading to higher peak flows and a
quicker return to baseflows, i.e., a flashier hydrologic regime. Several tributaries to Corte Madera
Creek have been placed in culverts that concentrate flows leading to a furthering of the flashier

hydrologic regime. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel
Modification; Residential and Commercial Development; and Roads and Railroads.

Numerous passage and migration impairments exist within the Corte Madera Creek watershed.
Dams, flood control structures, the damaged fish ladder in the Town of Ross, culverts, road
crossings, and utilities crossings throughout the watershed are either partial or complete barriers
to steelhead migration. All of these barriers impair hydrology and constrain migration of both
adult and juvenile steelhead throughout the remaining accessible habitat. Ross Taylor and
Associates (2003) reports that the long flood-control channel (Corps Unit IV) in lower Corte
Madera Creek impairs passage to all steelhead spawning areas in the watershed. This concrete
channel has little or no high flow refugia or other resting areas, with the exception of some
constructed pockets in the channel bottom. Fish must traverse the entire two mile section of
concrete channel essentially without stopping. Immediately above the flood control channel is a
damaged fish ladder. Funding is currently unavailable to remedy the fish ladder and complete
other essential activities proposed in the Corps flood protection program 4. As mentioned earlier
some of the tributaries to Corte Madera Creek have been culverted. Although the hydrologic
connection between the Corte Madera Creek and its culverted tributaries persist, these structures
are impassable by steelhead. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel
Modification; Residential and Commercial Development; and Roads and Railroads.

Primary factors affecting hydrology in the Corte Madera Creek watershed include the presence
and operation of Phoenix Dam, placement of tributary streams into culverts, floodplain
development, channelization, and the high amount of impervious surfaces. The naturally xeric
hydrologic conditions exacerbate the hydrologic conditions. These factors lead to increased
channel instability and the reduction of quality of spawning gravel. Further, these factors
combined with riparian encroachment by development cut off the floodplain access for the
stream and lead to accelerated water discharge, which may lead to further bank instability and
channel incision. Impervious surfaces reduce rainwater infiltration and natural groundwater
recharge, leading to higher peak flows and a quicker return to baseflows, i.e., a flashier hydrologic
regime. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification;
Residential and Commercial Development; and Roads and Railroads.
Habitat Complexity: Percent Primary Pools and Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratios
4
The Corps watershed flood protection program has been largely cancelled, and only the damaged fish ladder is still
to be completed (L Williams, Marin County Public Works, personal communication, 2014).

Specific data related to altered pool complexity and/or pool/riffle ratios in the Corte Madera
Creek watershed are not available. However, the abundance and quality of primary pools and
the ratio of pool/riffle/flatwater habitats is likely substandard given the generally degraded
condition of Corte Madera Creek, particularly in the urbanized areas, the paucity of large woody
debris, the amount of bank and channel stabilization, and the influence of tidal action in the lower
portion of the watershed. Reductions in pool depth often lead to increased water temperature.
The amount and diversity of cover elements in pools and an appropriate ratio of
pool/riffle/flatwater habitats is important to all lifestages of steelhead. Threats contributing
significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification; Residential and Commercial
Development; and Roads and Railroads.
Habitat Complexity: Large Wood and Shelter

Specific data related to large woody debris or shelter rating for the Corte Madera Creek watershed
are not available. However, the abundance of large woody debris within the watershed is likely
low because of the removal of large woody debris for flood control, and the poor riparian
conditions, associated with encroachment by suburban development and channel hardening, that
limit recruitment of large woody debris to the stream. Threats contributing significantly to this
condition include: Channel Modification; Residential and Commercial Development; and Roads
and Railroads.

Specific data related to gravel quality and quantity are not available. The sediment yield of the
uplands in the Corte Madera Creek watershed is high and is attributable to logging and grazing
from the 19th century (Stetson 2000). More than 90 percent of the sediment yield measured in
Corte Madera Creek at Ross comes from uplands. Also, channel incision is common in the
watershed, though the rates of channel incision appear to be lessening. Channel incision often
leads to streambank instability as the stream attempts to come to equilibrium. Unstable banks
lead to more inputs of fine sediment to the stream. These inputs of fine sediment occur during
periods of high precipitation a period that coincides with steelhead spawning times. Excessive
fine sediment and unstable substrates reduce the reproductive success of steelhead. Also, those
conditions impair gravel quality resulting in reduced feeding opportunities by virtue of changes
in available invertebrates. To counter unstable banks, about half of the banks in the watershed
have been hardened with rock, concrete or other materials such as tires. Streambank hardening
may lead to additional channel incision and may constrain the potential for stream restoration.
Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification; Residential
and Commercial Development; and Roads and Railroads.

Major landscape disturbance within the Corte Madera Creek watershed is primarily associated
with urban development. Historically the entire watershed has been affected by agricultural
practices, such as grazing, and logging, though these practices are not undertaken within the
watershed currently. The urbanized portions of the watershed are expressed on much of the
valley floor, particularly in the Ross Valley and lower watershed. The Marin Countywide Plan
identifies anticipated urban growth in this portion of the watershed. Adverse factors within the
Corte Madera Creek watershed associated with urbanization include: high density of dwellings,
high amount of miles of roads per square mile of watershed, high amount of impervious surfaces,
encroachment of riparian areas, stream channelization, bank stabilization, flood control activities,
and filling and piping of historic Corte Madera Creek tributaries. Threats contributing
significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification; Residential and Commercial
Viability: Density, Abundance, and Spatial Structure

Given the current assumed abundance and spatial distribution of steelhead within the Corte
Madera Creek watershed, this steelhead population is likely not viable. Leidy et al. (2005) report
that multiple year classes of O. mykiss are encountered regularly within the Corte Madera Creek
watershed; however, the number of fish encountered is low in most, though not all, streams.
Spatial distribution of steelhead within the Corte Madera Creek watershed is fragmented, as well.
Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification; Residential
and Commercial Development; and Roads and Railroads.

Systematic data related to stream water temperature within the Corte Madera Creek watershed
are few. The Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed, in cooperation with Marin Municipal
Water District and four local property owners, completed the one-year of water temperature
monitoring at Phoenix Lake and Ross Creek. In 2008, surface water temperature in Phoenix Lake
exceeded preferred water temperature for summer rearing of steelhead (Friends of the Corte
Madera Creek Watershed (2008)). In most Ross Creek locations during the spring of 2008, surface
water temperature was consistently within the appropriate range for steelhead; however, surface
flow of those portions of Ross Creek dried by mid-May. At the first monitoring location
downstream of Phoenix Dam it appeared that surface discharges from Phoenix Reservoir
significantly warm the surface flow of Ross Creek. Rich (2000) reports that limiting factors for
trout production within the watershed are lack of streamflows and high water temperatures.
Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Residential and Commercial

Systematic data related to stream turbidity or toxicity within the Corte Madera Creek watershed
are not available. However, several factors affecting turbidity or toxicity are present within the
watershed: incising channel bed, unstable streambanks, reductions of riparian vegetation, and
high amounts of residential and commercial lands with corresponding high amounts of
impervious surfaces. Corte Madera Creek is included on the US Environmental Protection
Agencys list of impaired streams in the San Francisco area 5 , though it is not clear whether
inclusion of Corte Madera Creek on the impaired streams list was based on water quality data
collected from Corte Madera Creek. The reported sources of the impaired water quality in this
watershed are urban runoff and storm sewers. Further, the US Environmental Protection
Agencys Better Assessment Science Integrating Point & Non-point Sources database lists 36
hazardous and solid waste or industrial discharges sites within the Corte Madera Creek
watershed. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification;
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that were rated as High or Very High (See Corte
Madera CAP Results). Recovery strategies will likely focus on ameliorating threats rated as High;
recovery efforts.
Much of the Corte Madera Creek watershed has experienced channel modifications, including
straightening, streambank hardening, channel realignment, filling and piping, and leveeing. The
most significant channel modification in this watershed is the Corps flood control channel (Unit
IV), completed in 1971, which begins in Ross and continues 4.5 miles to San Pablo Bay. These
modifications, combined with other landscape altering practices, have destroyed estuarine
habitat, disconnected streams from their floodplains, and constrained natural fluvial and
geomorphic processes that create and maintain instream and riparian habitat that support viable
steelhead populations.

Residential and commercial development is present and exerting adverse impacts on steelhead
and aquatic habitat in the Corte Madera Creek watershed. There are several neighboring
communities within the watershed: Fairfax, Sleepy Hollow, San Anselmo, Ross, Kentfield,
Greenbrae, Larkspur, and Corte Madera. The density of people within those communities ranged
5
http://oaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_waterbody.control?p_list_id=CAR206.200CORTE%20MADERA%20CR&p_cycle=2002&p
_report_type=

from 798 people per square mile in Sleepy Hollow to 4,608 people per square mile in San
Anselmo 6 . The County of Marin Countywide Plan anticipates moderate human population
growth in this watershed in the future. During the 2010 census, the average density of housing
units per square mile in communities within the watershed ranged from 290 in Sleepy Hollow to
2,069 in San Anselmo. Housing density is high (greater than 2 units per acre) throughout much
of the watershed, particularly in the Ross Valley. The urbanized portions of the watershed are
expressed on much of the valley floor, particularly in the Ross Valley and lower watershed.
Intensive and widespread urban development has increased the impervious surface area, greatly
impacting hydrology as well as the pollutant level within the aquatic environment, and impaired
instream conditions.
Roads and Railroads

Roads are a significant threat for all lifestages of steelhead in the Corte Madera Creek watershed.
Road networks within the Corte Madera Creek watershed are largely paved systems associated
with urban development, and represent a significant source of the total impervious surface within
the basin. The Corte Madera Creek watershed has a high density of roadways: 9.0 miles of roads
per square mile of watershed area. Further, the Corte Madera Creek watershed has a high
concentration of roads within riparian zones (8.8 miles of roads per square mile of 100 meter
riparian buffer) (NMFS GIS). The thresholds for well-functioning watersheds (rating of good or
very good) is less than 2.4 miles of roads per square mile of watershed area and less than 0.4 mile
of roads per square mile of 100 meter riparian buffer. Roadways in the Corte Madera Creek
watershed amplify storm flow intensity and duration during precipitation events, deliver road-
born pollution (e.g., oils, urban runoff, fine sediment, etc.) directly to the aquatic system, and
necessitate culverts and other structures that obstruct steelhead migration.

The most significant diversion and impoundment within the watershed is Phoenix Dam and
reservoir. Additionally, there are smaller weirs and dams in the watershed. These dams and
weirs affect all lifestages of steelhead and instream habitat by blocking passage, limiting
migration periods, and altering hydrology and sediment transport rates.
In addition, there are a number of private wells in Ross Valley which may contribute to
intermittent flows in formerly perennial streams (e.g., lower Ross Creek) (L Williams, Marin
County Public Works, personal communication, 2014). These effects are worse under drought
conditions, when residents may draw on well water for irrigation (L Williams, Marin County
Public Works, personal communication, 2014).
6 http://factfinder2.census.gov/

Threat and stress analyses within the CAP workbook suggest that all lifestages are limited by
impaired conditions within the Corte Madera Creek watershed. Primary factors contributing to
habitat limitations and limited steelhead abundance are extensive watershed development for
urban land-uses, including channel modification and roads. These land-uses have contributed to
loss of floodplain connectivity, impaired watershed hydrology, and reduced and simplified
instream habitat complexity. Many partial barriers to steelhead movement are found throughout
the Corte Madera Creek watershed, too. Also, because of residential and commercial
development, the amount of riparian vegetation and large woody debris are greatly reduced.
These stresses identified in this paragraph affect all lifestages of steelhead.

threats discussed in the previous paragraph. Recovery actions should target addressing habitat
constraints within stream reaches with high potential to benefit steelhead recovery, and should
consider mechanisms to increase hydraulic and floodplain connectivity, increase and improve
riparian vegetation and large woody debris retention and recruitment, and to improve passage
within the watershed. Other strategies that address other stresses or threats to steelhead or its
habitat may also be developed where their implementation is critical to restoring properly
functioning habitat conditions within the watershed.
Passage
Passage barriers downstream of Phoenix Dam should be systematically and opportunistically
remediated.
Reservoir Reoperation to Benefit All Lifestages of Steelhead

Phoenix Lake should be operated in such a manner as to benefit all lifestages of steelhead.
Considerations should include, but not be limited to: water temperature, flow velocity, ramping
rates (as necessary to prevent egg scour, or displacement or stranding of juveniles), sediment
transport, channel maintenance, instream habitat, adult and smolt migratory cues, and, to the
greatest degree possible, providing a natural (unimpaired) hydrograph.
Minimize Diversions and Diversion Effects Downstream of the Reservoir

The effects of diversion operations downstream of Phoenix Dam should be evaluated. If these
operations are found to be detrimental to steelhead or their habitat, they should be either curtailed
or re-operated to benefit all steelhead lifestages.

Side Channel and Floodplain Reconnection
Where not limited by existing development, efforts should be made to reconnect floodplain
habitat and increase channel complexity by reconnecting side channel habitat with the active
stream channel. When possible, existing development should be retrofitted to restore
connectivity between streams and adjacent floodplain and flood bench habitat, and to allow for
natural channel functions.
Improve Sediment Transport

Restoration efforts should focus on providing channel maintenance/forming flows necessary to
mobilize bedload material throughout the watershed, provide suitable gravel material from
upstream sources, and remove/remediate structures and areas of the stream that impair sediment
transport processes.
Increase Instream Habitat and Cover, and Increase Instream Channel Complexity
Instream habitat and cover should be improved. Methods may include placing large woody
debris, rock weirs, and boulders within affected reaches. All structures should be designed to
function within the known range of flows at any given project site in order to provide for the
needs of all steelhead lifestages.

Due largely to an absence of LWD and limited channel complexity, shelter and cover ratings are
Low within much of the watershed. Where applicable, restoration efforts should incorporate
instream wood/boulder structures into degraded reaches to improve habitat complexity and
shelter availability.

Efforts should be made to improve water quality. In particular, efforts should focus on limiting
or treating urban runoff and limiting input of debris and toxic substances.

Literature Cited
Becker, G.S., I.J. Reining, D.A. Asbury, A. Gunther. 2007. San Francisco Estuary Watersheds
Evaluation Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Tributaries of
the San Francisco Estuary. Prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy Grant
Agreement Number 04-094 and the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation Grant
Agreement Number 2004-0194. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration,
Oakland, California. 93 pages. [Available at:
http://www.cemar.org/SFEWE/Full%20report.pdf]
Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed. 2008. Annual report for the Wildlife and Fisheries
Grant FY 2007-2008. [Available at:
http://www.friendsofcortemaderacreek.org/proj/RossCreekPhoenixLake2008.pdf]
Leidy, R.A. 2007. Historical References for Native Stream Fishes for the period 1854-1981, San
Francisco Estuary, California. Appendix II of Leidy, R.A. 2007 (following). 94 pages.
[Available at: http://legacy.sfei.org/leidy_No530/No530_Leidy_Appendix2_all.pdf]
Leidy, R.A. 2007. Ecology, Assemblage Structure, Distribution and Status of Fishes in Streams
Tributary to the San Francisco Estuary. Contribution No. 530. San Francisco Estuary
Institute, Oakland, California. 298 pages, including appendixes. [Available at:
http://legacy.sfei.org/leidy_No530/No530_Leidy_FullReport.pdf]
Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of
steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary,
California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, California. 246
pages. [Available at: http://www.cemar.org/pdf/wholedoc2.pdf]
Marin County Public Works. 2015. Watershed description for Ross Valley. Downloaded
January 9, 2015 from http://www.marinwatersheds.org/ross_valley.html
Michael Love and Associates and Jeff Anderson and Associates. 2007. Corte Madera Creek
Flood Control Channel Fish Passage Assessment and Alternatives Analysis. Prepared
for Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed, Marin County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. [Available at:
http://www.friendsofcortemaderacreek.org/rep/Unit3FinalReport.pdf]

Rich, A.A. 2000. Fishery Resources Conditions of the Corte Madera Creek Watershed, Marin
County, California. Prepared for the Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed.
[Available at: http://www.friendsofcortemaderacreek.org/ws/FisheriesES.pdf]
Ross Taylor and Associates. Undated. Catalog of stream crossings with culverts and other
manmade impediments to fish passage located on anadromous stream reaches within
Ross Creek, Corte Madera Creek Watershed, Marin County, California. Prepared for
Friends of the Corte Madera Creek Watershed. [Available at:
http://www.friendsofcortemaderacreek.org/rep/StreamXingCatalogROSSCK.pdf]
Ross Taylor and Associates. 2006. Corte Madera stream crossing inventory and fish passage
evaluation, final report. Prepared for the Friends of the Corte Madera Creek Watershed.
[Available at:
http://www.rosstaylorandassociates.com/pdf/CORTE%20MADERA%20CREEK%20-
%20FINAL%20REPORT%20WITH%20APPENDICES%202-17-06%20version.pdf]
Stetson Engineers. 2000. Geomorphic Assessment of the Corte Madera Creek Watershed Marin
County, California. Final Report. Prepared for the Friends of the Corte Madera
Watershed and the Marin County Department of Public Works. 42 pages, plus
attachments. [Available at:
http://www.friendsofcortemaderacreek.org/rep/Geomorph.pdf]

Table 1: Land ownership within the Corte Madera Creek watershed.
Information provided by Management Landscape, California Department of Forestry, 2002.
Land Ownership Acres Percent of Watershed
Private 10,532 67%
Local (Parks and Open Space) 2,293 15%
Local (Water District) 2,908 18%
State 25 0%

Corte Madera Creek CAP Viability Results

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
Habitat IP-km (>6 Key
1 Adults Condition Frequency (BFW 0- (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Poor
Complexity Pieces/100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
Habitat IP-km (>1.3 Key
Frequency (BFW (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Poor
10-100 meters) Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
Habitat Pool/Riffle/Flatwat streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km
IP-km (>30% Pools; Poor
Complexity er Ratio (>30% Pools; (>30% Pools; (>30% Pools; (>30% Pools;
>20% Riffles)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
Habitat streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km
Shelter Rating IP-km (>80 stream Poor
Complexity (>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream
average)
NMFS Flow
Factor Score Factor Score 51- Factor Score 35- Factor Score
Factor Score 51-75
>75 75 50 <35
<50% of IP-Km <50% of IP-km or
Passage at Mouth 50% of IP-Km to 75% of IP-Km to
Passage/Migration or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km <16 IP-km Poor
or Confluence 74% of IP-km 90% of IP-km
accessible* accessible*
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km <16 IP-km Poor
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km

Quantity & <50% of IP-Km <50% of IP-km or
Sediment Distribution of or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km <16 IP-km Poor
<50% Response 50-80% >80% Response
Floodplain <50% Response
Velocity Refuge Reach Response Reach Reach Not Defined Poor
Connectivity Reach Connectivity
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
50% to 74% of
streams/ IP-km
Water Quality Turbidity maintains maintains maintains maintains Fair
maintains severity
score of 3 or lower
low risk <1 spawner per IP-
spawner km to < low risk
Size Viability Density risk spawner risk spawner Poor
density per spawner density
Spence (2008) per Spence (2008)
Condition) Factor Score 51-75
>75 75 50 <35
NMFS Flow
Hydrology Redd Scour Protocol: Risk Poor
Factor Score >75
>75 75 50 <35
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% (0.85mm)
Gravel Quality 15-17% (0.85mm)
Sediment and >30% (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and and <30% Fair
(Bulk) and <30% (6.4mm)
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm)
Gravel Quality
(Embeddedness)
average scores average scores average scores average scores average scores of
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) 1 & 2)
Properly
Summer Rearing Impaired/non- Impaired but Unimpaired Impaired/non-
3 Condition Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent Functioning Poor
Juveniles functional functioning Condition functional
Condition

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Large Wood <50% of streams/
Habitat Frequency IP-km (>6 Key
(>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Poor
Complexity (Bankfull Width 0- Pieces/100
10 meters) meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Habitat Frequency IP-km (>1.3 Key
(>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Poor
Complexity (Bankfull Width Pieces/100
10-100 meters) meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 89% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
Habitat Percent Primary IP-km (>49% of
(>49% of pools (>49% of pools (>49% of pools (>49% of pools Poor
Complexity Pools pools are primary
are primary are primary are primary are primary
pools)
pools) pools) pools) pools)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
>20% Riffles)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
average)
NMFS Flow
(Baseflow) Factor Score Factor Score 51- Factor Score 35- Factor Score
Factor Score >75
>75 75 50 <35
Condition) Factor Score >75
>75 75 50 <35
Number, Condition >5 1.1 - 5 0.01 - 1 1.1 - 5
Hydrology and/or Magnitude Diversions/10 IP Diversions/10 IP Diversions/10 IP 0 Diversions Diversions/10 IP- Fair
of Diversions km km km km

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
50% to 74% of
streams/ IP-km
Riparian (>70% average
Canopy Cover stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; Poor
Vegetation stream canopy;
>85% where coho
IP overlaps)
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) 1 & 2)
<50% IP km 50 to 74% IP km 75 to 89% IP km >90% IP km
<50% IP-km (<20 C
(<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT;
Temperature MWMT; <16 C
Water Quality <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT Poor
(MWMT) MWMT where
where coho IP where coho IP where coho IP where coho IP
coho IP overlaps)
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
50% to 74% of
streams/ IP-km
maintains severity
score of 3 or lower
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5
Size Viability Density <0.2 Fish/m^2 >1.5 Fish/m^2 0.2 - 0.6 Fish/m^2 Poor
Fish/m^2 Fish/m^2
<50% of 50-74% of 75-90% of >90% of 50-74% of
Viability Spatial Structure Fair
Historical Range Historical Range Historical Range Historical Range Historical Range
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Winter Rearing Habitat Frequency IP-km (>6 Key
4 Condition (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Poor
Juveniles Complexity (Bankfull Width 0- Pieces/100
10 meters) meters)

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Habitat Frequency IP-km (>1.3 Key
(>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Poor
Complexity (Bankfull Width Pieces/100
10-100 meters) meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
>20% Riffles)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Habitat streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km Not
Shelter Rating
Complexity (>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream Specified
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) 1 & 2)
<50% Response 50-80% >80% Response
Floodplain <50% Response
Velocity Refuge Reach Response Reach Reach Not Defined Poor
Connectivity Reach Connectivity
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Not
Specified
Properly
Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
average)
>5 Diversions/10
Hydrology and/or Magnitude Diversions/10 IP Diversions/10 IP Diversions/10 IP 0 Diversions Poor
IP-km
of Diversions km km km
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 51-75
>75 75 50 <35
<50% IP-Km (>6 50-74% IP-Km 75-90% IP-Km >90% IP-Km (>6 <50% IP-km (>6
Smoltification Temperature Poor
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
50% to 74% of
streams/ IP-km
maintains severity
score of 3 or lower
Smolt Smolt
Smolt
abundance to
produce low
Size Viability Abundance high risk moderate risk high risk spawner Poor
risk spawner
spawner spawner density per Spence
density per
density per density per (2008)
Spence (2008)
>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of 10.99% of
Watershed Landscape Impervious Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in
6 Hydrology Poor
Processes Context Surfaces Impervious Impervious Impervious Impervious Impervious
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of
Landscape 0% of Watershed
Agriculture Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Very Good
Patterns in Agriculture

>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of <15% of
Landscape
Timber Harvest Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Very Good
Patterns
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of
Landscape 61% of watershed
Urbanization watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 Poor
Patterns >1 unit/20 acres
25-50% Intact
Riparian Species Historical Historical Historical Historical
Historical Species Fair
Vegetation Composition Species Species Species Species
Composition
>3 2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6
Transport Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile
>1 0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1
Mile Mile Mile Mile

Corte Madera Creek CAP Threat Results

1 Agriculture Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
2 Channel Modification Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High
3 Disease, Predation and Competition Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
4 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
5 Suppression Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
6 Fishing and Collecting Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
8 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
9 Mining Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
10 Recreational Areas and Activities Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
11 Development Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High
12 Roads and Railroads Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Very High High Very High Very High Very High High Very High
14 Water Diversion and Impoundments Medium Low High Medium Medium Medium Medium
Threat Status for Targets and Project Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High

Corte Madera Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Coastal San Francisco Bay) Recovery Actions
CMC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species
CMC-CCCS- Recovery
Evaluate all floodgates located within the tidal portion

CMC-CCCS- of the stream and determine the feasibility of re- Marin County, Cost will vary with assessment methods and level
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary claiming historic tidal slough habitat. 3 10 MMWD TBD of detail.
CMC-CCCS- Identify locations to install habitat complexity features Marin County, Cost based on estuary use/residence time model
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary to enhance steelhead estuary rearing conditions. 3 10 MMWD 169.50 169.50 339 at a rate of $338,679/project.
Marin County, Cost based on treating 18 acres of estuarine
CMC-CCCS- Develop and implement estuary rehabilitation and Marin RCD, habitat (assume 10% of total estuarine habitat) at
1.1.1.3 Action Step Estuary enhancement strategies. 3 10 MMWD 443.00 443.00 886 a rate of $49,200/acre
CMC-CCCS- Recovery
CMC-CCCS- Evaluate, and if feasible implement restoration Marin County,

1.1.2.1 Action Step Estuary projects that integrate upland and intertidal habitats. 3 10 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Evaluate and implement, where feasible, programs to

enhance native benthic flora and fauna (such as
CMC-CCCS- native bivalves) to reduce habitat related effects of Marin County,
1.1.2.2 Action Step Estuary non-native invasive species. 3 15 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Evaluate and implement, where feasible, programs to Marin County,

CMC-CCCS- enhance native riparian and wetland flora to reduce Marin RCD,
1.1.2.3 Action Step Estuary habitat related effects of past or present land-uses. 3 15 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Restore areas of tidal marsh in diked and muted tidal Marin RCD, Cost likely accounted for through implementation
1.1.2.4 Action Step Estuary marsh areas throughout the watershed. 3 15 MMWD 0 of other action steps.
Use only native plant species in restoration, FHWA, Friends

inspecting all live restoration and construction of Corte Madera
materials for aquatic invasive species and cleaning Creek, Marin
CMC-CCCS- all equipment prior to and post County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
1.1.2.5 Action Step Estuary restoration/construction. 2 15 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
Monitor all restoration projects to identify success of
techniques. Also, when unsatisfactory results are FHWA, Marin
CMC-CCCS- identified, implement responses to address causes of County, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
1.1.2.6 Action Step Estuary poor results. 3 25 RCD 0 Kind.
Identify and provide recommendations for potential
CMC-CCCS- rehabilitation sites that have been altered by Marin County, Cost for estuary rehabilitation sites accounted for
1.1.2.7 Action Step Estuary dredging and diking. 3 10 MMWD 0 in above action steps.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery
1.1.3 Action Estuary Reduce toxicity and pollutants
Evaluate water quality conditions (salinity, dissolved Cost based on installing a minimum of 3
CMC-CCCS- oxygen, temperature) in potential steelhead estuary Marin County, continuous water quality stations at a rate of
1.1.3.2 Action Step Estuary rearing areas. 3 10 MMWD 7.50 7.50 15 $5,000/station.
Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Implement tidal restoration projects that help capture Marin RCD, Cost accounted for through implementation of
1.1.3.3 Action Step Estuary and provide treatment of upland runoff. 3 25 MMWD 0 other action steps.
Marin County,
MMWD,
CMC-CCCS- Plan and implement Total Maximum Daily Load plans SWRCB, US Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
1.1.3.4 Action Step Estuary for known pollutant impairments. 3 10 EPA 0 Kind.

FHWA, Friends
of Corte Madera
Creek, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Plan and implement structural solutions to reduce County, Marin
1.1.3.5 Action Step Estuary urban storm runoff pollutant loads. 3 25 RCD, MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CMC-CCCS- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain

Identify the floodplain activation flow which is the the

smallest flood pulse event that initiates substantial
CMC-CCCS- Floodplain beneficial ecological processes when associated with Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity floodplain inundation (Williams et al. 2009). 3 5 MMWD 79.00 79 a rate of 78,100/project.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain

Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
Marin County, Cost based on riparian and wetland restoration
CMC-CCCS- Floodplain Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- Marin RCD, model at a rate of $88,551 and $255,968/project,
2.1.2.1 Action Step Connectivity established in modified channel areas. 3 5 MMWD 345.00 345 respectively.
Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Floodplain Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- Marin RCD,
2.1.2.2 Action Step Connectivity established in low gradient response reaches. 3 10 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
areas in efforts to identify rehabilitation and habitat Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Floodplain enhancement sites with emphasis on increasing Marin RCD,
2.1.2.3 Action Step Connectivity floodplain habitat. 3 10 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Marin County,
Encourage willing landowners to restore historical Marin RCD,
CMC-CCCS- Floodplain floodplains or offchannel habitats through MMWD, Private Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
2.1.2.4 Action Step Connectivity conservation easements, etc. 3 15 Landowners 0 Kind. Costs for conservation easements vary.
Design and implement floodplain rehabilitation Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Floodplain projects that target velocity refuge for migrating Marin RCD,
2.1.2.5 Action Step Connectivity salmonids. 2 25 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
CMC-CCCS- Floodplain projects that target winter rearing habitat for juvenile Marin RCD,
2.1.2.6 Action Step Connectivity steelhead. 3 15 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery
Reduce impacts of impaired hydrology (reduced

pulse-flows, magnitude, duration, and timing of
CMC-CCCS- freshets) that preclude adult and smolt passage over Cities, Marin Costs based on implementing other action steps
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology critical riffles and other nature obstacles. 1 5 County, MMWD TBD (e.g. off-channel storage, irrigation efficiency, etc.)
Establish a comprehensive stream flow evaluation
CMC-CCCS- program to determine instream flow needs for Marin County, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology steelhead. 3 10 MMWD 39.50 39.50 79 a rate of $78,100/project
CMC-CCCS- Recovery

Increase the amount of available spawning and Cities, Marin
CMC-CCCS- rearing habitat by improving instream flow conditions County, Marin
3.1.2.1 Action Step Hydrology below Phoenix Lake on Ross Creek. 1 5 RCD, MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Release water from Phoenix Lake to augment flows Municipal Water
3.1.2.2 Action Step Hydrology in Corte Madera Creek. 2 20 District, NMFS 0
Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Identify and maximize opportunities for aquifer MMWD, Private Costs will vary depending on methods
3.1.2.3 Action Step Hydrology recharge. 3 25 Landowners TBD implemented.
Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
Marin County,
Marin RCD,
CMC-CCCS- Develop and implement strategies for efficient water MMWD, Private Operations conducted normally or with minor
3.1.2.4 Action Step Hydrology use. 3 10 Landowners 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
CMC-CCCS- Develop and implement a water use plan ensuring Marin County,
3.1.2.5 Action Step Hydrology base-flow sustainability. 3 10 MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind.
Marin County, streamflow gauges at a rate of $1,000/gauge.
CMC-CCCS- Require streamflow gaging devices to evaluate Marin RCD, Cost does not account for data management or
3.1.2.6 Action Step Hydrology impairment to current streamflow conditions. 2 5 MMWD 3.00 3 maintenance.
Implement conjunctive use of water for water projects Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- whenever possible to maintain or restore steelhead Marin RCD,
3.1.2.7 Action Step Hydrology habitat. 2 5 MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CMC-CCCS- Recovery
Cities, Friends of
Corte Madera
Creek, Marin
Continue to identify high priority barriers and restore County, Marin
CMC-CCCS- passage per NMFS' Guidelines for Salmonid RCD, MMWD,
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage Passage at Stream Crossings (NMFS 2001). 1 5 NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Cities, Marin
Evaluate and prescribe volitional and non-volitional County, Marin
CMC-CCCS- passage methodologies for all dams in the RCD, MMWD,
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage watershed, including Phoenix Lake on Ross Creek. 1 5 NMFS TBD
CDFW, Marin
County Flood
Encourage and support the Marin County Flood Control District,
CMC-CCCS- Control District and the Corps in efforts to improve NMFS, Town of
5.1.1.3 Action Step Passage fish passage through the town of Ross. 2 10 Ross, USACE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CMC-CCCS- Habitat modification, or curtailment of the species
CMC-CCCS- Recovery
Friends of Corte
Increase wood frequency in spawning and rearing Madera Creek,
areas to the extent that a minimum of six key LWD Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles at a rate of
CMC-CCCS- pieces exists every 100 meters in 0-10 meters BFW Marin RCD, $31,200/mile. Cost likely higher if greater level of
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity streams. 2 15 MMWD 5.33 5.33 5.33 16 engineering and oversight is needed.

Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
Develop strategies to optimize hydraulic diversity and Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles at a rate of
CMC-CCCS- habitat complexity when implementing/installing LWD Marin RCD, $31,200/mile. Cost likely higher if greater level of
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity structures. 3 10 MMWD 8.00 8.00 16 engineering and oversight is needed.
Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
Develop and install seasonal habitat rearing features Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles at a rate of
CMC-CCCS- that achieve optimal performance during spring/fall Marin RCD, $31,200/mile. Cost likely higher if greater level of
6.1.1.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity baseflow conditions throughout the watershed. 3 15 MMWD 5.33 5.33 5.33 16 engineering and oversight is needed.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery
Increase the number of primary pools to the extent
that more than 40% of summer rearing pools meet
primary pool criteria (>2.5 feet deep in 1st and 2nd Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- order streams; >3 feet in third order or larger Marin RCD, Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity streams.) 2 15 MMWD 0 habitat complexity.
Evaluate, develop, and implement strategies to Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- increase primary pool frequency in high priority Marin RCD, Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
6.1.2.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity reaches throughout the watershed. 3 15 MMWD 0 habitat complexity.
Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Enhance pool depth: increase depth, cover, and Marin RCD, Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
6.1.2.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity complexity using CDFW protocols (SCWLFA 2006). 3 10 MMWD 0 habitat complexity.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery
Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Increase the number of pools that have a minimum Marin RCD, Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity shelter of 80 (See NMFS criteria). 3 15 MMWD 0 habitat complexity.
Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Evaluate, identify, and improve shelters in pools Marin RCD, Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
6.1.3.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity throughout the watershed. 3 15 MMWD 0 habitat complexity.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery
6.1.4 Action Habitat Complexity Improve pool/riffle/flatwater ratios (hydraulic diversity)
Evaluate, identify, and develop strategies that will Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- encourage riffle habitat formation throughout the Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
6.1.4.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity watershed. 3 10 MMWD 0 Kind.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery
Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
Increase the average stream canopy cover within all Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.2 miles (assume 1
CMC-CCCS- current and potential spawning and rearing reaches Marin RCD, project/mile in 5% high IP with 20 acres/mile
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian to a minimum of 80%. 2 5 MMWD 99.00 99 treated) at a rate of $24,682/acre
Identify and implement riparian enhancement

projects where current canopy density and diversity
are inadequate and site conditions are appropriate Friends of Corte
to; initiate tree planting and other vegetation Madera Creek,
CMC-CCCS- management to encourage the development of a Marin County,
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian denser more extensive riparian canopy. 3 25 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Increase the stream canopy by planting appropriate
native riparian trees and shrubs along the stream
where shade canopy is not at acceptable levels. In
many cases, planting will need to be coordinated to Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- follow bank stabilization or upslope erosion control Marin RCD,
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian projects. 2 25 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.

vegetation (e.g., Arundo donax, etc.), prioritize and Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- develop riparian habitat reclamation and Marin RCD, Cost based on riparian restoration model at a rate
7.1.1.4 Action Step Riparian enhancement programs (CDFG 2004). 3 10 MMWD 44.50 44.50 89 of $88,551/project.
Ensure that mature trees within the steam riparian
corridor are not disturbed or lost due to land Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- management activities (roads, cattle, flood control, Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
7.1.1.5 Action Step Riparian etc.). 2 25 MMWD 0 Kind.
Evaluate, design, and implement strategies to Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- rehabilitate native riparian communities and Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
7.1.1.6 Action Step Riparian encourage large long standing trees. 3 10 MMWD 0 Kind.
Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
Promote streamside conservation measures, Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- including conservation easements, setbacks, and Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
7.1.1.7 Action Step Riparian riparian buffers. 3 25 MMWD 0 Kind.
Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
Develop and implement appropriate tree plantings Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- strategies in efforts to rehabilitate summer rearing Marin RCD,
7.1.1.8 Action Step Riparian habitat for juvenile steelhead. 2 10 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Improve instream gravel quality to reduce

8.1.1 Action Sediment embeddedness
Increase the percentage of pool tail-out embeddness Friends of Corte
with values of 1s and 2s (See NMFS Conservation Madera Creek,
CMC-CCCS- Action Planning Attribute Table Report) within all Marin County, Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment spawning reaches. 2 15 MMWD 0 habitat complexity.
CDFW, Friends
of Corte Madera
Creek, Marin Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
CMC-CCCS- Evaluate. develop, and implement spawning gravel County, Marin project/mile in 5% high IP with 100 cu. yds.mile) at
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment augmentation programs in essential areas. 3 15 RCD, MMWD 0.67 0.67 0.67 2 a rate of $39.52/cu. yd.
CDFW, Friends
of Corte Madera
Add channel roughness (logs, boulders) in strategic Creek, Marin
CMC-CCCS- locations to encourage spawning tailout formations County, Marin Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment and gravel sorting. 2 15 RCD, MMWD 0 habitat complexity.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Improve gravel quantity and distribution for macro-

8.1.2 Action Sediment invertebrate production (food)
Increase the percentage of gravel quality CDFW, Friends

embeddedness to values of 1s and 2s (See NMFS of Corte Madera
Conservation Action Planning Attribute Table Report) Creek, Marin
CMC-CCCS- in all current and potential juvenile salmonid summer County, Marin Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
8.1.2.1 Action Step Sediment and seasonal (fall/winter/spring) rearing areas. 2 15 RCD, MMWD 0 habitat complexity.
CDFW, Friends
Increase stream bed and bank stability using of Corte Madera
biotechnical materials (vegetation, plant fiber, and Creek, Marin
CMC-CCCS- native wood and rock), where appropriate (SCWLFA County, Marin Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
8.1.2.2 Action Step Sediment 2006). 2 15 RCD, MMWD 0 habitat complexity.
Caltrans, CDFW,
FHWA, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Re-mediate upland sources (prevent eroded soils County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
8.1.2.3 Action Step Sediment form entering the stream system) (SCWLFA 2006). 3 20 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.

Add channel roughness features (logs, large CDFW, Marin
CMC-CCCS- boulders) to trap cobbles in current and potential County, Marin Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
8.1.2.4 Action Step Sediment seasonal reaches. 2 15 RCD, MMWD 0 habitat complexity.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, Friends
of Corte Madera
Address water pollution from non-point sources Creek, Marin
CMC-CCCS- within the watershed through outreach, education County, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality and enforcement. 3 10 RCD, MMWD 0 Kind.
Identify and remediate sources of pulses of water CDFW, Marin
CMC-CCCS- originating from human activities (e.g. flushing of County, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality swimming pools, etc.). 1 10 RCD, MMWD 0 Kind.
CDFW, Friends
Identify nutrient loading sources causing poor water of Corte Madera
quality conditions for steelhead and implement Creek, Marin
CMC-CCCS- strategies for remediating or avoiding future inputs of County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
10.1.1.3 Action Step Water Quality pollution to watershed streams. 3 10 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
CDFW, Friends
Avoid, or at a minimum mimimize, the use of of Corte Madera
commercial and industrial products (e.g., pesticides) Creek, Marin
CMC-CCCS- with high potential for contamination of local County, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
10.1.1.4 Action Step Water Quality waterways. 2 10 RCD, MMWD 0 Kind.
Caltrans, CDFW,
Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
Encourage the use of native vegetation in new Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- landscaping to reduce the need for watering and Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
10.1.1.5 Action Step Water Quality application of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. 3 25 MMWD, NMFS 0 Kind.
CDFW, Friends
of Corte Madera
Creek, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Identify and fix septic systems contributing to high County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
10.1.1.6 Action Step Water Quality nutrient loading. 3 10 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery
Implement comprehensive evaluation and monitoring CDFW, Friends

program to determine areas where poor riparian of Corte Madera
habitat is contributing to increased water Creek, Marin
CMC-CCCS- temperatures limiting juvenile steelhead survival and County, Marin Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
10.1.2.1 Action Step Water Quality aquatic habitat potential. 3 10 RCD, MMWD 0 riparian.
CDFW, Friends
of Corte Madera
Rehabilitate or restore riparian corridor conditions Creek, Marin
CMC-CCCS- within all current and potential high value habitat County, Marin Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
10.1.2.2 Action Step Water Quality summer rearing areas. 3 10 RCD, MMWD 0 riparian.

CDFW, Friends
of Corte Madera
Develop and implement appropriate tree plantings Creek, Marin
CMC-CCCS- strategies in efforts to rehabilitate summer rearing County, Marin Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
10.1.2.3 Action Step Water Quality habitat for juvenile steelhead. 3 10 RCD, MMWD 0 riparian.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery
Caltrans, CDFW,
FHWA, Friends
of Corte Madera
Identify and remediate unstable banks and other Creek, Marin
CMC-CCCS- sediment sources. County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
10.1.3.1 Action Step Water Quality 3 15 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
CDFW, Friends
of Corte Madera
Creek, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Where feasible, utilize native plants and County, Marin Operations conducted normally or with minor
10.1.3.2 Action Step Water Quality bioengineering techniques to stabilize banks. 3 25 RCD, MMWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
Identify and implement strategies to reduce landslide
hazard areas and other upslope sources of fine CDFW, Marin
CMC-CCCS- sediment (hillslope hollows, deep-seated landslides, County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
10.1.3.3 Action Step Water Quality etc.). 3 10 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and

processes (e.g., hydrology, geology, fluvial-
geomorphology, water quality, and vegetation), CDFW, Marin
CMC-CCCS- instream habitat, and factors limiting steelhead County, Marin Cost will vary with assessment methods and level
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability production. 3 10 RCD, MMWD TBD of detail.
Conduct periodic, standardized spawning surveys to CDFW, Marin

CMC-CCCS- estimate adult abundance in the watershed. County, Marin Costs for adults spawner surveys are covered in
11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability 3 25 RCD, MMWD 0 the Monitoring Chapter.
CDFW, Marin Cost for conducting standarized habitat
CMC-CCCS- Conduct habitat surveys to monitor change in key County, Marin assessments will be developed for the Coastal
11.1.1.3 Action Step Viability habitat variables. 3 25 RCD, MMWD 0 Monitoring Plan.
CDFW, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Initiate smolt outmigration study and develop smolt County, Marin Costs for smolt outmigration studies are covered
11.1.1.4 Action Step Viability abundance estimates. 2 10 RCD, MMWD 0 in the Monitoring Chapter.
Develop standardized watershed assessments within CDFW, Marin
CMC-CCCS- sub-watersheds to define limiting factors specific to County, Marin Cost will vary with assessment methods and level
11.1.1.5 Action Step Viability those areas. 3 25 RCD, MMWD TBD of detail.
CDFW, Marin
County, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Improve conditions for steelhead through supporting RCD, MMWD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
11.1.1.6 Action Step Viability enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. 3 25 NMFS OLE 0 Kind.
CMC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain


Flood control projects or other modifications

CMC-CCCS- Channel facilitating new development (as opposed to Marin County,
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification protecting existing infrastructure) should be avoided. 3 25 MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind.
Review channel modification activities to prevent or

minimize future impediments blocking access to off
CMC-CCCS- Channel channel habitat used by salmonids as refuge and Marin County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification winter rearing habitat during high stream flows. 2 25 MMWD 0 Kind.
Costs cannot be determined until specific projects

Improve channel capacity and habitat quality by CDFW, Marin are identifies and designed. The USACE may
CMC-CCCS- Channel incorporating measures identified in the Marin County County, NMFS, contibute at least in their flood control section of
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification Public Works Critical Reach Analysis (2011). 2 10 USACE TBD Corte Madera and Ross Creeks.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

13.1.2 Action Modification (altered pool complexity and/or pool, riffle ratio)
All proposed flood control projects should include Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.25 miles (assume 1
CMC-CCCS- Channel habitat protection, and/or features to create salmonid Marin RCD, project/mile in 25% of flood control channel) at a
13.1.2.1 Action Step Modification habitat diversity. 2 15 MMWD 892 892 892 2,677 rate of $1,070,400/mile.
Ensure future retention and recruitment of large

CMC-CCCS- Channel woody debris and root wads to rehabilitate existing Marin County,
13.1.2.2 Action Step Modification stream complexity, pool frequency, and depth. 3 15 MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Protect existing natural channel reaches from
CMC-CCCS- Channel channelization and enhance winter refuge and Marin County, Cost is dependent on extent and method of
13.1.2.3 Action Step Modification seasonal habitat features where appropriate. 2 15 MMWD 0 enhancement
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

All proposed levees should be designed to account
for minimal maintenance associated with an intact
CMC-CCCS- Channel and functioning riparian zone. Marin County,
13.1.3.1 Action Step Modification 3 25 MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Identify locations where channel modification,

including existing flood control projects, has resulted
in decreased shelter, LWD frequency, and habitat
complexity, and develop and implement site specific
plans to improve these conditions. Consider flow Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Channel rates and discharges when designing LWD and Marin RCD, Costs will vary depending on methods
13.1.3.2 Action Step Modification shelter enhancement features. 2 15 MMWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
Incorporate velocity refuge habitat features in all Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Channel future and existing engineered and modified Marin RCD,
13.1.3.3 Action Step Modification channels. 2 20 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Prevent any future removal of habitat forming
CMC-CCCS- Channel structures (LWD, boulders, vegetation, etc.) in Marin County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
13.1.3.4 Action Step Modification natural waterways. 3 15 MMWD 0 Kind.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

13.1.4 Action Modification (impaired water flow)
Conduct rehabilitation activities that restore channels,
floodplains and meadows to extend the duration of Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Channel the summer flow and provide refuge from high winter Marin RCD, Cost accounted for in FLOODPLAIN
13.1.4.1 Action Step Modification flows. 2 15 MMWD 0 CONNECTIVITY
CMC-CCCS- modification or curtailment of the species habitat
18.1 Objective Livestock or range

CMC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

18.1.1 Action Livestock (reduced large wood and/or shelter)
Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
Promote the re-vegetation of the native riparian plant Marin County,
community within inset floodplains and riparian Marin RCD, Cost based on treating 0.2 miles (assume 1
CMC-CCCS- corridors to provide future recruitment of large wood MMWD, Private project/mile in 5% high IP with 80 acres/mile) at a
18.1.1.1 Action Step Livestock and other shelter components. 3 10 Landowners 197.50 197.50 395 rate of $24,682/acre.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport

18.1.2 Action Livestock (road condition/density, dams, etc.)
SRCD, NRCS, Fish Friendly Farming program or
other cooperative conservation programs) to reduce
sediment sources and improve riparian habitat within Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- the watershed. Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
18.1.2.1 Action Step Livestock 3 10 NRCS 0 Kind.
Maintain adequate stream corridor buffers to filter Marin County,
and prevent fine sediment input from entering Marin RCD,
CMC-CCCS- streams of the watershed. MMWD, Private Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
18.1.2.2 Action Step Livestock 2 25 Landowners 0 Kind.
Friends of Corte
Encourage the NRCS, RCDs, and other appropriate Madera Creek,
organizations to increase the number of landowners Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- participating in sediment reduction planning and Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
18.1.2.3 Action Step Livestock implementation. 3 15 MMWD, NMFS 0 Kind.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Marin County,
Marin RCD,
CMC-CCCS- Reduce discharge of chemical effluent and fertilizer MMWD, Private Costs will vary depending on methods
18.1.3.1 Action Step Livestock related to agricultural practices. 2 25 Landowners TBD implemented.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to riparian species

18.1.4 Action Livestock composition and structure
Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
Re-establish native plant communities in riparian Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- zones to increase stream canopy to a minimum of Marin RCD,
18.1.4.1 Action Step Livestock 80%. 3 25 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in RIPARIAN
Develop and implement riparian setbacks/buffers that
CMC-CCCS- protect existing native riparian species composition Marin County,
18.1.4.2 Action Step Livestock and structure. 3 10 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in RIPARIAN
corridor are not disturbed or lost due to agricultural Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- activities. MMWD, Private
18.1.4.3 Action Step Livestock 3 25 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CMC-CCCS- Commercial modification, or curtailment of the species
Residential/
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to the estuary
22.1.1 Action Development (impaired quality and extent)

Reduce and prevent habitat modification that has

caused, is causing, or may cause impaired habitat
conditions affecting juveniles by minimizing adverse
effects of future development in and around the bay.
Residential/ When development is planned, implement projects Action is considered In-Kind to reduce and
CMC-CCCS- Commercial that incorporate elements to protect and enhance Marin County, prevent the habitat modifications, the
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development habitat. 3 25 MMWD TBD implementation is TBD
Curtail further development in active wetlands
through zoning restrictions, county master plans and
Residential/ other Federal, State, and county planning and
CMC-CCCS- Commercial regulatory processes, and land protection Marin County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development agreements. 3 25 USACE, USEPA 0 Kind.
Residential/ CDFW, Marin

CMC-CCCS- Commercial Increase monitoring and enforcement of illegal bank County, MMWD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
22.1.1.3 Action Step Development or shoreline stabilization activities. 2 15 NMFS OLE 0 Kind.
Friends of Corte
Promote native intertidal and subtidal vegetation Madera Creek,
Residential/ through eradication and control of non-native Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
CMC-CCCS- Commercial species. Marin RCD, project/mile in 5% high IP with 80 acres/mile) at a
22.1.1.4 Action Step Development 3 5 MMWD 42.00 42 rate of $1,036/acre.
Residential/
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape
Residential/ Minimize new development, or road construction
CMC-CCCS- Commercial within floodplains, riparian areas, unstable soils or FHWA, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
22.1.2.1 Action Step Development other sensitive areas. 3 25 County 0 Kind.
Residential/ Conserve open space in un-fractured landscapes, Costs will vary depending on methods
CMC-CCCS- Commercial protect floodplain areas and riparian corridors, and Marin County, implemented.
22.1.2.2 Action Step Development develop conservation easements. 3 15 MMWD TBD Costs for conservation easements vary.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Marin County,
Residential/ Minimize the future use of commercial and industrial Marin RCD,
CMC-CCCS- Commercial products (e.g., pesticides) with high potential for MMWD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
22.1.3.1 Action Step Development contamination of local waterways. 3 25 SWRCB 0 Kind.
Residential/ Upgrade existing stormwater systems into a spatially
CMC-CCCS- Commercial distributed discharge network (rather than a few point FHWA, Marin
22.1.3.2 Action Step Development discharges). 3 15 County, MMWD TBD
Educate county and city public works departments, Caltrans, FHWA,

Residential/ flood control districts, and planning departments, etc., Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Commercial on the critical importance of maintaining riparian Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
22.1.3.3 Action Step Development vegetation, instream LWD, and LWD recruitment. 3 25 MMWD 0 Kind.
Residential/
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
22.1.4 Action Development connectivity (impaired quality & extent)
Residential/
CMC-CCCS- Commercial Avoid or minimize new development within 100-year Marin County,
22.1.4.1 Action Step Development floodprone zones. 3 25 MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Rehabilitate areas where existing and dilapidated
infrastructure impairs the quality of floodplain and
Residential/ winter rearing for habitat for steelhead within the Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.2 miles (assume 1
CMC-CCCS- Commercial watershed. Marin RCD, project/mile in 5% high IP with 80 acres/mile) at a
22.1.4.2 Action Step Development 2 10 MMWD 89.00 89.00 179 rate of $44,640/acre.
Residential/ Recalculate 100-year flood interval that takes into FHWA, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Commercial consideration global climate change and rising sea County, Marin
22.1.4.3 Action Step Development levels. 3 10 RCD, MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Residential/
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
Residential/ Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Commercial Encourage and identify opportunities for on-site rain Marin RCD, Costs will vary depending on methods
22.1.5.1 Action Step Development retention facilities. 2 15 MMWD, NMFS TBD implemented.
Costs will vary depending on methods
Residential/ Marin County, implemented. Estimate for filter or buffer strip
CMC-CCCS- Commercial Develop filter or buffer systems that reduce pollutants Marin RCD, system range from $11464 to $29,039/filter for a
22.1.5.2 Action Step Development from entering streams and waterways. 3 10 MMWD TBD 25 ft. wide grass filter.
Residential/
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to hydrology (gravel
22.1.6 Action Development scouring events)
Marin County,
Residential/ Minimize impervious surfaces in new and Marin RCD,
CMC-CCCS- Commercial development projects (SCWLFA 2006). MMWD, NMFS, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
22.1.6.1 Action Step Development 3 25 NRCS, USACE 0 Kind.
Residential/
CMC-CCCS- Commercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
Residential/
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
Residential/ Develop policy and guidelines that address land Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Commercial conversion and attempt to minimize conversion- Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
22.2.1.1 Action Step Development related impacts within the aquatic environment. 3 10 MMWD 0 Kind.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape

Cost based on decommissioning 2.4 miles of

Decommission and or re-locate riparian roads riparian road network at a rate of $14,440/mile.
CMC-CCCS- upslope to achieve desirable riparian road density Caltrans, FHWA, Cost will be significantly higher if riparian roads
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads criteria (<0.1 to 0.4 Miles/Square Mile). 2 10 Marin County 17.50 17.50 35 are part of urban/suburban infrastructure.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

Ensure all future new, repair, and replacement
CMC-CCCS- road/stream crossing provide unimpaired passage Caltrans, FHWA, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads for all steelhead life stages. 2 10 Marin County 0 Kind.
Use the results of the 2006 Corte Madera Stream
Crossing Inventory and Fish Passage Evaluation to
CMC-CCCS- establish priorities for treatment of road-related Caltrans, FHWA, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads passage barriers. 2 5 Marin County 0 Kind.
Use NMFS Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at
Stream Crossings (NMFS 2001) and appropriate Caltrans, FHWA,
CMC-CCCS- barrier databases when developing new or retrofitting Marin County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
23.1.2.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads existing road crossings. 2 5 NMFS 0 Kind.
(bridges, culverts, fills, and other crossings) must
CMC-CCCS- accommodate 100-year flow event and associated Caltrans, FHWA, Costs will vary depending on methods
23.1.2.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads sediment transport. 3 10 Marin County TBD implemented.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport


(bridges, culverts, fills, and other crossings) must
CMC-CCCS- accommodate 100-year flood flows and associated Caltrans, FHWA, Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
23.1.3.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads bedload and debris. 3 10 Marin County 0 passage and migration.
decommissioning (e.g., Fishnet 4c County Roads
Manual; Hagans & Weaver, 1994; Oregon
CMC-CCCS- Department of Transportation, 1999; Sommarstrom Caltrans, FHWA, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
23.1.3.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads 2002). 2 25 Marin County 0 Kind.

span or constructed with the minimum number of
CMC-CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation Caltrans, FHWA, Costs will vary depending on methods
23.1.3.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads and facilitate fish passage. 3 25 Marin County TBD implemented.
CMC-CCCS- Minimize the construction of new roads near high Caltrans, FHWA,
23.1.3.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads value habitat areas or sensitive habitat areas. 3 25 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CMC-CCCS- networks and other actions that deliver sediment and Caltrans, FHWA,
23.1.3.5 Action Step Roads/Railroads runoff to stream channels. 3 25 Marin County TBD
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

23.1.4 Action Roads/Railroads (impaired water flow)
Caltrans, FHWA,
Marin County,
Marin RCD,
CMC-CCCS- Private Cost based on number and type of methods used
23.1.4.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads Conduct actions that hydrologically disconnect roads. 3 25 Landowners TBD to hydrologically disconnect roads.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

23.1.5 Action Roads/Railroads connectivity (impaired quality & extent)
Assess and redesign transportation network to Caltrans, FHWA,

CMC-CCCS- minimize road density and maximize transportation Marin County, Cost based on road inventory for 224 miles of
23.1.5.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads efficiency. 3 15 Marin RCD 86.00 86.00 86.00 258 road network at a rate of $1,148/mile.
Establish a moratorium on new road construction

within floodplains, riparian areas, unstable soils or
other sensitive areas until a watershed specific
CMC-CCCS- and/or agency/company specific road management Caltrans, FHWA,
23.1.5.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads plan is created and implemented. 3 25 Marin County TBD
Evaluate existing roadways within 200 meters of the

CMC-CCCS- riparian corridor, and develop plans to decrease the Caltrans, FHWA, Cost accounted for in other ROADS action
23.1.5.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads ongoing impacts associated with these roads. 3 10 Marin County 0 steps.
CMC-CCCS- Reduce road densities by at least 10 percent over Caltrans, FHWA, Cost based on decommissioning 22 miles of road
23.1.5.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads the next 10 years, prioritizing high risk areas. 3 10 Marin County 159.00 159.00 318 network at a rate of $14,440/mile.
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion modification, or curtailment of the species
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

CDFW, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion County, Marin Cost will vary with assessment methods and level
25.1.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment Assess and map water diversions (CDFG 2004). 3 5 RCD, MMWD TBD of detail.
Implement passive diversion devices designed to
allow diversion of water only when minimum CDFW, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion streamflow requirements are met or exceeded County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
25.1.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment (CDFG 2004). 3 25 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented.

CDFW, Marin
County, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion Identify and eliminate depletion of summer base RCD, MMWD, Operations conducted normally or with minor
25.1.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment flows from unauthorized water uses. 2 10 SWRCB 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
Marin County,
Identify areas where groundwater pumping or direct Marin RCD,
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion stream diversion is impacting stream water MMWD, Operations conducted normally or with minor
25.1.1.4 Action Step /Impoundment temperature and summer or fall baseflows. 2 10 SWRCB 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
Develop strategies to reduce groundwater pumping Marin County,
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion impacts on summer and fall instream water Marin RCD, Operations conducted normally or with minor
25.1.1.5 Action Step /Impoundment temperatures and baseflows. 2 10 MMWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
CDFW, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion Continue to prohibit new or increased surface water County, MMWD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
25.1.1.6 Action Step /Impoundment diversions for existing permit holders. 3 25 SWRCB 0 Kind.
CDFW, Marin
County, Marin
Develop and implement alternative off-channel RCD, MMWD,
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion storage to reduce impacts of water diversions during Private Costs will vary depending on methods
25.1.1.7 Action Step /Impoundment the spring and summer. 3 25 Landowners TBD implemented.
water diversions (surface or groundwater) do not CDFW, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion impair water quality conditions in summer or fall County, Marin Operations conducted normally or with minor
25.1.1.8 Action Step /Impoundment rearing reaches. 2 25 RCD, MMWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
Marin County,
Marin RCD,
MMWD, Private
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion Work with SWRCB and landowners to improve Landowners, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
25.1.1.9 Action Step /Impoundment survival and migration opportunities for all lifestages. 2 25 SWRCB 0 Kind.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport

25.1.2 Action /Impoundment (road conditions/density, dams etc.)
CDFW, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion Evaluate effect of dams and weirs on sediment County, Marin Cost will vary with assessment methods and level
25.1.2.1 Action Step /Impoundment transportation rates. 3 10 RCD, MMWD TBD of detail.
CDFW, Friends
of Corte Madera
Creek, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion Implement actions that minimize adverse effects of County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
25.1.2.2 Action Step /Impoundment dams and weirs. 2 15 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented.
Re-establish natural sediment delivery processes CDFW, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion and implement sediment reduction activities where County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
25.1.2.3 Action Step /Impoundment necessary. 3 15 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented.
CMC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

25.1.3 Action /Impoundment migration
Ensure water supply demands can be met without

CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion impacting flow either directly or indirectly through CDFW, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
25.1.3.1 Action Step /Impoundment groundwater withdrawals and aquifer depletion. 2 25 County, MMWD 0 Kind.
CDFW, Marin
County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion Adequately screen water diversions to prevent RCD, MMWD, implemented and number of diversions to be
25.1.3.2 Action Step /Impoundment entrainment of all steelhead life stages. 3 15 NMFS TBD screened.
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

CMC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology


CDFW, Marin
County, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion Support the development and implementation of RCD, MMWD, Operations conducted normally or with minor
25.2.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment groundwater use or direct diversion regulations. 3 15 NMFS 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
Allow all "fisheries flows" (baseflows, and passage, CDFW, Marin

CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion attractant, and channel maintenance flows) to bypass County, MMWD, Operations conducted normally or with minor
25.2.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment or flow through the diversion facilities. 1 5 NMFS 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
CDFW, Marin
Assess, map, and install stream gages on all water County, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion diversions (CDFG 2004). RCD, MMWD, Costs will vary depending on methods
25.2.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment 3 5 NMFS TBD implemented.
Prevent and/or minimize the adverse effects of water

downstream flows, regulating season of diversion, CDFW, Marin
and promoting and implementing off-stream storage County, Marin
CMC-CCCS- Water Diversion solutions (CDFG 2004). RCD, MMWD, Operations conducted normally or with minor
25.2.1.4 Action Step /Impoundment 1 5 NMFS, SWRCB 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.

Guadalupe River Population
CCC Steelhead Winter Run


The approximately 177 square mile Guadalupe River watershed contains about 70 miles of
perennial channel (NMFS GIS 2008). Systematic adult or juvenile fish surveys covering a
substantial period of time have not been conducted within the Guadalupe River watershed, so
accurately estimating past adult or juvenile fish abundance is difficult. However, accounts and
reports do indicate the historical presence of a sustained steelhead run within the Guadalupe
River system, although the size of this run may have been somewhat limited by the arid nature
of the watershed (Leidy et al. 2005). Migratory barriers restrict current steelhead distribution to
approximately 46 miles of stream channel, limited to mainstem Guadalupe River (formed at the
confluence of Guadalupe and Alamitos creeks) and its four main tributaries: Los Gatos Creek,
Guadalupe Creek, Alamitos Creek, and Arroyo Calero (NMFS GIS 2011). The upstream limits of
anadromy on Los Gatos Creek, Guadalupe Creek, Alamitos Creek, and Arroyo Calero are: the
Camden Avenue drop structure, Guadalupe Reservoir, Almaden Reservoir, and Calero
Reservoir, respectively (NMFS GIS 2008 and 2011). Significant additional barriers also exist on
Los Gatos Creek upstream of the Camden Avenue Drop structure (NMFS 2008). Within the
Guadalupe River system, year-round flows that sustain current steelhead distribution are
primarily maintained via releases from Guadalupe, Almaden, Lexington, and Calero reservoirs
(Santa Clara Valley Water District et al. 2003).
Leidy et al. (2005) noted O. mykiss distribution within the following creeks currently upstream of
known anthropogenic barriers to anadromy: Los Gatos Creek and its above-reservoir tributary
Austrian Gulch; Guadalupe Creek and its below-reservoir tributaries of Pheasant and Hicks
creeks, and its above-reservoir tributary, Rincon Creek; Alamitos Creek and its above-reservoir
tributaries of Barrett, and Herbert creeks; and Arroyo Calero, indicating that suitable salmonid
habitat persists within these reaches. With the exception of Los Gatos Creek, which would
require numerous passage projects and stream restorations spanning several miles of channel,
anthropogenic habitat alterations and migratory barriers within these above-barrier reaches
remain limited (NMFS GIS 2008), suggesting that they could support an anadromous steelhead
population once again if passage were restored.
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Guadalupe River 561

History of Land Use
A discussion regarding the progression of development and land use within the Guadalupe River
watershed and the broader Santa Clara Valley is available in SCBWMI (2001). In general,
watershed alterations began in the mid to late 1700s with the establishment of Spanish missions
and settlements in the area; agricultural and light suburban development gradually transitioned
to more intensive suburban, and then urban development, as the primary land uses within the
watershed. Presently, approximately 51% of the watershed by area is developed as urban land
uses (NMFS GIS 2008). Most urban development is concentrated within the watershed area
downstream of the reservoirs on Guadalupe Creek, Alamitos Creek, and Arroyo Calero, and
downstream of the Camden Avenue drop structure on Los Gatos Creek (see Residential and
Commercial Development, below) where steelhead presently have access. Urbanization and
reservoir operations have important effects on watershed processes, hydrology, passage, and
instream habitat within the Guadalupe River system.

By percentage, approximately 92 percent of the Guadalupe River watershed is privately held.
Approximately 5 percent is a combination of local (city/county) parks and recreational holdings,
while the remaining 3 percent is federally owned and managed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (NMFS GIS 2008).
Within the Santa Clara Valley, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is the primary
water resource agency (SCVWD 2011 A). Within the Guadalupe River watershed, SCVWD
provides flood control services, performs stewardship duties, and operates watersystem
infrastructure (including Guadalupe Reservoir, Almaden Reservoir, and Calero Reservoir, and
numerous instream diversion and ground-water recharge facilities). Additional water-system
development occurs within the watershed. Additionally, the SCVWD is in the process of drafting
a Habitat Conservation Plan [the Three Creeks Habitat Conservation Plan (TC-HCP)] to address
current and future operations throughout its coverage area, including the Guadalupe River
system, which limits conditions for steelhead, as well as a host of Federal and state-listed and
special-concern species. The schedule for finalizing and implementing the TC-HCP is uncertain
at the time of this assessment; NMFS and SCVWD are currently involved in ongoing discussions
towards the goal of a plan that will improve instream conditions for steelhead.
Resource management within the basin, including survey and instream restoration efforts, is
largely carried out by SCVWD. However, a host of public interest groups, including Santa Clara
Valley Audubon Society, CLEAN South Bay, Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition, and the

California Nature Conservancy, are active within the Guadalupe River watershed. For more
information on the organizations active in Guadalupe River Watershed see SCBWMI 2001,
SCBWMI 2003, and SCBWMI 2011.

The following habitat attributes were rated Poor through the CAP process: passage/migration,
sediment, velocity refuge, water quality, viability, sediment, estuary/lagoon, hydrology, habitat
complexity, landscape patterns, and sediment transport. Recovery strategies will typically focus
on ameliorating these habitat indicators, although strategies that address other indicators may
also be developed where their implementation is critical to restoring properly functioning habitat
Current Conditions
our CAP viability analysis. The Guadalupe River CAP Viability Table results are provided below.

Water quality is limiting steelhead survival in the Guadalupe River watershed. Entrix (2000)
identifies water quality as a primary factor constraining habitat quality in the Guadalupe River.
Furthermore, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) lists the Guadalupe
River, Alamitos Creek, Guadalupe Creek, Calero Reservoir, and Guadalupe Reservoir as
impaired waterbodies (USEPA 2011). USEPA (2011) also lists Los Gatos Creek as a threatened
waterbody. Water quality is impaired by debris, metals (other than mercury), mercury,
pesticides, and unknown toxicity. Several water quality attainment measures are currently
threatened, including cold freshwater habitat and groundwater recharge, and likely affect
steelhead distribution and survival. Additionally, historic mercury mining operations in the
Guadalupe River watershed have resulted in high concentrations of mercury within the system
that persist to this day; affecting water quality and steelhead condition (see Mining, below).
Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Mining, and Roads and Railroads.

Sediment transport, and thereby instream substrate and its ability to support spawning and
invertebrate food resources, are highly affected by development and water system management
within the Guadalupe River system. Generally, overall distribution of high quality stream

substrate in the watershed is affected by reservoirs that block access to above-reservoir habitat,
block downstream transport of sediment, and affect sediment transport within downstream
reaches due to hydrograph alterations. Additionally, urbanization and flood control projects
within lower gradient reaches downstream of reservoirs, to which steelhead distribution is
currently confined, likely result in accumulation of fines that can also impair substrate quality.
Entrix (2000) identifies food productivity and transport as insufficient or constraining in: Los
Gatos, Alamitos and Calero creeks, and the Guadalupe River. Threats contributing significantly
to this condition include: Channel Modification; and Water Diversion and Impoundments.

The presence of significant barriers likely limit abundance and distribution of all lifestages by
blocking adult migration, limiting smolt outmigration, and constraining up- and down-channel
movement of juveniles (further discussion on barriers is provided below in Impaired Passage and
Migration). Although the Guadalupe River system currently supports a reproducing steelhead
population and non-migratory O. mykiss persist in upper portions of the watershed (Leidy et al.
2005; Becker et al. 2007), Leidy et al. (2005) note that substantial alteration of the lower watershed
for flood control as well as construction of dams and other passage barriers has restricted
anadromous salmonid habitat in the drainage to a fraction of its original extent . . . [and] the
steelhead population had declined significantly by 1962 following construction of reservoirs on
all main tributaries and the construction of a drop structure upstream of Blossom Hill Road
(Alamitos Drop Structure).
Recent restoration efforts have reconnected some access within the watershed, likely improving
the ability of the system to support increased steelhead abundance. For example, fishway
installation at the Alamitos Drop Structure (located on the Guadalupe River) and Masson Dam
(located on Guadalupe Creek) in 1999 and 2000 respectively, has reconnected passage to 17 miles
of upstream habitat (Nishijima et al. 2009). Monitoring performed by SCVWD (Nishijima et al.
2009) has documented passage of steelhead through these structures, and associated spawning
surveys have identified steelhead redds within upstream reaches (Nishijima et al. 2009).
Steelhead density estimates within the watershed are limited. However, summertime
electrofishing surveys performed downstream of Guadalupe Reservoir in August 2000 (Li 2001),
and Guadalupe River and Guadalupe Creek between 2004 and 2009 (inclusive) (Nishijima 2011)
encountered average densities of approximately 0.29- and 0.23 steelhead O. mykiss (multiple year
classes) per linear foot, respectively. Additional studies and reports performed by SCVWD
documenting O. mykiss in the system include construction related fish relocation efforts (Fields
2011), and trapping studies (Porcella 2002). Further steelhead density and distribution
information for the Guadalupe River system is limited, and although O. mykiss are known to

persist above reservoirs, densities within above-reservoir reaches are not well known. Threats
contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification and Water Diversion
and Impoundments.

Habitat assessment summaries (Entrix 2000) indicate instream habitat complexity is lacking
within Los Gatos, Alamitos and Calero creeks, and the Guadalupe River. Cover and spawning
habitat availability was rated as Poor or limiting within the Guadalupe River and Alamitos,
Calero, and Los Gatos creeks, and rearing habitat was rated as limiting for the Guadalupe River
and Los Gatos Creek (Entrix 2000). These impaired stream functions are an effect likely associated
with reservoir-related hydrology alterations and the high concentrations of development within
the watershed (see Residential and Commercial Development, below). Some fair to good quality
rearing and spawning habitat is present (although in limited quantities) in Guadalupe, Pheasant,
and Calero creeks (Entrix 2000).
Above-reservoir data are limited, but considering that these reaches continue to support O. mykiss
(Leidy et al. 2005), and above-reservoir development is relatively limited (NMFS GIS 2008), it is
likely they contain high quality habitat and would suitably support steelhead spawning and
rearing. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification;

Primary factors affecting hydrology in the Guadalupe River watershed include flow regulation
downstream of reservoirs and urbanization (e.g., channelization, increased impervious surfaces,
and flood control projects). A historically intermittent stream system, seasonal drying is a
limiting factor within some reaches of the Guadalupe River watershed. Current reservoir
operations provide flows that extend the summer rearing habitat to reaches downstream of
historical limits. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel
Modification, Residential and Commercial Development, Roads and Railroads, and Water
Diversions and Impoundments.

Numerous passage and migration impairments exist within the Guadalupe River system. Dams
and urban development completely block passage to approximately 82 percent of the stream
miles in the Guadalupe River watershed (NMFS GIS 2011), precluding access to historically
important spawning and rearing reaches. Additionally, numerous partial or seasonal barriers
exist downstream of complete barriers (Cleugh and Mcknight 2002, NMFS GIS 2008), impairing
hydrology, constraining adult migration, and limiting juvenile movement throughout the

remaining accessible habitat. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include:
Channel Modification; Roads and Railroads; and Water Diversions and Impoundments.

Floodplain habitat and function within the Guadalupe River is currently impaired, primarily due
to urbanization and the resulting effects of altered hydrology and channel confinement.
However, future restoration efforts are expected to improve connectivity between stream channel
and floodplain habitat in some locations within the Guadalupe River. Similarly, the installation
of flood control projects that remediate out-dated flood control methods and incorporate methods
that allow for steam functions, such as efforts underway to design some reaches of the Upper
Guadalupe River Flood control Project (Gurin et. al. 2010; Philip Williams and Associates, Ltd.
and H.T. Harvey and Associates 2011) to better allow stream functions, may benefit steelhead by
improving floodplain connectivity and instream habitat quality. Since floodplain connectivity
has in many cases been irretrievably lost due to urbanization, and the overall degraded condition
is expected to persist throughout much of the system, improvements such as these are critically
important for recovery of the steelhead population. Threats contributing significantly to this
condition include: Channel Modification; Residential and Commercial Development; and Roads
and Railroads.

Within the CAP workbook, road density is used to indicate the degree of sediment transport
alteration within the watershed. The Guadalupe River watershed has high road densities
concentrated within urbanized areas downstream of the reservoirs (NMFS GIS 2008). Altered
flow patterns and channel alterations, together with reduced sediment supply downstream of the
dam and fine sediment input both above and below the reservoir, likely affect sediment transport
in the Guadalupe River system. Ongoing substrate movement studies and gravel augmentation
efforts are being performed by SCVWD to aide understanding of, and address, sediment
transport limitations in the system. Upstream of reservoirs, sediment transport processes in the
Guadalupe River watershed are likely minimally altered. Threats contributing significantly to
this condition include: Channel Modification; and Water Diversions and Impoundments.
Landscape Patterns: Agriculture, Timber Harvest and Urbanization

Major landscape disturbance within the Guadalupe River system is primarily associated with
urban development. Approximately half of the entire Guadalupe watershed is developed as
urban land uses (NMFS GIS 2008), with most urbanization concentrated within the watershed
area downstream of the reservoirs (Lexington, Guadalupe, Almaden, and Calero). Due to these
impassable reservoirs, the current spatial extent of urbanization limits the current steelhead
distribution within the watershed, and steelhead are likely affected to a high degree by altered

watershed processes resulting from these landscaped disturbances. Threats contributing
significantly to this condition include: Water Diversions and Impoundments.

Habitat providing instream cover is limited within the Guadalupe River and Los Gatos, Alamitos,
and Calero creeks (Entrix 2000). Throughout the urbanized reaches downstream of reservoirs,
many reaches have been armored and channelized to minimize flood risk. Furthermore, the large
urban interface between the stream environment and upslope areas that traditionally supplied
LWD has likely impaired wood recruitment to the stream. Juvenile steelhead within these LWD-
poor reaches most likely experience reduced summer survival and growth due to poor shelter
condition. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification;
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that rate as High or Very High (See Guadalupe
River CAP Results). Recovery strategies will likely focus on ameliorating High rated threats;
recovery efforts.
Much of the Guadalupe River system, especially the downstream most reaches, has been
channelized. Channel modification, combined with other channel and landscape altering
practices, has destroyed estuarine habitat, disconnected streams from their floodplains, and
constrained natural fluvial and geomorphic processes that create and maintain instream and
riparian habitat that support viable steelhead populations.

The 2010 census estimated the population within the Guadalupe river watershed area at over
529,006 individuals; 44% of the watershed has a housing density higher than 1 unit per 20 acres,
and 21% of the watershed area is developed as urban land uses (NMFS GIS 2015). Development
is concentrated within the watershed area downstream of the reservoirs (Lexington, Guadalupe,
Almaden, and Calero) with 76% of the watershed area downstream of these reservoirs developed
as urban (NMFS GIS 2011). Intensive and widespread urban development has increased the
impervious surface area, greatly impacting hydrology as well as the pollutant level within the
aquatic environment, and impaired instream conditions (passage, instream habitat, hydrology,
and floodplain connection) necessary for the support of a robust steelhead population. The

current spatial extent of this urbanization traces the current steelhead distribution in the
Guadalupe River watershed, suggesting that steelhead are likely affected to a high degree.
Roads and Railroads

Road networks within the Guadalupe River watershed are largely paved systems associated with
urban development, and represent a significant source of the total impervious surface within the
basin. Further, the Guadalupe River watershed has a relatively high concentration of roads
within riparian zones (4.8 miles of roads per square mile of 100 meter riparian buffer) (NMFS GIS
2008). Roadways in the Guadalupe River system amplify storm flow intensity and duration
during winter, and deliver road-born pollution (e.g., oils, urban runoff, etc.) directly to the aquatic
system.

The Guadalupe River watershed is highly affected by water management operations. These
water management operations affect all lifestages of steelhead by blocking passage, limiting
migration periods, and altering hydrology and instream habitat. Lexington, Guadalupe,
Almaden, and Calero reservoirs, and water diversions downstream of these reservoirs, affect
hydrology and instream habitat quality. For further discussion on the effects of water diversion
and impoundments on the O. mykiss population in the Guadalupe River watershed, see the above
sections: Sediment Transport: Road Density; Velocity Refuge: Floodplain Connectivity;
Passage/Migration: Mouth or Confluence and Physical Barriers; Habitat Complexity: Percent Primary
Pools and Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratios; Sediment: Gravel Quality and Distribution of Spawning Gravels;
Viability: Density, Abundance, and Spatial Structure.
Mining
Although there are no ongoing mining operations within the Guadalupe River watershed,
historic mercury mining operations in the upper watersheds of Guadalupe and Alamitos creeks
have a legacy effect on water quality and instream habitat. Mercury continues to leach from some
of the former mining locations, and mercury-laden sediments are present throughout the
watershed downstream. These toxic compounds have a continuing impact on ecosystem health
(SCVWD 2011B), and limit instream conditions for salmonids. The SCVWD notes that the effects
of mercury in the water and on fish assemblages are the single largest health concern in the
Alamitos Creek watershed and throughout the South (San Francisco) Bay (SCVWD 2011B).
Through its Stewardship Plan for Guadalupe and Alamitos creeks, the SCVWD envisions
reducing existing sources and levels of mercury contamination (SCVWD 2011B).

impaired conditions within the Guadalupe River watershed. Primary factors contributing to
habitat limitations and limited steelhead abundance are extensive watershed development for
urban, suburban, and commercial land uses, and municipal water system development. All
reservoirs within the watershed are complete barriers to migration, and downstream of these
reservoirs numerous partial barriers exist, affecting movement of adults and juveniles.
Restoration actions should target addressing habitat constraints within stream reaches with high
potential to benefit steelhead recovery, and should consider above-reservoir passage in order to
provide access to important spawning and rearing reaches.
Passage Downstream of Reservoirs

Passage barriers downstream of reservoirs in the Guadalupe River watershed should be
systematically and opportunistically remediated. Passage improvement is of the highest priority
in the Guadalupe River watershed.
Passage above Reservoirs

The above-reservoir reaches were historically important for the support of a robust steelhead
population within the Guadalupe River system, and the habitat and function of these above-
reservoir reaches cannot be effectively replaced through enhancement of downstream reaches
due to natural differences in gradient and hydrology between the below- and above-reservoir
reaches, and the effects of anthropogenic landscape alteration (e.g., urbanization and floodplain
development) within the below-reservoir reaches. Reservoirs in the Guadalupe River watershed
were assessed for passage options and passage is recommended for Lake Almaden and
Guadalupe Reservoir (See Appendix H for more information). Biologically sound passage
programs or volitional passage facilities should be evaluated and implemented.

Reservoirs in the Guadalupe River watershed should be operated in such a manner as to benefit
all lifestages of steelhead. Considerations should include, but not be limited to: water
temperature, flow velocity, ramping rates (as necessary to prevent egg scour, or displacement or
stranding of juveniles), sediment transport, channel maintenance, instream habitat, adult and
smolt migratory cues, and, to the greatest degree possible, providing a natural (unimpaired)
hydrograph.

The effects of diversion operations downstream of reservoirs should be evaluated. If these
operations are found to be detrimental to steelhead or their habitat, they should be either curtailed
or re-operated to benefit all steelhead lifestages.
Assess Imported Water Uses for Affects to Steelhead

A detailed study assessing the effect of imported water on the steelhead population within the
Guadalupe River watershed should be implemented. The degree to which this practice affects
the steelhead population is not well known. The study should include recommendations to
minimize, and where feasible, curtail this practice within the Guadalupe River system if effects
are determined to be detrimental.


Restoration efforts should focus on providing channel maintenance/forming flows necessary to
mobilize bedload material throughout the watershed downstream of reservoirs and
impoundments, provide suitable gravel material from upstream sources, and remove/remediate
structures and areas of the stream that impair sediment transport processes.
Increase Instream Habitat and Cover, and Increase Instream Channel Complexity
Instream habitat and cover should be improved. Methods may include placing large woody
debris, rock weirs, and boulders within affected reaches. All structures should be designed to
function within the known range of flows at any given project site in order to provide for the
needs of all steelhead lifestages.

Due largely to an absence of LWD and limited channel complexity, shelter and cover ratings are
Low within much of the Guadalupe River watershed downstream of the reservoirs. Where
applicable, restoration efforts should incorporate instream wood/boulder structures into
degraded reaches to improve habitat complexity and shelter availability.

Efforts should be made to improve water quality throughout the Guadalupe River system. In
particular, efforts should focus on limiting or treating urban runoff, remediating mercury mine
sites and locations with mercury-laden sediments, and limiting input of debris and toxic
substances.

Literature Cited
Becker, G.S., I.J. Reining, D.A. Asbury, A. Gunther (2007). San Francisco Estuary watersheds
evaluation identifying promising locations for steelhead restoration in tributaries of
the San Francisco estuary.
Cleugh, E. and C. Mcknight (2002). Steelhead Migration Barrier Survey of San

Francisco Bay Area Creeks (Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo
Counties), California Department of Fish and Game.
Entrix (2000). Stream habitat inventory summary report for the fisheries and aquatic habitat
collaborative effort (FAHCE): draft, Entrix.
Fields, R. (2011). Fish Relocations for Stream Maintenance Program (2010). National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) biological Opinion # 151422-SWR-01-SR-408: Biological
Opinion Terms and Conditions 1(f) and 1(h). Santa Clara Valley Water District: 9.
Gurin, C., M. Koohafkan, A. Mills, R. Williams (2010). Guadalupe River Reach 6 Alternative
Design Assessment. Humboldt State University: 71.
Leidy, R. A., G. S. Becker, B.N. Harvey (2005). Historical distribution and current status of
California. Oakland, CA, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration: 275.
Li, S. (2001). Draft electrofishing surveys on Guadalupe Creek, Stevens, Coyote and Penetentia
Creeks: catch results. Loomis, CA, Aquatic Systems Research.
Nishijima, J., L. Porcella, D. Salsbery (2009). Masson Fishway 2007-2008 Monitoring Report and
Alamitos and Masson Fishway 2003-2008 Summary Report. Santa Clara Valley Water
District: 14
Philip Williams and Associates, Ltd, and H.T. Harvey and Associates (2011). Final report upper
Guadalupe River reach 6: review of channel meander concept, prepared for Santa Clara
Valley Water District
Porcella, L. (2002). Memo - Fish Trapping, Summary 1998-2001 upmigrant trapping and 1998-
2000 outmigrant trapping, Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek, Santa Clara Valley
Water District (SCVWD): 26.

Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). (2011A). Services. Retrieved May 25, 2011, from
http://www.valleywater.org/Services/HealthyCreeksAquaticHabitatCollaborativeEffort.
aspx.
Santa Clara Valley Water District (2011B). Services. Retrieved May 25, 2011, from
http://www.valleywater.org/Services/HealthyCreeksandEcoSystems.aspx.
Santa Clara Valley Water District, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al. 2003. Settlement
Agreement Regarding Water Rights of the Santa Clara Valley Water District on Coyote,
Guadalupe, and Stevens Creeks.
SCBWMI (Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative). 2001. Volume One, Watershed
Characteristics Report. 147 p. Retrieved February 4, 2011 from
http://www.scbwmi.org/PDFs/watershed-characteristic-d8.pdf
SCBWMI (Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative). 2003. Watershed

Characteristics Report Unabridged 2003 Revision. Retrieved February 4, 2011 from
http://cf.valleywater.org/_wmi/Related_report/Wcr2003r.cfm
SCBWMI (Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative). 2011. Table 5-1 Resource
Guide from Volume One, Watershed Characteristics Report Unabridged 2003 Revision.
Retrieved February 4, 2011 from
http://cf.valleywater.org/_wmi/_PDFs/Wcr/WCR2003R/Tables/5-4_74table5-1.pdf.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2011. Watershed Assessment,
Tracking and Environmental Results. Retrieved March 18, 2011 from
http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/index.html.

Guadalupe River CAP Viability Results
Current
Target Rating
Measurement
Large Wood streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating Fair
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
accessible* km km
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
Tree Diameter 39% Class 5 & >69% Class 5 & Not
Riparian Vegetation 5 & 6 across IP- 5 & 6 across IP-
(North of SF Bay) 6 across IP-km 6 across IP-km Specified
km km
70-79%
69% Density 80% Density 70-79% Density
Tree Diameter Density rating
Riparian Vegetation rating "D" rating "D" Not Defined rating "D" across Fair
(South of SF Bay) "D" across IP-
across IP-km across IP-km IP-km
km

Quantity & <50% of IP-Km 50% of IP-Km 75% of IP-Km <50% of IP-km or
Sediment Distribution of or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km <16 IP-km Poor
50-80% >80%
<50% Response <50% Response
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
<1 spawner per
IP-km to < low
low risk low risk spawner
spawner spawner density per
density per
Spence (2008)
Flow Conditions
Condition)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% >17% (0.85mm)
Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) and >30% (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and and >30% Poor
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Gravel Quality
(Embeddedness)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Juveniles Condition

Habitat Complexity Frequency (Bankfull (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Fair
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
Percent Primary
Pools
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Hydrology Fair
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
>5 Diversions/10
Hydrology and/or Magnitude of Diversions/10 Diversions/10 Diversions/10 0 Diversions Poor
IP-km
accessible* km km

Riparian Vegetation Canopy Cover stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; Fair
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
km km
70-79%
km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP 75 to 89% IP
<50% IP km >90% IP km 50 to 74% IP-km
km (<20 C km (<20 C
coho IP coho IP
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5
Size Viability Density <0.2 Fish/m^2 >1.5 Fish/m^2 <0.2 Fish/m^2 Poor
Fish/m^2 Fish/m^2
<50% of 50-74% of 75-90% of >90% of
<50% of
Historical Range

Winter Rearing
Juveniles
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
km km
70-79%
km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50-80% >80%
<50% Response 50-80%
Velocity Refuge Reach Not Defined Response Reach Fair
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Not
Specified
Properly
Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
>5 Diversions/10
IP-km
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
accessible* km km
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
Smolt
Smolt Smolt
abundance Smolt
abundance abundance
which abundance to
spawner density per
Spence (2008) (2008)
Spence (2008)
>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of 24.5% of
6 Hydrology Impervious Surfaces Poor
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of 0.4% of
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of 0% of
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of >25% of
>3 2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6
Transport Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile
>1 0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1
Mile Mile Mile Mile

Guadalupe River CAP Threat Results

1 Agriculture Low Not Specified Low Low Low Not Specified Low
2 Channel Modification Very High High Very High Very High Very High High Very High
3 Disease, Predation and Competition Low Not Specified Low Low Medium Low Low
4 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified
5 Suppression Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Not Specified Low Low Low Not Specified Low
8 Logging and Wood Harvesting Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified
9 Mining High Not Specified High High High Medium High
10 Recreational Areas and Activities Medium Not Specified Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
11 Residential and Commercial Development High High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High
12 Roads and Railroads Very High Medium Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
14 Water Diversion and Impoundments Very High High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High
Threat Status for Targets and Project Very High High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High

Guadalupe River, Central California Coast Steelhead (Coastal San Francisco Bay) Recovery Actions
GudR- modification, or curtailment of the species
CCCS-1.1 Objective Estuary habitat or range
GudR- Recovery
GudR- Restore and enhance estuarine habitat; improve Santa Clara

CCCS- complex habitat features; provide fully functioning Valley Water
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary habitat (CDFG 2004). 3 10 District, USFWS TBD Cost would vary with extent of restoration efforts.
Evaluate the estuary to determine the degree to

GudR- which conditions are limiting steelhead use; identify Santa Clara
CCCS- key limiting factors, and develop and implement a Valley Water Cost estimate for estuary/marsh habitat
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary plan to remedy these limiting factors. 3 10 District, USFWS 250.00 250 assessment.
GudR- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species
CCCS-2.1 Objective Connectivity habitat or range
GudR- Recovery Floodplain

City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Develop and implement plans to provide seasonally Santa Clara,
appropriate flows from reservoirs necessary to County of Santa
GudR- activate the floodplain (see Restoration- Habitat Clara, Santa
CCCS- Floodplain Complexity, Restoration- Hydrology, Threat- Water Clara Valley
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity Diversion/Impoundment). 2 10 Water District TBD
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
Assess floodplain conditions within the Guadalupe San Jose, City of
River watershed. Develop and implement plans to Santa Clara,
maintain floodplain connection where existing, and County of Santa Cost will vary with amount of watershed area
GudR- reconnect disconnected floodplain habitat where Clara, Santa assessed and extent of floodplain connection
CCCS- Floodplain feasible (see Restoration- Habitat Complexity, and Clara Valley restoration efforts. Moderate estimate is $39,240
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity Restoration- Riparian). 2 10 Water District TBD /acre of earthmoving (NMFS2008, pg 26).
To provide stream channel maintenance flows,

during winter and spring, implement periodic large City of Campbell,
pulse "maintenance" flows at the full capacity of the City of Los
outlet works at Guadalupe, Almaden, and Calero Gatos, City of
reservoirs. When possible, time these flows so that San Jose, City of
they coincide with natural rainfall events (see Santa Clara,
GudR- Appendix E of the May 2003 Fisheries and Aquatic Santa Clara
CCCS- Floodplain Habitat Collaborative Effort Draft Settlement Valley Water
2.1.1.3 Action Step Connectivity Agreement). 2 10 District TBD cost will vary depending on water requirements.
CCCS-3.1 Objective Hydrology habitat or range
GudR- Recovery
CCCS-3.1.1 Action Hydrology Improve flow conditions

City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Avoid and/or minimize the adverse effects of water Santa Clara,
diversion and storage on steelhead by releasing County of Santa
GudR- more water to maintain a more natural hydrograph, Clara, Santa
CCCS- and which would provide flows to benefit all life Clara Valley
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology stages of steelhead. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Establish and implement a comprehensive stream

flow program to improve survival at all life stages by
improving the spatial and temporal pattern of surface
flows throughout spawning, rearing, and migration
areas (see Objectives, Actions, and Action Steps
within: Threat- Water Diversion/Impoundment,
GudR- Restoration- Floodplain Connectivity, Restoration- Santa Clara
CCCS- Habitat Complexity, Threat- Channel Modification, Valley Water cost will be dependent upon amount of water
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology and Threat- Residential/Commercial Development). 1 10 District TBD required, and extent of the program.
CCCS-5.1 Objective Passage habitat or range
GudR- Recovery
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
Expedite projects providing improved steelhead San Jose, City of
passage and stable channel conditions. See the Santa Clara, Estimate of $278,409/project within suburban
California Department of Fish and Game barrier County of Santa setting used (CDFG 2004, pg I-16), and an
GudR- survey report (Cleugh and McKnight 2002), Clara, Santa estimate of 5 barriers to be improved/removed.
CCCS- coordinate with Santa Clara Valley Water District, Clara Valley Passage improvement is of the absolute highest
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage and perform more current surveys as needed. 1 5 Water District 1,392 1,392 priority - expedite.
Cost estimate from:
Steelhead Abundance/Distribution project type
(NMFS 2008, pg 58). Cost is approximate.
GudR- Santa Clara Support and expedite projects that contribute to
CCCS- Evaluate existing above-reservoir habitat for its ability Valley Water above-reservoir passage
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage to support steelhead. 1 5 District 112.52 113 investigation/implementation.
Implement feasible, biologically sound passage
GudR- program(s) that are coupled with the reservoir flow Santa Clara
CCCS- plans and operations necessary to facilitate long- Valley Water
5.1.1.3 Action Step Passage term implementation. 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Perform a passage feasibility study specific to each

dam and reservoir. Almaden Reservoir on Alamitos
Creek is of highest priority for this action in this
watershed. Include water system uses, reservoir
operations, and both adult immigration and
adult/smolt emigration passage requirements. See Consider both volitional and non-volitional
GudR- HDRs field report prepared for the Santa Clara Santa Clara passage methods in the assessment. Cost based
CCCS- Valley Water District (HDR 2010) for initial Valley Water on escapement monitoring at a rate of
5.1.1.4 Action Step Passage reconnaissance efforts. Coordinate with NMFS. 1 5 District 44.00 44 $43,654/project.

Using cost estimates from a draft fish passage

assessment performed by HDR engineering Inc.
(2009) for Los Padres Dam: cost estimates range
depending on methodology. For this estimate:
15 million for ladder installation (trap and haul
less)
10 million for 100 years of operation (trap and
GudR- Santa Clara haul similar). This estimates for one reservoir -
CCCS- Expeditiously implement the most feasible and Valley Water multiply for multiple reservoirs.
5.1.1.5 Action Step Passage biologically beneficial passage program. 1 100 District 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 25,000
GudR- If beneficial and feasible, acquire funding necessary Santa Clara

CCCS- to ensure the long-term operations, and future Valley Water Action is considered In-Kind because the grants
5.1.1.6 Action Step Passage improvement of this passage program. 1 5 District 0 would be written by county staff
GudR- Santa Clara
CCCS- Develop and implement a long term study program to Valley Water From NMFS 2008, Pg 58 - Steelhead
5.1.1.7 Action Step Passage assess the efficacy of the passage program. 1 5 District 112.52 113 Abundance/Distribution Monitoring
CDFW, NMFS,
GudR- Santa Clara
CCCS- Maintain and improve passage facilitates associated Valley Water
5.1.1.8 Action Step Passage with the Guadalupe Flood Project. 2 50 District, USACE TBD
GudR- Santa Clara

CCCS- Valley Water
5.1.1.9 Action Step Passage Return Lake Almaden to stream/riverine conditions. 2 40 District, USACE TBD
GudR- Habitat modification, or curtailment of the species
CCCS-6.1 Objective Complexity habitat or range
GudR- Recovery
CCCS-6.1.1 Action Habitat Complexity Increase large wood frequency and shelter
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
Identify locations where channel modification has San Jose, City of
resulted in decreased shelter, LWD frequency, and Santa Clara,
habitat complexity, and develop and implement site County of Santa
GudR- specific plans to improve these conditions. Consider Clara, Santa
CCCS- flow rates and discharges when designing LWD and Clara Valley Cost based on fish/habitat restoration at a rate of
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity shelter enhancement features. 2 10 Water District 69.00 69.00 138 $137,833/project.
Focus initial efforts within upstream-most accessible

reaches, management zones and Cold Water
GudR- Management Zone(s) (see Appendix E of the May Santa Clara
CCCS- 2003 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Valley Water
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity Effort Draft Settlement Agreement). 2 10 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Likely to be coupled with other habitat restoration
GudR- Santa Clara related monitoring -see cost estimates for Pool
CCCS- Perform pre- and post-project monitoring to assess Valley Water Frequency within Restoration - Habitat
6.1.1.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity steelhead use within improved reaches. 3 10 District TBD Complexity.
GudR- Recovery
CCCS-6.1.2 Action Habitat Complexity Improve frequency of primary pools

City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Identify locations where pool frequency and habitat Santa Clara,
complexity are limiting, and develop and implement County of Santa Cost based on fish/habitat restoration at a rate of
GudR- site specific plans to improve these conditions. Clara, Santa $137,833/project. This action step should be
CCCS- Consider flow rates and discharges when designing Clara Valley coordinated with other action steps to reduce
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity pool enhancement features. 2 10 Water District 69.00 69.00 138 redundancy and cost.
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- Clara, Santa
CCCS- Perform pre- and post-project monitoring to assess Clara Valley
6.1.2.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity steelhead use within improved reaches. 3 10 Water District 48.35 48.35 97 Cost will vary with area surveyed.
GudR- Habitat Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
CCCS-6.2 Objective Complexity mechanisms
GudR- Recovery
CCCS-6.2.1 Action Habitat Complexity Increase large wood frequency and shelter
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
Educate county and city public works departments, County of Santa
GudR- flood control districts, and planning departments, etc., Clara, Santa
CCCS- on the critical importance of maintaining riparian Clara Valley Estimate from General Education and Outreach
6.2.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity vegetation, instream LWD, and LWD recruitment. 2 10 Water District 38.07 38.07 76 cost: $76,136/program (CDFG, 2004 pg I.42)
CCCS-7.1 Objective Riparian habitat or range
GudR- Recovery
CCCS-7.1.1 Action Riparian Improve canopy cover and species composition
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of Cost will depend upon extent and duration of
GudR- Identify reaches dominated by exotic vegetation, and Santa Clara, exotic vegetation removal / native vegetation
CCCS- develop and implement site specific plans to restore County of Santa restoration efforts. Cost for non-native removal
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian these reaches. 3 10 Clara TBD estimated at $1036/acre
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
Continue, and expand upon current efforts, including County of Santa
GudR- those of Santa Clara Valley Water District's Stream Clara, Santa Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
CCCS- Maintenance Program, to remove exotic vegetation Clara Valley project/mile in 5% high IP with 80 acres/mile) at a
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian (including Arundo donax), and restore these reaches. 3 10 Water District 20.00 20.00 40 rate of $$1,036/acre.

City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
Identify reaches suffering from riparian San Jose, City of
encroachment, and develop and implement site Santa Clara,
specific plans to restore and maintain these reaches. County of Santa
GudR- Consider thinning of dense native riparian vegetation Clara, Santa Cost based on treating 1.7 miles (assume 1
CCCS- as necessary to better allow healthy species- and Clara Valley project/mile in 15% high IP with 80 acres/mile) at
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian age- composition. 3 10 Water District 120.00 120.00 240 a rate of $1,761/acre.
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
Develop and implement flow schedules from Santa Clara,
GudR- reservoirs necessary to maintain healthy riparian Santa Clara
CCCS- conditions (see Objective, Actions, and Action Steps Valley Water
7.1.1.4 Action Step Riparian within: Restoration- Hydrology). 2 10 District 0 Cost accounted for in HYDROLOGY
CCCS-8.1 Objective Sediment habitat or range
GudR- Recovery
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- Clara, Santa
CCCS- Identify sources of sedimentation, and develop and Clara Valley Cost based on fish/habitat restoration monitoring
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment implement a plan to address these sources. 2 10 Water District 69.00 69.00 138 at a rate of $137,833/project.
GudR- Santa Clara
CCCS- Provide flows and instream conditions necessary to Valley Water
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment provide mobilization and maintenance of gravels. 2 10 District 0 Cost accounted for in HYDROLOGY
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Perform reach restoration to facilitate gravel Gatos, City of
maintenance. Include methods such as instream San Jose, City of
restoration, isolation of current on-stream percolation Santa Clara,
ponds, and a gravel placement program. Include County of Santa
GudR- flow schedules necessary for mobilization and Clara, Santa
CCCS- "maintenance" of gravel quantity and quality suitable Clara Valley Cost will vary depending on extent of restoration
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment for steelhead. 1 5 Water District TBD efforts, and methodologies employed.
CCCS-10.1 Objective Water Quality habitat or range
GudR-
CCCS- Recovery
10.1.1 Action Water Quality Improve instream temperature conditions
Maintain suitable temperatures downstream of

reservoirs (see the reservoir rule curves that provide
for maintenance of a "cold water management zone"
GudR- downstream of Guadalupe Reservoir - Appendix E of Santa Clara
CCCS- the May 2003 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Valley Water
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality Collaborative Effort Draft Settlement Agreement). 2 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Evaluate the effects of groundwater recharge

facilities on stream temperature. Develop and
GudR- implement a plan to address any effects. Include Santa Clara
CCCS- methods to address warming of stream water within Valley Water
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality restoration plans for these reaches. 2 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
To aide maintenance of cool instream temperatures,
GudR- decrease channelization, and increase riparian cover Santa Clara
CCCS- (see Restoration - Riparian, and Threat - Channel Valley Water Costs accounted for in RIPARIAN and CHANNEL
10.1.1.3 Action Step Water Quality Modification). 1 5 District 0 MODIFICATION
GudR-
CCCS- Recovery
City of Cupertino,
City of San Jose,
City of Santa
Clara, County of
Evaluate point and non-point sources contributing to Santa Clara,
GudR- poor water quality, including sources contributing Santa Clara Cost based on installing a minimum of 3
CCCS- debris, pesticides, and sediment (turbidity); develop Valley Water continuous water quality monitors at a rate of
10.1.2.1 Action Step Water Quality and implement a plan to address these sources. 1 5 District 15.00 15 $5,000/station.
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- Encourage the use of native vegetation in new Clara, Santa
CCCS- landscaping to reduce the need for watering and Clara Valley
10.1.2.2 Action Step Water Quality application of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. 3 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GudR- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

CCCS-11.1 Objective Viability mechanisms
GudR-
CDFW, CDFW
Law
Enforcement,
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
Support (fund) the hiring and retention of dedicated Clara, NMFS
GudR- environmental law enforcement personnel (i.e., OLE, Santa
CCCS- CDFW wardens; park rangers, federal service Clara Valley Cost estimate for Fish and Wildlife Warden from
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability enforcement agents, etc.). 3 10 Water District 28.02 28.02 56 Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009.
GudR- Address other natural or manmade factors

CCCS-11.2 Objective Viability affecting the species' continued existence
GudR-

City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- Implement a monitoring program to evaluate the Clara, Santa Future monitoring will be part of the Coastal
CCCS- performance (population response) of recovery Clara Valley Monitoring Plan. Costs for the CMP are
11.2.1.1 Action Step Viability efforts. 2 10 Water District 0 accounted for in the Monitoring Chapter.
GudR- Implement standardized assessment protocols (i.e., Santa Clara
CCCS- CDFW habitat assessment protocols) to ensure ESU- Valley Water
11.2.1.2 Action Step Viability wide consistency. 2 10 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Perform standardized adult upmigration surveys.
GudR- Include assessment above significant below- Santa Clara
CCCS- reservoir barriers. Valley Water Costs for salmonid monitoring are covered in the
11.2.1.3 Action Step Viability 2 10 District 0 Monitoring Chapter
GudR- Santa Clara
CCCS- Valley Water Costs for salmonid monitoring are covered in the
11.2.1.4 Action Step Viability Perform standardized adult spawning (redd) surveys. 2 10 District 0 Monitoring Chapter
GudR- Santa Clara
11.2.1.5 Action Step Viability Perform standardized smolt outmigration surveys. 2 10 District 0 Monitoring Chapter
GudR- Santa Clara
11.2.1.6 Action Step Viability Perform standardized juvenile rearing surveys. 2 10 District 0 Monitoring Chapter
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
Monitor population status for response to recovery San Jose, City of
actions, habitat improvements, and recovery action Santa Clara,
implementation - adjust population and life stage County of Santa
GudR- monitoring efforts to reflect new habitat Clara, Santa
CCCS- improvements and accessible habitat expansions; Clara Valley Costs for salmonid monitoring are covered in the
11.2.1.7 Action Step Viability use this information to adapt recovery strategies. 2 10 Water District 0 Monitoring Chapter
GudR- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species
CCCS-13.1 Objective Modification habitat or range
GudR-
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- Clara, Santa
CCCS- Channel Where feasible, implement alternatives to bank Clara Valley
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification hardening; utilize bioengineering. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind

City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- All proposed levees should be designed to account Clara, Santa
CCCS- Channel for minimal maintenance associated with an intact Clara Valley
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification and functioning riparian zone. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- When levees are utilized, design to allow Clara, Santa
CCCS- Channel maintenance of an intact and functioning riparian Clara Valley
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification zone where feasible. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
Where riprap and other bank hardening is necessary, County of Santa
GudR- integrate other habitat-forming features including Clara, Santa
CCCS- Channel large woody debris and riparian plantings and other Clara Valley
13.1.1.4 Action Step Modification methodologies to minimize habitat alteration effects. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Thoroughly investigate the ultimate cause of channel Santa Clara,
instability prior to engaging in site specific channel County of Santa
GudR- modifications and maintenance. Identify and target Clara, Santa
CCCS- Channel remediation of watershed process disruption as an Clara Valley
13.1.1.5 Action Step Modification overall priority. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- Promote streamside conservation measures, Clara, Santa
CCCS- Channel including conservation easements, setbacks, and Clara Valley
13.1.1.6 Action Step Modification riparian buffers (CDFG 2004). 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
GudR- Santa Clara,
CCCS- Channel Avoid or minimize the effects from flood control County of Santa
13.1.1.7 Action Step Modification projects on salmonid habitat. 2 10 Clara 0 Action is considered In-Kind

City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Evaluate existing and future stream crossings to Santa Clara,
identify threats to natural hydrologic processes. County of Santa
GudR- Replace or retrofit crossings to achieve more natural Clara, Santa
CCCS- Channel conditions, and improved passage and stream Clara Valley
13.1.1.8 Action Step Modification function. 2 10 Water District 0 Cost accounted for in PASSAGE
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Counties and municipalities should adopt a policy of Gatos, City of
managed retreat (removal of problematic San Jose, City of
GudR- infrastructure and replacement with native vegetation Santa Clara,
CCCS- Channel or flood tolerant land uses) for areas highly County of Santa
13.1.1.9 Action Step Modification susceptible to, or previously damaged from, flooding. 2 10 Clara 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Disease
GudR- /Predation
CCCS-14.1 Objective /Competition Address disease or predation
GudR- Disease
CCCS- Recovery /Predation Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
14.1.1 Action /Competition and diversity
CDFW, City of
Campbell, City of
Identify locations within the watershed that support Los Gatos, City
exotic piscivorous fish species, and develop and of San Jose, City
implement a plan to decrease the effects of predation of Santa Clara,
by these species. Consider provision of instream County of Santa
GudR- Disease habitat and cover that provides refuge for salmonids, Clara, Santa Cost based on amount of exotic piscivorous fish
CCCS- /Predation and/or the elimination of instream conditions that Clara Valley species to be removed. Cost for pikeminnow
14.1.1.1 Action Step /Competition support and favor exotic species. 2 10 Water District TBD eradication estimated at $9.38/fish.
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of Cost estimate for 4 fish screens installation, and
Continue programs to screen inputs of off-channel Santa Clara, 100 year maintenance. Fish screen installation
water to prevent the introduction of exotic, predatory, County of Santa 11,364 each (NMFS 2008, pg 16); maintenance
GudR- Disease warm water fishes into the channel from these Clara, Santa 1,566 /screen/year (NMFS 2008, pg 68).
CCCS- /Predation sources. Develop and implement these programs Clara Valley Estimate for installation and four years
14.1.1.2 Action Step /Competition where not in place. 2 100 Water District 80.57 80.57 80.57 80.57 80.57 1,611 maintenance = $1,611,456.
GudR- Disease
CCCS- Recovery /Predation Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
14.1.2 Action /Competition species composition and structure
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- Disease Improve conditions for steelhead by decreasing the Clara, Santa
CCCS- /Predation effects of exotic vegetation within the stream and Clara Valley
14.1.2.1 Action Step /Competition riparian corridor (see Restoration- Riparian). 3 10 Water District 0 Cost accounted for in RIPARIAN

CCCS-20.1 Objective Mining habitat or range
GudR- Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
20.1.1 Action Mining toxicity)
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- Improve conditions for steelhead within the Clara, Santa
CCCS- Guadalupe River system by decreasing the effects of Clara Valley Cost based on methods and amount of
20.1.1.1 Action Step Mining past mining operations. 2 10 Water District TBD improvements needed.
Evaluate mining areas for contributions to poor water

quality, including sources contributing sediment County of Santa
GudR- (turbidity), and mercury; develop and implement a Clara, Santa Cost based on a minimum of 3 continuous water
CCCS- plan to address these sources (see Restoration - Clara Valley quality monitoring stations at a rate of
20.1.1.2 Action Step Mining Water Quality and Restoration - Sediment). 2 5 Water District 15.00 15 $5,000/station.
CCCS-21.1 Objective Recreation habitat or range
GudR-
CCCS- Recovery
21.1.1 Action Recreation Rehabilitate and enhance floodplain connectivity
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
Evaluate the effects of recreational facilities such as San Jose, City of
GudR- bike/pedestrian trails, and road crossings that may Santa Clara,
CCCS- constrain opportunities to expand channel width County of Santa Cost based on riparian restoration monitoring at a
21.1.1.1 Action Step Recreation and/or reconnect floodplain. 2 10 Clara 44.50 44.50 89 rate of $88,551/project.
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
Develop and implement a plan that remediates San Jose, City of
existing recreational facilities to allow for stream Santa Clara,
functions, and sites new facilities in such a way that County of Santa
GudR- their placement does not constrain channel width or Clara, Santa
CCCS- floodplain connection (see Restoration- Floodplain Clara Valley
21.1.1.2 Action Step Recreation Connectivity). 1 5 Water District TBD
GudR-
CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to riparian species
21.1.2 Action Recreation composition and structure
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- Encourage acquisition and protection of riparian Clara, Private
CCCS- corridors and stream areas, and incorporate these Landowners,
21.1.2.1 Action Step Recreation areas into existing or new protected areas. 2 100 State Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind

GudR-
CCCS- Recovery
21.1.3 Action Recreation Modify or remove physical passage barriers
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
GudR- Identify existing passage barriers within recreational Santa Clara,
CCCS- areas and develop and implement a plan to remove County of Santa Cost based on amount of passage barriers. Cost
21.1.3.1 Action Step Recreation or remediate these structures. 2 10 Clara TBD estimated at $639,247/project.
Residential
GudR- /Commercial Address the present or threatened destruction,
CCCS-22.1 Objective Development modification, or curtailment of habitat or range
GudR- Residential
CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
Improve conditions for steelhead by reducing the City of Campbell,

density of existing residential and commercial City of Los
GudR- Residential development where feasible, and remediating Gatos, City of Cost based on amount of habitat available to
CCCS- /Commercial existing development contributing to poor stream San Jose, City of improve. This area is highly urbanized and
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development conditions. 2 10 Santa Clara TBD opportunities to reclaim floodplain are few.
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
GudR- Residential Upgrade existing stormwater systems into a spatially Santa Clara, Cost based on amount of existing system needing
CCCS- /Commercial distributed discharge network (rather than a few point County of Santa to be upgraded. Cost estimated at $11,065/storm
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development discharges). 2 10 Clara TBD drain.
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara, Conduct an assessment to determine areas
Assess and where feasible restore areas where County of Santa where infrastructure can reasonably be modified
GudR- Residential existing infrastructure exists within streams, historical Clara, Santa or relocated to accommodate habitat
CCCS- /Commercial floodplains or off channel habitats in any steelhead Clara Valley enhancement features. Implement where found
22.1.1.3 Action Step Development watersheds. Proactively work with landowners. 2 20 Water District TBD necessary and suitable.
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- Residential Maintain intact and properly functioning riparian Clara, Santa
CCCS- /Commercial buffers to filter and prevent fine sediment input from Clara Valley
22.1.1.4 Action Step Development entering streams. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Cupertino,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
GudR- Residential Improve steelhead survival by minimizing the input of Santa Clara,
CCCS- /Commercial sediment or toxic compounds originating from County of Santa
22.1.1.5 Action Step Development commercial or residential development. 2 10 Clara 0 Cost have been accounted in other action steps.

City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
Disperse discharge from new or upgraded County of Santa
GudR- Residential commercial and residential areas into a spatially Clara, Santa
CCCS- /Commercial distributed network rather than a few point Clara Valley
22.1.1.6 Action Step Development discharges. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential
GudR- /Commercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
GudR- Residential
CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
GudR- Residential New development should minimize storm-water Clara, Santa
CCCS- /Commercial runoff, changes in duration, or magnitude of peak Clara Valley
22.2.1.1 Action Step Development flow. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Design new development to allow streams to Gatos, City of
meander in historical patterns; protecting riparian San Jose, City of
GudR- Residential zones and their floodplains or channel migration Santa Clara,
CCCS- /Commercial zones averts the need for bank erosion control in County of Santa
22.2.1.2 Action Step Development most situations. 2 10 Clara 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
Design new developments to minimize impacts to County of Santa
GudR- Residential unstable slopes, wetlands, areas of high habitat Clara, Santa
CCCS- /Commercial value, and similarly constrained sites that occur Clara Valley
22.2.1.3 Action Step Development adjacent to a steelhead watercourse. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- Residential Clara, Santa
CCCS- /Commercial Minimize new development within riparian zones and Clara Valley
22.2.1.4 Action Step Development the 100 year floodprone zones. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind

City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
Institutionalize programs to purchase San Jose, City of
land/conservation easements to encourage the re- Santa Clara,
establishment and/or enhancement of natural riparian County of Santa
GudR- Residential communities. Restore uplands for watershed Clara, Santa
CCCS- /Commercial processes; restore stream channel and floodplain for Clara Valley
22.2.1.5 Action Step Development steelhead use. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- Residential Clara, Santa
CCCS- /Commercial Minimize future development in floodplains or off Clara Valley
22.2.1.6 Action Step Development channel habitats. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- Residential Encourage infill and high density developments over Clara, Santa
CCCS- /Commercial dispersal of low density rural residential Clara Valley
22.2.1.7 Action Step Development development. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CCCS-23.1 Objective Roads/Railroads habitat or range
GudR- Prevent or minimize impairment to instream
CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
GudR- Evaluate existing roadways within 200 meters of the Santa Clara,
CCCS- riparian corridor, and develop plans to decrease the County of Santa
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads ongoing impacts associated with these roads. 2 10 Clara 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- Design new roads that minimize impacts to riparian Clara, Santa
CCCS- areas and are hydrologically disconnected from the Clara Valley
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads stream network. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind

City of Campbell,
City of Los
Gatos, City of
San Jose, City of
Santa Clara,
County of Santa
GudR- Address sediment and runoff sources from road Clara, Santa
CCCS- networks and other actions that deliver sediment and Clara Valley
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads runoff to stream channels. 2 10 Water District TBD
GudR-
CalTrans, City of
Campbell, City of
Los Gatos, City
of San Jose, City
Bridges associated with new roads or replacement of Santa Clara,
bridges (including railroad bridges) should be free County of Santa
GudR- span or constructed with the minimum number of Clara, Santa
CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation Clara Valley
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads and facilitate fish passage. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GudR- Water Diversion modification, or curtailment of the species
CCCS-25.1 Objective /Impoundment habitat or range
GudR-
CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
GudR- During winter and spring implement moderate winter Santa Clara
CCCS- Water Diversion baseflows to provide adequate water depths Valley Water
25.1.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment necessary for upstream and downstream migration 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GudR- During winter and spring implement periodic migrant Santa Clara
CCCS- Water Diversion attractant flows necessary to attract adult fish Valley Water
25.1.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment upstream, and encourage outmigration of smolts. 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind

during winter and spring, implement periodic large
pulse "maintenance" flows at the full capacity of the
GudR- outlet works at Guadalupe, Almaden, and Calero Santa Clara
CCCS- Water Diversion reservoirs. When possible, time these flows so that Valley Water
25.1.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment they coincide with natural rainfall events. 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
During summer and fall, manage release rates so
GudR- that depths and velocities favoring fry and juvenile Santa Clara
CCCS- Water Diversion steelhead are provided. Valley Water
25.1.1.4 Action Step /Impoundment 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Ramp all reservoir releases (flood maintenance
releases, fisheries passage releases, summer
GudR- baseflow, and other planned releases) as necessary Santa Clara
CCCS- Water Diversion to minimize deleterious effects of flow Valley Water
25.1.1.5 Action Step /Impoundment increases/decreases. 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind

CDFW, City of
Campbell, City of
Los Gatos, City
of San Jose, City
of Santa Clara,
GudR- Santa Clara
CCCS- Water Diversion Design all habitat enhancements to function within Valley Water
25.1.1.6 Action Step /Impoundment the anticipated range of flows. 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Install instream habitat enhancement features
designed to increase the quantity and quality of fry AC Alliance, Cost based to treat 3 miles (assume 1
GudR- and juvenile steelhead habitat by creating habitats Santa Clara project/mile in 25% high IP) at a rate of
CCCS- Water Diversion with depth, velocity, and cover components that favor Valley Water $31,200/mile. Engineered structures will likely be
25.1.1.7 Action Step /Impoundment these life stages. 1 5 District 94.00 94 used, which will increase cost.
GudR- Manage streamfllow and temperature to improve Santa Clara

CCCS- Water Diversion habitat conditions, and mimic seasonal variability. Valley Water
25.1.1.8 Action Step /Impoundment 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GudR- Water Diversion Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

CCCS-25.2 Objective /Impoundment mechanisms
GudR-
GudR- Allow all "fisheries flows" (baseflows, and passage, Santa Clara
CCCS- Water Diversion attractant, and channel maintenance flows) to bypass Valley Water
25.2.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment diversion facilities. 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GudR- Maintain and operate fish ladders on laddered Santa Clara
CCCS- Water Diversion diversion facilities and bypass flows necessary for Valley Water
25.2.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment passage over critical riffles. 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Perform a detailed study assessing the degree to
which imported water is used within Guadalupe River
system and its effects on the steelhead population.
Develop and implement a plan to minimize and,
where feasible, curtail the practice of discharging Estimate for stream flow/precipitation model is
GudR- imported water within the Guadalupe River system. Santa Clara $$78,100/project. However, because of the detail
CCCS- Water Diversion Valley Water needed for this action step, this is likely an
25.2.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment 1 5 District TBD underestimate.

Novato Creek Population


NMFS is unaware of any estimates of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) abundance from Novato
Creek. However, there have been several limited fish surveys undertaken in Novato Creek in
recent years (Rich 1997, Fawcett Environmental Consulting 2000, Leidy et al. 2005, Fawcett
Environmental Consulting 2006, Fawcett Environmental Consulting 2009); all of these surveys
encountered steelhead. NMFS assumes that the population of steelhead in the Novato Creek
watershed is small given the numbers of fish observations reported in those reports and the
current habitat conditions in Novato Creek and its tributaries. Becker et al. 2007 reports
reproducing steelhead from Novato Creek and two of its tributaries: Vineyard Creek and
Bowman Canyon. These authors conclude that although steelhead have been observed in Arroyo
San Jose, another Novato Creek tributary, there isnt sufficient information to characterize the
system as supporting a reproducing population. Further, Becker et al. 2007 report observations
of steelhead from Arroyo Avichi although they dont reach a conclusion as to whether or not
steelhead are reproducing in that Novato Creek tributary. However, steelhead are likely blocked
from accessing spawning habitat in Arroyo Avichi by culverts and trash racks about mile from
that streams confluence with Novato Creek. Leidy et al. 2005 surveyed Pacheco Creek, another
Novato Creek tributary and observed no steelhead. Although that was only one survey, the
current habitat in much of Pacheco Creek is poor, and there are several migration barriers, so the
likelihood of steelhead presence is low.
History of Land Use

The Marin County Department of Public Works has reported on the human settlement history of
the Novato Creek watershed 1. The following information is from that report: Miwok and Pomo
people were the earliest residents of the watershed. In 1839, Rancho Novato was created through
a Mexican land grant and led to significant conversion of the watershed, primarily for grazing
uses. Other agricultural uses followed with conversions of grassland, oak woodlands, and tidal
marshlands to grazing, orchards, and croplands. By the mid-1850s many of the creeks in the
1 http://www.marinwatersheds.org/novato_creek.html
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Novato Creek 599

watershed had been channelized for irrigation. The tidal marshlands had also been diked and
drained for agriculture (primarily oat-hay production) by the middle of the nineteenth century.
An interesting consequence of the California Gold Rush (beginning in the late 1840s) was the
filling of the San Francisco Bay margins by sediments mobilized in the Sierra region by hydraulic
mining operations. 2 By the 1890s, the shoreline extended a mile farther into the Bay because of
the massive transfer of sediment from the Sierra Nevada foothills. The wetlands, including
marshlands of lower Novato Creek watershed, have likely changed in area and location due to
the influx of sediment to San Pablo Bay during this time.
Transportation has been significant in the development of the City of Novato. In the 1880s
Novato Creek was dredged to make way for schooners bound for San Francisco, though
currently, boat traffic is restricted to pleasure craft in the lower portion of the watershed, near Bel
Marin Keys. Novatos population grew after the railroad was built in the mid- to late-1870s.
Interstate Highway 101 traverses the eastern side of Novato, and Hamilton Air Force Base
(commissioned from 1935 until 1974), and Marin County Airport (Gnoss Field) are other
significant parts of transportation infrastructure that were or are found in the watershed.

The County of Marin states that Novato is the fastest growing municipality in Marin County1.
The U.S. Census Bureau reports the 2000 human population of Novato was 47,630 and the 2010
population was 58,652 3 -- more than a 23 percent increase in that decade. The County of Marin
anticipates continued growth in the population of Novato and has projected a theoretical build-
out population of Novato of approximately 63,000 4 . The Marin Countywide Plan does not
provide a definitive time horizon for the theoretical build-out or for the plan in general; however,
many projections for various elements throughout the Marin Countywide Plan go through 2020.
The City of Novato covers about half of the Novato Creek watershed and urban and commercial
development is widespread within that area. Novato is actively engaged in downtown
redevelopment with proposed development of commercial and residential uses and supporting
infrastructure. The Marin Countywide Plan 5 identifies Novato as having the greatest growth
potential in Marin for commercial and industrial development.1
2 http://www.nbwatershed.org/millercreek/index6.html
3 http://factfinder.census.gov/
4
http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/cd/main/fm/cwpdocs/CWP_CD2.pdf
5 http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/fm/cwpdocs/CWP_CD2.pdf

More than three-quarters of the Novato Creek watershed is in private ownership 6 . Land
ownership within the Novato Creek watershed is included in Table 1.
Table 1: Land ownership within the Novato Creek watershed.
Land Ownership Acres Percent of Watershed

Private 24,453 77%
Local (City/County Park) 147 0%
Local (Open Space) 4,335 14%
Local (Water District) 236 1%
State (Fish & Game) 700 2%
State (Parks & Recreation) 4 0%
Federal (USAF-Hamilton) 1,784 6%
Information provided by Management Landscape, California Department of Forestry, 2002.
Several agencies or special districts operate within the Novato Creek watershed that may have
an effect on aquatic habitat within the watershed. The North Marin Water District (NMWD)
provides treated water for residents within the Novato Creek watershed. About 80 percent of the
water delivered by the NMWD is purchased from the Sonoma County Water Agency (water is
derived from the Russian River watershed), and about 20 percent of the water delivered by
NMWD comes from Stafford Lake, an on-stream reservoir on Novato Creek. Additionally, since
2007, the NMWD operates the Deer Island Recycled Water Facility, located adjacent to Highway
37. Presently, water from this facility provides irrigation water to the Stone Tree Golf Course and
Novato Fire Protection District Station 62. Ultimately, the expanded recycled water facilities will
be used to offset approximately 220 million gallons per year of potable water demand for
landscape irrigation, and reduce dependence on imported water supply from the Russian River
and wastewater discharge into San Pablo Bay.
The Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District conducts the periodic
dredging of portions of Novato Creek, Warner Creek and Arroyo Avichi for flood control, an
annual creek clearance program carried out by the Marin Conservation Corps under the direction
of District staff, and operation and maintenance of four stormwater pumping stations; and
consults with the City of Novato regarding development proposals and their related flood control
issues. Recently, the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District undertook
the Vineyard Creek Capital Improvement Project to increase flood conveyance, stabilize incised
banks, and promote an ecologically healthy stream corridor along the approximately 2500 feet
6 NMFS GIS data Novato Creek Watershed Characterization.

reach of Vineyard Creek, a major Novato Creek tributary. In 2007, the Marin County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District produced Bank Stabilization Guidelines for a portion of
Novato Creek.
Marin County's Department of Public Works also staffs the Novato Watershed Program, a
collaboration of the County, Novato Sanitary District, North Marin Water District, and the City
of Novato to provide a system-wide analysis of flood protection and habitat restoration options.
The Novato Watershed Program is still in the process of determining project alternatives, but one
initial project has been developed for flood protection and habitat restoration in lower Novato
Creek baylands (behind Target/Costco) north of Hwy 37. The proposed project would lay back
levees, increase tidal prism, and open 80 acres to tidal flushing and conversion to tidal marsh.
The Novato Watershed Program has sought IRWMP grant funding for the project.
The Novato Sanitary District provides wastewater collection and treatment to Novato and some
surrounding areas, as well as solid waste management, water education, and recycled
wastewater 7, 8. The Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority provide household
hazardous waste collection, recycling and disposal information for residents and businesses, and
ensures the County's compliance with recycling mandates. The Marin Resource Conservation
District provides technical assistance to agricultural landowners on soil erosion and resource
conservation matters. The County of Marin Open Space District manages select County-owned
lands to preserve, protect, and enrich the natural aspect of those properties. Also, some open
space parcels provide recreational opportunities.
The County of Marin reports the following land protection and restoration efforts in the Novato
Creek watershed: Hamilton Wetland Restoration project, Rush Creek and Bahia restoration
projects, and planning by the City of Novato and Marin County Open Space District for
preservation and land acquisition for trails.

The following key attributes were rated Poor through the CAP process for steelhead: Estuary,
Habitat Complexity, Hydrology, Landscape Patterns, Passage/Migration, Riparian, Sediment,
Sediment Transport, Velocity Refuge, Viability, and Water Quality. Recovery strategies will focus
on improving these poor conditions as well as those needed to ensure population viability and
functioning watershed processes.
7 http://www.novatosan.com/
8 http://www.nmwd.com/pdf/conservation/FAQ%20Web%20Final%20030311.pdf

Current Conditions
our CAP viability analysis. The Novato Creek CAP Viability Table results are provided below.

The portions of the Novato Creek watershed that are tidally-influenced likely had limited
abundance of riparian trees. However, the upper portions of the watershed were likely
dominated by coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), quickly transforming to mixed woodland of
California bay (Umbellularia californica), buckeye (Aesculus glabra), coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia), and California black oak (Quercus kelloggii), then becoming more savannah-like in lower
elevations. Systematic data related to riparian tree diameter effects on adult steelhead within the
Novato Creek watershed are not available. However, poor riparian conditions are common
throughout much of the Novato Creek watershed, and have likely resulted in elevated summer
water temperature, high substrate embeddedness levels, prevalent stream bank erosion, and
limited recruitment of large woody debris for rearing salmonids. Tree diameter was used as an
indicator of riparian function based on the average diameter at breast height of a stand of trees
within a buffer that extends 100 meters back from the edge of the active channel. Within the
Novato Creek watershed there are few (if any) places in which riparian tree vegetation extends
100 meters back from the edge of the active channel. In the headwater areas of the watershed,
the condition of the riparian vegetation is likely related to anthropogenic factors and natural
conditions based on local geology, and hydrologic conditions. Within the urbanized portion of
the watershed, the area west of Highway 101, this is certainly attributable to anthropogenic
factors, as there is much encroachment of the riparian areas of Novato Creek and its tributaries.
The NMWD has worked with the County of Marin and private property owners in the watershed
upstream of Stafford Dam to improve riparian conditions. 9 The portion of the watershed east of
Highway 101 has been highly modified through channelization, levees, and various water control
structures, and is used primarily for agricultural activities, though some residential development
has occurred. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification;
and Residential and Commercial Development.

All of the main channel of Novato Creek east of Highway 101 is channelized and leveed,
disconnecting the seasonal or tidal wetlands from the stream. The portion of Novato Creek near
9
January 23, 2012, letter from NMWD to NMFS,

Highway 101 is dredged on a regular basis (about every 3 or 4 years) as a flood control measure.
The riparian vegetation community has been greatly modified and likely reduced as well and this
may affect water temperature regime and the amount of allochthonous food items available to
steelhead. Also, tide gates and other water management structures are present in that general
area, and the majority of the area has been converted for agricultural uses. Bel Marin Keys is an
unincorporated community of about 700 homes in the lower Novato Creek watershed. This
community is east of Highway 101 and south of Highway 37 and lies on the southern flank of
Novato Creek in an area of historic tidal wetlands that were converted to agricultural land in the
early 20th century. Agricultural and urban land uses may lead to inputs of pollutants that may
reach Novato Creek as stormwater. Fish kills in Novato Creek concomitant with discharge from
Pacheco Pond, an artificial water body that is filled from discharges from Arroyo San Jose and
Pacheco Creek, have been reported. All of these factors reduce the quality of aquatic and riparian
habitat, and reduce opportunities for rearing of juvenile steelhead. Threats contributing
significantly to this condition include: Agriculture and Channel Modification.
The Novato Watershed Program is still in the process of determining project alternatives, but one
initial project has been developed for flood protection and habitat restoration in lower Novato
Creek baylands (behind Target/Costco) north of Hwy 37. The proposed project would lay back
levees, increase tidal prism, and open 80 acres to tidal flushing and conversion to tidal marsh.
The Novato Watershed Program has sought IRWMP grant funding for the project. This project,
if constructed, would reduce channelization, connect the stream and tidal habitats, increase
amount of estuary, and increase tidal flushing. Additional projects may include further removal
of levees, reduction of channelization, and conversion of agricultural lands currently used by
Novato Sanitary District as summer sprayfields to marsh; however, these alternatives are still
being developed.

Periodic inundation of floodplains by streams provides several ecological functions beneficial to
salmonids, including: coarse sediment sorting, fine sediment storage, groundwater recharge,
velocity refuge, formation and maintenance of off-channel habitats, and enhanced forage
production. Floodplain connectivity is associated with more diverse and productive food webs.
Specific data related to floodplain connectivity are not available. However, based on the amount
of urbanization with encroachment into riparian areas, channel modification, bank stabilization,
and wetland reclamation found throughout the watershed, floodplain connectivity is likely
significantly reduced in the watershed. Threats contributing significantly to this condition
include: Channel Modification, Residential and Commercial Development, Roads and Railroads,
and Water Diversions and Impoundments.

As noted above, the Novato Watershed program is proposing a floodplain and marsh restoration
project in the tidal portions of the watershed.

The USGS maintains a stream gauge on Novato Creek (#11459500) that provides flow data. The
record shows that in most years, there was little or no flow in Novato Creek in the summer and
fall months. Stafford Dam on the upper mainstem of Novato Creek is a large-scale diversion
facility that is used to provide about 20 percent of the potable water used by the residents of
Novato. The reservoir behind Stafford Dam is filled at a time coinciding with the period of adult
immigration and smolt emigration. The CDFG(W) prepared a flow-release schedule for Stafford
Dam in 1983 that requires NMWD to release 150 acre-feet during the period May 1 through
October 30. The flow-release schedule for Stafford Dam is:
May 0.2 cubic feet per second (cfs) August 0.3 cfs
June 0.9 cfs September 0.2 cfs
July 0.7 cfs October 0.2 cfs.
Further, the urban areas in this watershed have experienced stream channelization and increases
in the amount of impervious surfaces. Stream channelization generally cuts off the floodplain
access for the stream and leads to accelerated water discharge, which may lead to further bank
instability and channel incision. Impervious surfaces reduce rainwater infiltration and natural
groundwater recharge, leading to higher peak flows and a quicker return to base flows, i.e., a
flashier hydrologic regime. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Water

Numerous passage and migration impairments exist within the Novato Creek watershed.
Stafford Dam is a large on-channel reservoir that it used primarily for water supply, incidental
flood control, and recreation. Several culverts and road crossings are either partial or complete
barriers to steelhead migration, and some historic streams have been filled or placed in pipes
(NMFS GIS 2015). All of these barriers impair hydrology and constrain migration of both adult
and juvenile steelhead throughout the remaining accessible habitat. Threats contributing
significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification; and Residential and Commercial
Development.
Hydrology: Impervious Surfaces

Primary factors affecting hydrology in the Novato Creek watershed include flow regulation by
Stafford Dam and urbanization, coupled with naturally xeric hydrologic conditions. Stafford

Dam diverts water year-around and does not have bypass flows that are sufficient to maintain
watershed processes. Stafford Dam interrupts sediment transport below the dam and that may
lead to increased channel instability and incision downstream of the dam, and the loss of
spawning gravel. The urban areas in this watershed have experienced stream channelization and
increases in the amount of impervious surfaces. Stream channelization generally cuts off the
floodplain access for the stream and leads to accelerated water discharge, which may lead to
further bank instability and channel incision. Impervious surfaces reduce rainwater infiltration
and natural groundwater recharge, leading to higher peak flows and a quicker return to base
flows, i.e., a flashier hydrologic regime. Threats contributing significantly to this condition
include: Channel Modification and Water Diversions and Impoundments.

Specific data related to altered pool complexity and/or pool/riffle ratios in the Novato Creek
watershed are not available. However, the abundance and quality of primary pools and the ratio
of pool/riffle/flatwater habitats are likely substandard given the generally degraded condition of
Novato Creek, particularly in the urbanized areas, the paucity of large woody debris, the amount
of bank and channel stabilization, and the influence of tidal action in the lower portion of the
watershed. The amount and diversity of cover elements in pools and an appropriate ratio of
pool/riffle/flatwater habitats are important to all lifestages of steelhead. Threats contributing
significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification and Residential and Commercial
Development.

Specific data related to large woody debris or shelter rating for the Novato Creek watershed are
not available. However, the abundance of large woody debris within the watershed is low. This
paucity can be attributed to the poor riparian conditions, associated with encroachment by
suburban development and channel hardening that limit recruitment of large woody debris to
the stream, and to the removal of large woody debris for flood control. Threats contributing
significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification and Residential and Commercial
Development.

Specific data related to gravel quality and quantity are not available for Novato Creek. However,
observations by NMFS staff revealed abundant fine sediment at many sites within the watershed.
The County of Marin reports extensive bank erosion in the watershed and upslope gully
development in the watershed. 10 Also, in the lower portions of Novato Creek and its lower
10 http://www.marinwatersheds.org/novato_creek.html

tributaries, Arroyo Avichi and Warner/Vineyard Creek have very high amounts of fine sediment
and are subject to mechanical sediment removal activities on a four-year cycle. This high amount
of fine sediments impairs gravel quality resulting in reduced feeding opportunities by virtue of
changes in available invertebrates, and reduced spawning success. Stafford Dam interrupts
sediment transport to the lower watershed and the increased frequency of channel incision
increases sediment transport out of the lower watershed. Threats contributing significantly to
this condition include: Water Diversion and Impoundments.

Major landscape disturbance within the Novato Creek watershed is primarily associated with
urban and water development, though agriculture is a major disturbance in the watershed east
of Highway 101. The City of Novato covers about one-half of the Novato Creek watershed. Also,
there is urban development at Bel Marin Keys and Ignacio. The Marin Countywide Plan
identifies Novato as having the greatest growth potential in Marin for commercial and industrial
development.1 Urban and commercial development are widespread within the watershed.
Adverse factors within the Novato Creek watershed associated with urbanization include: high
density of dwellings, high amount of miles of roads per square mile of watershed, high amount
of impervious surfaces, encroachment of riparian areas, stream channelization, flood control
activities, and filling and piping of historic Novato Creek tributaries. The agricultural
development in the watershed has led to leveed and channelized streams, loss of wetlands
through conversion to grazing lots and hay fields, and filling and piping of some historic streams.
Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification; and Water
Diversion and Impoundments.

Systematic data related to stream water temperature within the Novato Creek watershed are not
available. However, several factors may affect water temperature within the watershed:
presence and operation of Stafford Dam, water withdrawals, reductions of riparian vegetation,
high amounts of impervious surfaces, and stream channelization. Some spot water temperature
data taken during fish relocation activities in lower Novato Creek and its tributaries indicate that
summertime and fall water temperature may exceed 20 degrees Celsius (Fawcett Environmental
Consulting 2006, Fawcett Environmental Consulting 2009, Fawcett, unpublished data.) Threats
contributing significantly to this stress include: Channel Modification, Residential and
Commercial Development, and Water Diversion and Impoundments.

Systematic data related to stream turbidity or toxicity within the Novato Creek watershed are not
available. However, several factors may affect turbidity or toxicity within the watershed: incising

channel bed, unstable stream banks, reductions of riparian vegetation, and high amounts of
residential and commercial lands with corresponding high amounts of impervious surfaces.
Novato Creek is included on the US Environmental Protection Agencys list of impaired streams
in the San Francisco area 11. The reported sources of the impaired water quality in this watershed
are urban runoff and storm sewers. Further, the US Environmental Protection Agencys Better
Assessment Science Integrating Point & Non-point Sources database lists 70 hazardous and solid
waste, industrial discharges, or toxic release sites within the Novato Creek watershed. Threats
contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification, Residential and
Commercial Development, Roads and Railroads, and Water Diversion and Impoundments.
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that were rated as High or Very High (see
Novato Creek CAP Results). Recovery strategies will likely focus on ameliorating High rated
threats; however, some strategies may address Medium and Low threats when the strategy is
Agriculture
Historically, within the Novato Creek watershed grasslands, oak woodlands, and tidal
marshlands were converted to grazing lands, orchards, and croplands. However, currently those
activities are not occurring within the watershed on a significant scale. By the mid-1850s many
of the creeks in the watershed had been channelized for irrigation. The portion of the watershed
east of Highway 101 has been highly modified for agricultural benefit (primarily oat-hay
production) by channelization of streams, construction of levees, and filling and piping of stream
channels. This area continues to be used for agricultural practices, and the Novato Sanitary
District uses some areas as sprayfields. As noted above, the Novato Watershed program is
proposing a floodplain and marsh restoration project in the tidal portions of the watershed.
Additional projects south of Hwy 37 and east of Hwy 101 could include restoration of agricultural
lands/spray fields, further laying back of levees, and increasing the tidal prism.
Much of the Novato Creek watershed has experienced channel modifications, including
straightening, stream bank hardening, channel realignment, filling and piping, levee
construction, and dredging. These modifications, combined with other landscape altering
practices, have destroyed estuarine habitat, disconnected streams from their floodplains, and
constrained natural fluvial and geomorphic processes that create and maintain instream and
11
http://oaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_waterbody.control?p_list_id=CAR206%2E200NOVATO%20CREEK&p_cycle=
2002&p_report_type=T

riparian habitat that support viable steelhead populations. As noted above, the Novato
Watershed program is proposing a floodplain and marsh restoration project in the tidal portions
of the watershed.
Recreational Areas and Activities

The primary recreational lands within the watershed are associated with Open Space, parks, the
Marin Country Club, and the Stone Tree Golf Course. Parks and golf courses can be sources of
decreased water quality associated with diversions, reductions of riparian vegetation, and use of
polluting chemicals associated with landscape maintenance.

The County of Marin states that Novato has been the fastest growing municipality in Marin
County1. The citys population grew 23 percent between 2000 and 2010, and the County of Marin
is anticipating significant human population growth in this current decade too. Novato covers
about half of the Novato Creek watershed and other smaller communities occur in the watershed,
too, and urban and commercial development is widespread. The City of Novato is engaged in
downtown redevelopment with proposed development of commercial and residential uses and
supporting infrastructure. The Marin Countywide Plan identifies Novato as having the greatest
growth potential in Marin for commercial and industrial development.1
During the 2010 census, the average density of housing units in Novato was 756.8 per square mile
(NMFS GIS, 2015). Intensive and widespread urban development has increased the impervious
surface area, greatly impacting hydrology as well as the pollutant level within the aquatic
environment, and impaired instream conditions (e.g., passage, instream habitat, hydrology, and
floodplain connection).
Roads and Railroads

Roads are a significant threat for adult and smolt lifestages of steelhead in the Novato Creek
watershed. Road networks within the Novato Creek watershed are largely paved systems
associated with urban development, and represent a significant source of the total impervious
surface within the basin. Further, the Novato Creek watershed has a relatively high concentration
of roads within riparian zones (4.5 miles of roads per square mile of 100 meter riparian buffer)
(NMFS GIS 2015). Roadways in the Novato Creek watershed amplify storm flow intensity and
duration during precipitation events, deliver road-born pollution (e.g., oils, urban runoff, etc.)
directly to the aquatic system, and necessitate culverts and other structures that obstruct
steelhead migration.

The Novato Creek watershed is highly affected by the presence and operation of Stafford Dam.
Additionally, there are on-channel reservoirs on Arroyo San Jose, a Novato Creek tributary.
These dams may affect all lifestages of steelhead by blocking passage, limiting migration periods,
and altering hydrology and instream habitat.

impaired conditions within the Novato Creek watershed. Primary factors contributing to habitat
limitations and limited steelhead abundance are extensive watershed development for urban,
suburban, and commercial land uses. Stafford Lake is a complete barrier to migration and
dramatically affects the hydrology of Novato Creek. In addition many other complete and partial
barriers to steelhead movement are found throughout the Novato Creek watershed. Also,
because of residential and commercial development and some flood control actions, riparian
vegetation and large woody debris are reduced. These stresses identified in this paragraph affect
all lifestages of steelhead.

threats discussed in the previous paragraph. Recovery actions should identify and target habitat
constraints within stream reaches with high potential to benefit steelhead recovery and may
consider mechanisms for reoperation of and passage around dams by increasing hydraulic and
floodplain connectivity, increasing and improving riparian vegetation and large woody debris
retention and recruitment, and improving passage within the watershed. Other stresses or
threats to steelhead or their habitat may also be developed where implementation of these
strategies is critical.

The Novato Creek watershed would benefit from improved riparian composition and structure,
which would increase stream shading, and improve large woody debris recruitment for eventual
increases in instream shelter for steelhead. Practices to improve riparian condition include native
riparian planting, and development and enforcement of riparian buffers. As noted above, the
NMWD has worked with the County of Marin and private property owners in the watershed
upstream of Stafford Dam to improve riparian conditions. 12
Improve Connectivity of Streams and Floodplains
12
January 23, 2012, letter from NMWD to NMFS,

Floodplain habitat and function within much of the Novato Creek watershed is impaired,
primarily due to urbanization and the resulting effects of altered hydrology and channel
confinement. Novato Creek and its tributaries would benefit from utilizing bio-technical
vegetative techniques to reestablish floodplain benches and create a defined low flow channel.
Improve Connectivity of Wetlands

Most of the wetland habitats within the Novato Creek watershed have been separated
hydraulically from the stream habitats. This separation has occurred primarily through levees
and filling for agricultural and urban development land uses. Aquatic habitat, and perhaps flood
capacity, would benefit from reconnection of wetlands to the stream habitats, thereby benefitting
steelhead.
As noted above, the Novato Watershed program is proposing a floodplain and marsh restoration

Shelter ratings should be improved within poor quality reaches throughout the Novato Creek
watershed. Adding large woody debris will improve the habitat complexity of existing pool
habitats where shelter components are currently comprised of undercut banks and a few pieces
of woody debris. Restoration efforts may include construction of wood/boulder structures into
degraded reaches to increase pool frequency and volume and increase stream channel
heterogeneity, thereby increasing the carrying capacity of steelhead for Novato Creek and its
tributaries. The NMWD has completed a project to reduce bank erosion using large woody debris
for habitat enhancement.

Novato Creek and its tributaries would benefit from restoration actions that reduce the amount
of impervious surfaces and from measures that collect stormwater in a manner that reduces
adverse effects on hydrology and water quality associated with stormwater runoff. Further,
future development should avoid or minimize features to increase impervious surfaces, and
should include greater setbacks from streamside locations.
Recovery actions that reconnect historic floodplains to stream channels, reconstruct floodplains,
reconnect wetlands, replace lost wetlands, increase channel complexity, and improve fluvial and
geomorphic processes should improve habitat conditions in the Novato Creek watershed. As
noted above, the Novato Watershed program is proposing a floodplain and marsh restoration

Literature Cited
Becker, G.S., I.J. Reining, D.A. Asbury, A. Gunther. 2007. San Francisco Estuary Watersheds
Evaluation Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Tributaries of
the San Francisco Estuary. Prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy Grant
Agreement Number 04-094 and the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation Grant
Agreement Number 2004-0194. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration,
Oakland, California. 93 pages.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1983. Letter to W.I. Wilson, North Marin
County Water District, regarding flow schedule for Novato Creek, 3 May 1983. Written
by B. Hunter. Yountville, CA. 1 p.
Collins, L. 1998. Sediment Sources and Fluvial Geomorphic Processes of Lower Novato Creek
Watershed. Report to the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
76 pages, plus appendixes.
Fawcett Environmental Consulting. 2000. Brief summary of aquatic species captured and
relocated from the Novato Creek Flood Control Project site, August 2000. Report
submitted to Marin County Public Works Department. 2 pages.
relocated from the Novato Flood Control Project, Phase VIII, June 2006. Report
submitted to Marin County Public Works Department. 2 pages.
relocated during the Vineyard Creek Project in 2008 and 2009. Report submitted to
Marin County Public Works Department. 4 pages.
Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, and B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical Distribution and Current Status of
Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary,
California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, California.
Marin County Watershed Program. Novato Creek Watershed.

http://www.marinwatersheds.org/novato_creek.html. Accessed August 2011.
Rich, A.A. 1997. Novato Creek Flood Control Project, Marin County, Fishery Resources

Conditions. Prepared for Environmental Science Assoc., June 19, 1997

Novato Creek CAP Viability Results
Current
Target Rating
Measurement
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
NMFS Flow NMFS Flow
Hydrology Passage Flows Protocol: Risk Protocol: Risk Poor
Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score
51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km or
Passage at Mouth or 50% of IP-Km 75% of IP-Km
Passage/Migration <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km <50% of IP-km Poor
Confluence to 74% of IP-km to 90% of IP-km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km or
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km 75.9 of IP-km Fair
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
Riparian Tree Diameter 39% Class 5 & 6 >69% Class 5 & ?39% Class 5 &
Vegetation (North of SF Bay) across IP-km 6 across IP-km 6 across IP-km
km km
rating "D" across rating "D" rating "D" Not Defined
IP-km across IP-km across IP-km

Quantity & <50% of IP-Km or
Sediment Distribution of <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km <50% of IP-km Poor
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Water Quality Toxicity Acute Toxins or Acute Fair
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
>1 spawner
<1 spawner per <1 spawner per
low risk spawner
spawner density per
Spence (2008)
Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score 51-
51-75 35-50 <35 75
NMFS Flow
Factor Score >75
51-75 35-50 <35 75
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% (0.85mm) 15-17%
Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) and >30% (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and and <30% (0.85mm) and Poor
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Gravel Quality
(Embeddedness)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Juveniles Condition

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 89% of >90% of <50% of
Percent Primary
Pools
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
NMFS Flow
Factor Score >75
51-75 35-50 <35 >75
51-75 35-50 <35 75
Number, Condition 1.1 - 5 0.01 - 1 1.1 - 5
>5 Diversions/10
Hydrology and/or Magnitude of Diversions/10 Diversions/10 0 Diversions Diversions/10 IP Fair
IP km
Diversions IP km IP km km
<50% of IP-Km or
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km or
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km 75.9 of IP-km Fair
accessible*

50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of <50% of IP-km
streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km
streams/ IP-Km (>70% average
(>70% average (>70% average (>70% average
Riparian (>70% average stream canopy;
Canopy Cover stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; Poor
Vegetation stream canopy; >85% where
>85% where >85% where >85% where
>85% where coho IP
coho IP coho IP coho IP
coho IP overlaps) overlaps)
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
km km
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP 75 to 89% IP
>90% IP km <50% IP-km
<50% IP km (<20 km (<20 C km (<20 C
Temperature C MWMT; <16 C MWMT; <16 C MWMT; <16 C
Water Quality <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT Poor
(MWMT) MWMT where MWMT where MWMT where
coho IP overlaps) coho IP coho IP
overlaps) overlaps)
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Contaminants
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5
Fish/m^2 Fish/m^2
50-74% of 75-90% of >90% of
<50% of 50-74% of
Viability Spatial Structure Historical Historical Historical Fair
Historical Range Historical Range
Range Range Range

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Winter Rearing
Juveniles
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of IP-Km or
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km 75.9 of IP-km Good
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
km km
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Not
Specified
Estuary/Lagoon
5 Smolts Condition Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent Fair
Decision Matrix
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Number, Condition 1.1 - 5 0.01 - 1 1.1 - 5
>5 Diversions/10
Hydrology and/or Magnitude of Diversions/10 Diversions/10 0 Diversions Diversions/10 IP Fair
IP km
Diversions IP km IP km km
NMFS Flow
Hydrology Passage Flows Protocol: Risk Poor
Factor Score >75
51-75 35-50 <35 >75
<50% of IP-Km or
accessible*
No Evidence of
Contaminants
Smolt Smolt Smolt
Smolt
abundance to
produce low
Size Viability Abundance high risk moderate risk high risk Poor
risk spawner
density per
Spence (2008)
(2008) Spence (2008) (2008)

>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of >10% of
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of 27% of
Landscape Patterns Agriculture Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Fair
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of <15% of
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of 43% of
2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6 5.2
Transport Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile
0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1 4.5
Mile Mile Mile Mile

Novato Creek CAP Threat Results

Overall Threat
Rank
1 Agriculture Medium Low Very High Medium Low Medium High
2 Channel Modification Very High High Very High Very High High Very High Very High
3 Competition Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
4 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Low Low Medium Low Low Not Specified Low
5 Fire Suppression Low Low Medium Medium Low Low Medium
6 Fishing and Collecting Low Low Medium Not Specified Low Not Specified Low
7 Ranching Medium Low Medium Medium Low Low Medium
8 Logging and Wood Harvesting Low Low Medium Medium Low Low Medium
9 Mining Low Low Medium Medium Low Low Medium
10 Activities Medium Medium Medium High Low Medium Medium
11 Development Very High High Very High Very High High Very High Very High
12 Roads and Railroads High High High High High Very High Very High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Medium Low Medium Medium Low Low Medium
Water Diversion and
14 Impoundments Very High High Very High Very High High High Very High
Project Very High High Very High Very High High Very High Very High

Novato Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Coastal San Francisco Bay) Recovery Actions
NvC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species
NvC-CCCS- Recovery
Evaluate all floodgates located within the tidal portion

NvC-CCCS- of Novato Creek and determine the feasibility of re- City of Novato,
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary claiming historic tidal slough habitat. 3 5 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Evaluate water quality conditions (salinity, dissolved Cost based on installing a minimum of 3
oxygen, temperature) in potential steelhead estuary continuous water quality monitoring stations at a
NvC-CCCS- rearing areas. City of Novato, rate of $5,000/station. Cost does not account for
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary 3 5 Marin County 15.00 15 data management or maintenance.
Identify and provide recommendations for potential
NvC-CCCS- rehabilitation sites that have been altered by City of Novato, Cost based on estuary use/residence timing
1.1.1.3 Action Step Estuary dredging and diking. 3 5 Marin County 339.00 339 model at a rate of $338,679/project.
NvC-CCCS- Identify locations to install habitat complexity features City of Novato,

1.1.1.4 Action Step Estuary to enhance steelhead estuary rearing conditions. 3 5 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NvC-CCCS- Develop and implement estuary rehabilitation and City of Novato, Cost based on treating 5% of total estuarine acres
1.1.1.5 Action Step Estuary enhancement strategies. 3 15 Marin County 613 613 613 1,838 at a rate of $49,200/acre.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery
NvC-CCCS- Evaluate, and if feasible implement restoration City of Novato,

1.1.2.1 Action Step Estuary projects that integrate upland and intertidal habitats. 3 15 Marin County 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.

enhance native benthic flora and fauna (such as
NvC-CCCS- native bivalves) to reduce habitat related effects of City of Novato,
1.1.2.2 Action Step Estuary non-native invasive species. 3 10 Marin County 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
NvC-CCCS- Restore large areas of tidal marsh in diked and City of Novato,
1.1.2.3 Action Step Estuary muted tidal marsh areas throughout the watershed. 3 15 Marin County 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Use only native species in restoration, inspecting all City of Novato,

live restoration and construction materials for aquatic Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- invasive species and cleaning all equipment prior to Marin RCD, Operations conducted normally or with minor
1.1.2.4 Action Step Estuary and post restoration/construction. 3 15 NBWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
techniques. Also, when unsatisfactory results are
NvC-CCCS- identified, implement responses to address causes of City of Novato, Cost basd on fish/habitat restoration model at a
1.1.2.5 Action Step Estuary poor results. 3 25 Marin County 27.60 27.60 27.60 27.60 27.60 138 rate of $137,833/project.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery
1.1.3 Action Estuary Reduce toxicity and pollutants
Reduce and minimze habitat modification that has City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- caused, is causing, or may cause impaired water Marin County, Cost will be accounted through implementation of
1.1.3.1 Action Step Estuary quality affecting juveniles and adults. 2 15 NBWD 0 other action steps.
NvC-CCCS- Implement tidal restoration projects that help capture City of Novato, Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
1.1.3.2 Action Step Estuary and provide treatment of upland runoff. 3 5 Marin County 0 tidal restoration.
City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- Plan and implement Total Maximum Daily Load plans Marin County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
1.1.3.3 Action Step Estuary for known pollutant impairments. 3 10 RWQCB 0 Kind.
City of Novato,
Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- Plan and implement structural solutions to reduce Marin RCD,
1.1.3.4 Action Step Estuary urban storm runoff pollutant loads. 3 15 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.

NvC-CCCS- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain

Identify the floodplain activation flow which is the City of Novato,

smallest flood pulse event that initiates substantial Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- Floodplain beneficial ecological processes when associated with Marin RCD, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity floodplain inundation (Williams et al. 2009). 3 5 NBWD 79.00 79 a rate of $78,100/project.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain

City of Novato,
Marin County, Cost based on riparian and wetland restoration
NvC-CCCS- Floodplain Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- Marin RCD, model at a rate of $88,551 and $255,968/project,
2.1.2.1 Action Step Connectivity established in modified channel areas. 2 5 NBWD 345.00 345 respectively.
CDFW, City of
Novato, Marin
Encourage willing landowners to restore historical County, Marin
NvC-CCCS- Floodplain floodplains or offchannel habitats through RCD, NBWD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
2.1.2.2 Action Step Connectivity conservation easements, etc. 3 15 NMFS 0 Kind.
City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- Floodplain projects that target velocity refuge for migrating Marin RCD, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 80
2.1.2.3 Action Step Connectivity salmonids. 3 15 NBWD 595 595 595 1,786 acres/mile) at a rate of $44,640/acre.
City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- Floodplain projects that target winter rearing habitat for juvenile Marin RCD,
2.1.2.4 Action Step Connectivity steelhead. 3 15 NBWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery
Reduce impacts of impaired hydrology (reduced CDFW, City of

pulse-flows, magnitude, duration, and timing of Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- freshets) that preclude adult and smolt passage over County, Marin Costs will depend on amount of water released
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology critical riffles and other nature obstacles. 1 5 RCD, NBWD TBD from Stafford Lake and other factors.
Establish a comprehensive stream flow evaluation CDFW, City of
NvC-CCCS- program to determine instream flow needs for Novato, Marin Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology steelhead. 3 5 County, NBWD 79.00 79 a rate of $78,100/project.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery
City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- Increase the amount of available spawning and Marin County, Costs will be attributed to implementation of other
3.1.2.1 Action Step Hydrology rearing habitat by improving instream flow conditions. 1 5 NBWD, RWQCB 0 action steps.
City of Novato,
Continue to implement strategies for efficient water Marin County,
use and conservation through the Urban Water Marin RCD,
NvC-CCCS- Conservation Council and the Sonoma Marin Saving NBWD, Sonoma Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
3.1.2.2 Action Step Hydrology Water partnership. 3 5 County 0 Kind.
City of Novato,
Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- Develop and implement a water use plan ensuring Marin RCD,
3.1.2.3 Action Step Hydrology base-flow sustainability. 3 5 NBWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Initial cost based on installing a minimum of 3

stream flow gauges at a rate of $1,000/gauge.
City of Novato, Cost does not account for data management or
NvC-CCCS- Require streamflow gaging devices to evaluate Marin County, maintenance. Cost revised with information from
3.1.2.4 Action Step Hydrology impairment to current streamflow conditions. 2 5 NBWD 45.50 46 NBWA, to $10,500 per gauge.
Implement conjunctive use of water for water projects City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- whenever possible to maintain or restore steelhead Marin County, Operations conducted normally or with minor
3.1.2.5 Action Step Hydrology habitat. 3 10 NBWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
Marin Country
Club, Marin
NvC-CCCS- Encourage Marine Country Club to use and conserve Municipal Water
3.1.2.6 Action Step Hydrology treated waste water to irrigate. 2 20 District, NBWD TBD
NvC-CCCS- Recovery
Cost based on adult escapement and juvenile
migration model for 3 impassable barriers at a
CDFW, City of rate of $269,570/project. Three immpassible
Novato, Marin dams were identified in the 2008 Passage
NvC-CCCS- Restore passage per NMFS' Guidelines for Salmonid County, Marin Assessment Database not counting Stafford
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage Passage at Stream Crossings (NMFS 2001). 3 5 RCD, NBWD 809 809 Dam.
Evaluate the feasibility and benefit of providing
passage (both adult immigration and adult/smolt CDFW, City of
emigration) to the stream reaches located upstream Novato, Marin Costs estimate for developing an feasibility
NvC-CCCS- of Stafford Dam and the dams on the Marin Country County, Marin analysis and report on providing passage at
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage Club property. 3 5 RCD, NBWD 250 250 Stafford Dam.
If deemed feasible and beneficial, evaluate and
prescribe volitional and non-volitional passage CDFW, City of
NvC-CCCS- methodologies at Stafford Dam and the dams on the Novato, Marin
5.1.1.3 Action Step Passage Marin Country Club property. 2 5 County, NBWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
NvC-CCCS- Habitat modification, or curtailment of the species
NvC-CCCS- Recovery
Increase wood frequency in spawning and rearing City of Novato, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles at a rate of
areas to the extent that a minimum of six key LWD Marin County, $31,200/mile. Cost likely higher with increased
NvC-CCCS- pieces exists every 100 meters in 0-10 meters BFW Marin RCD, engineering and oversight. Use of ELJ estimate
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity streams. 2 10 NBWD 8.00 8.00 16 is $124,800/ELJ.
City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- Identify and optimize the appropriate number of key Marin County, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity LWD pieces throughout the watershed. 2 15 NBWD 46.00 46.00 46.00 138 $137,833/project
City of Novato,
Develop strategies to optimize hydraulic diversity and Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- habitat complexity when implementing/installing LWD Marin RCD, Costs will vary depending on methods
6.1.1.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity structures. 3 10 NBWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
City of Novato,
Develop and install seasonal habitat rearing features Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- that achieve optimal performance during spring/fall Marin RCD, Costs will vary depending on methods
6.1.1.4 Action Step Habitat Complexity baseflow conditions throughout the watershed. 3 10 NBWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery

that more than 40% of summer rearing pools meet City of Novato,
primary pool criteria (>2.5 feet deep in 1st and 2nd Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- order streams; >3 feet in third order or larger Marin RCD,
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity streams.) 3 15 NBWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
City of Novato,
Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- Enhance pool depth: increase depth, cover, and Marin RCD,
6.1.2.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity complexity using CDFW protocols (SCWLFA 2006). 3 10 NBWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery
City of Novato,
Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- Increase the number of pools that have a minimum Marin RCD,
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity shelter of 80 (See NMFS criteria). 3 15 NBWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
CDFW, City of
Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- Evaluate, identify, and improve shelters in pools County, Marin
6.1.3.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity throughout the watershed. 3 15 RCD, NBWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, City of
Evaluate, identify, and develop strategies that will Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- encourage riffle habitat formation throughout the County, Marin
6.1.4.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity watershed. 3 15 RCD, NBWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery
project/mile with 10 acres/mile) at a rate of
Increase the average stream canopy cover within all CDFW, Marin $44,640/acre. This action step should be
NvC-CCCS- current and potential spawning and rearing reaches County, Marin coordinated with similar action step to reduce cost
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian to a minimum of 80%. 3 20 RCD, NBWD 112.00 112.00 112.00 112.00 447 and redundancy.
vegetation (e.g., Arundo donax, etc.), prioritize and CDFW, City of
develop riparian habitat reclamation and Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- enhancement programs (CDFG 2004). County, Marin
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian 3 5 RCD, NBWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
Ensure that mature trees within the steam riparian CDFW, City of
corridor are not disturbed or lost due to land Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- management activities (roads, cattle, flood control, County, Marin Operations conducted normally or with minor
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian etc.). 2 25 RCD, NBWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
CDFW, City of
Promote streamside conservation measures, Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- including conservation easements, setbacks, and County, Marin
7.1.1.4 Action Step Riparian riparian buffers. 3 25 RCD, NBWD TBD Costs for conservation easements vary.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Improve instream gravel quality to reduce

Increase the percentage of pool tail-out embeddness CDFW, City of
with values of 1s and 2s (See NMFS Conservation Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- Action Planning Attribute Table Report) within all County, Marin This action step is based on implementation of
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment spawning reaches. 2 15 RCD, NBWD TBD other action steps.

CDFW, City of
Novato, Marin
Evaluate, develop, and eventually implement County, Marin Cost to be determined pending an assessment of
NvC-CCCS- spawning gravel augmentation programs in essential RCD, NBWD, features. Estimate for spawning gravel is
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment areas. 3 15 NMFS TBD $39.5/cu. yd.
CDFW, City of project/mile) at a rate of $31,200/ mile. Cost likely
Add channel roughness (logs, boulders) in strategic Novato, Marin higher with greater level of engineering and
NvC-CCCS- locations to encourage spawning tailout formations County, Marin oversight. Use of ELJ is estimated at
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment and gravel sorting. 3 10 RCD, NBWD 16.00 16.00 32 $124,800/ELJ.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Improve gravel quantity and distribution for macro-

8.1.2 Action Sediment invertebrate production (food)
Increase the percentage of gravel quality

embeddedness to values of 1s and 2s (See NMFS CDFW, City of
Conservation Action Planning Attribute Table Report) Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- in all current and potential juvenile salmonid summer County, Marin
8.1.2.1 Action Step Sediment and seasonal (fall/winter/spring) rearing areas. 3 15 RCD, NBWD TBD Cost accounted for.
Increase stream bed and bank stability using CDFW, City of Cost based on number and type of stream bed
biotechnical materials (vegetation, plant fiber, and Novato, Marin and bank stability to be used. Estimate for
NvC-CCCS- native wood and rock), where appropriate (SCWLFA County, Marin bioengineering methods range from $418/100' x
8.1.2.2 Action Step Sediment 2006). 3 15 RCD, NBWD TBD 10' (WSDOT 2001).
City of Novato,
Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- Re-mediate upland sources (prevent eroded soils Marin RCD, Costs will vary depending on methods
8.1.2.3 Action Step Sediment form entering the stream system) (SCWLFA 2006). 3 10 NBWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
CDFW, City of
Add channel roughness features (logs, large Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- boulders) to trap cobbles in current and potential County, Marin
8.1.2.4 Action Step Sediment seasonal reaches. 3 15 RCD, NBWD 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery
Address water pollution from non-point sources CDFW, City of

within the watershed through outreach, education Novato, Marin Cost based on installing continuous water quality
NvC-CCCS- and enforcement. County, NBWD, stations at a rate of $5,000/station. Cost does not
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality 2 10 RWQCB 7.50 7.50 15 account for data management or maintenance.
Identify and remediate sources of pulses of water CDFW, City of
NvC-CCCS- originating from human activities (e.g. flushing of Novato, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality swimming pools, etc.). 3 5 County, NBWD 0 Kind.
Identify nutrient loading sources causing poor water CDFW, City of

quality conditions for steelhead and implement Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- strategies for remediating or avoiding future inputs of County, Marin Costs vary with monitoring effort and measures to
10.1.1.3 Action Step Water Quality pollution to watershed streams. 3 15 RCD, NBWD TBD be implemented.
Avoid, or at a minimum minimize, the use of CDFW, City of
commercial and industrial products (e.g., pesticides) Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- with high potential for contamination of local County, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
10.1.1.4 Action Step Water Quality waterways. 3 10 RCD, NBWD 0 Kind.
CDFW, City of
Encourage the use of native vegetation in new Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- landscaping to reduce the need for watering and County, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
10.1.1.5 Action Step Water Quality application of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. 3 25 RCD, NBWD 0 Kind.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery

Implement comprehensive evaluation and monitoring
program to determine areas where poor riparian CDFW, City of
habitat is contributing to increased water Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- temperatures limiting juvenile steelhead survival and County, Marin Costs vary with monitoring effort and measures to
10.1.2.1 Action Step Water Quality aquatic habitat potential. 3 5 RCD, NBWD TBD be implemented.
CDFW, City of
Rehabilitate or restore riparian corridor conditions Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- within all current and potential high value habitat County, Marin Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
10.1.2.2 Action Step Water Quality summer rearing areas. 2 10 RCD, NBWD 0 riparian restoration.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, City of
Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- Where feasible, utilize native plants and County, Marin Operations conducted normally or with minor
10.1.3.1 Action Step Water Quality bioengineering techniques to stabilize banks. 3 25 RCD, NBWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
Identify and implement strategies to reduce landslide CDFW, City of
hazard areas and other upslope sources of fine Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- sediment (hillslope hollows, deep-seated landslides, County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
10.1.3.2 Action Step Water Quality etc.). 3 15 RCD, NBWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and

processes (e.g., hydrology, geology, fluvial- CDFW, City of
geomorphology, water quality, and vegetation), Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- instream habitat, and factors limiting steelhead County, Marin Cost will vary with assessment methods and level
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability production. 2 10 RCD, NBWD TBD of detail.
CDFW, City of
Continue and expand upon watershed and instream Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- habitat assessments and population status County, Marin Cost will vary with assessment methods and level
11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability monitoring; use new knowledge to adapt strategies. 2 25 RCD, NBWD TBD of detail.
CDFW, City of
Novato, Marin Costs for monitoring are covered under in the
NvC-CCCS- Conduct periodic, standardized spawning surveys to County, Marin Monitoring Chapter as part of the Coastal
11.1.1.3 Action Step Viability estimate adult abundance in the watershed. 2 25 RCD, NBWD 0 Monitoring Plan
CDFW, City of
Novato, Marin Costs for monitoring are covered under in the
NvC-CCCS- Conduct habitat surveys to monitor change in key County, Marin Monitoring Chapter as part of the Coastal
11.1.1.4 Action Step Viability habitat variables. 3 10 RCD, NBWD 0 Monitoring Plan
CDFW, City of
Novato, Marin
County, Marin Costs for monitoring are covered under in the
NvC-CCCS- Initiate smolt outmigration study and develop smolt RCD, NBWD, Monitoring Chapter as part of the Coastal
11.1.1.5 Action Step Viability abundance estimates. 2 5 NMFS 0 Monitoring Plan
CDFW, City of
Develop standardized watershed assessments within Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- sub-watersheds to define limiting factors specific to County, Marin Cost will vary with assessment methods and level
11.1.1.6 Action Step Viability those areas. 3 10 RCD, NBWD TBD of detail.
CDFW, City of
Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- Improve conditions for steelhead through supporting County, NBWD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity


community within inset floodplains and riparian City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- corridors to provide future recruitment of large wood Marin County, Costs captured in other recovery actions. See
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture and other shelter components. 2 10 NBWD 0 Riparian.
City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- Avoid the removal of large wood and other shelter Marin County, Operations conducted normally or with minor
12.1.1.2 Action Step Agriculture components from the stream system. 2 5 NBWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport

Complete Farm Conservation Plans (through the City of Novato,
SRCD, NRCS, Fish Friendly Farming program or Marin County,
other cooperative conservation programs) to reduce Marin RCD,
NvC-CCCS- sediment sources and improve riparian habitat within Private Operations conducted normally or with minor
12.1.2.1 Action Step Agriculture the watershed. 3 5 Landowners 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
City of Novato,
Marin County,
Marin RCD,
NvC-CCCS- Private Operations conducted normally or with minor
12.1.2.2 Action Step Agriculture Continue the use of cover crops in agriculture fields. 2 5 Landowners 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
Encourage the NRCS, RCDs, and other appropriate City of Novato,
organizations to increase the number of landowners Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- participating in sediment reduction planning and Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
12.1.2.3 Action Step Agriculture implementation. 3 5 NMFS 0 Kind.
City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- Assess the effectiveness of erosion control Marin County,
12.1.2.4 Action Step Agriculture measures throughout the winter period. 2 5 Marin RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NvC-CCCS- Recovery (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- and prevent fine sediment input from entering Marin RCD, Operations conducted normally or with minor
12.1.3.1 Action Step Agriculture streams of the watershed. 2 10 NBWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
City of Novato,
Marin County,
Marin RCD,
NvC-CCCS- Reduce discharge of chemical effluent and fertilizer Private Costs will vary depending on methods
12.1.3.2 Action Step Agriculture related to agricultural practices. 3 10 Landowners TBD implemented.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality

City of Novato,
Marin County,
Marin RCD,
NvC-CCCS- Minimize the amount of water used for agriculture to Private Costs will vary depending on methods
12.1.4.1 Action Step Agriculture protect stream flow and temperatures. 2 10 Landowners TBD implemented.
City of Novato,
Marin County,
Ensure that mature trees within the steam riparian Marin RCD,
NvC-CCCS- corridor are not disturbed or lost due to agricultural Private Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
12.1.4.2 Action Step Agriculture activities. 2 10 Landowners 0 Kind.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to riparian species

12.1.5 Action Agriculture composition and structure
Re-establish native plant communities in riparian City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- zones to increase stream canopy to a minimum of Marin County, Costs will vary depending on methods
12.1.5.1 Action Step Agriculture 80%. 3 15 Marin RCD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
Develop and implement riparian setbacks/buffers that City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- protect existing native riparian species composition Marin County, Costs will vary depending on methods
12.1.5.2 Action Step Agriculture and structure. 3 15 Marin RCD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.

NvC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

City of Novato,
Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- Identify and eliminate depletion of summer base Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
12.1.6.1 Action Step Agriculture flows from unauthorized water uses. 2 5 NBWD 0 Kind.
NvC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

Limit new development - flood control projects or
other modifications facilitating new development (as
NvC-CCCS- Channel opposed to protecting existing infrastructure) should City of Novato, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification be avoided. 3 25 Marin County 0 Kind.
Prevent channel modification activities from causing
future impediments to the creation, or blocking
access to, off channel habitat used by salmonids as
NvC-CCCS- Channel refuge and winter rearing habitat during high stream City of Novato, Operations conducted normally or with minor
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification flows. 3 5 Marin County 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

All proposed flood control projects should include City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- Channel habitat protection, and/or alternatives that minimize Marin County, Operations conducted normally or with minor
13.1.2.1 Action Step Modification impacts to salmon habitat. 1 15 NBWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
Ensure future retention and recruitment of large
NvC-CCCS- Channel woody and root wads to rehabilitate existing stream City of Novato, Operations conducted normally or with minor
13.1.2.2 Action Step Modification complexity, pool frequency, and depth. 3 15 Marin County 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
Protect existing natural channel reaches from City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- Channel channelization and enhance winter refuge and Marin County, Operations conducted normally or with minor
13.1.2.3 Action Step Modification seasonal habitat features where appropriate. 1 10 NBWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

Identify locations where channel modification has

resulted in decreased shelter, LWD frequency, and
habitat complexity, and develop and implement site City of Novato,
specific plans to improve these conditions. Consider Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- Channel flow rates and discharges when designing LWD and Marin RCD, Cost based on 0.5 miles of flood channel at a rate
13.1.3.1 Action Step Modification shelter enhancement features. 3 5 NBWD 536 536 of $1,070,400/mile.
City of Novato,
Incorporate velocity refuge habitat features in all Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- Channel future and existing engineered and modified Marin RCD,
13.1.3.2 Action Step Modification channels. 2 10 NBWD TBD Cost accounted for in above action steps.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- Marin RCD,
18.1.1.1 Action Step Livestock Reduce impacts from livestock grazing. 2 20 RWQCB TBD
21.1 Objective Recreation habitat or range

NvC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian

21.1.1 Action Recreation species composition and structure
Improve conditions for steelhead by increasing the
beneficial effects, and decreasing the detrimental CDFW, City of
NvC-CCCS- effects, of recreational areas and activities within the Novato, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
21.1.1.1 Action Step Recreation watershed. 3 10 County, NBWD 0 Kind.
City of Novato,
Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- Encourage riparian restoration within recreational Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
21.1.1.2 Action Step Recreation areas. 3 10 NBWD 0 Kind.
vegetation (e.g., Arundo donax, etc.), prioritize and
develop riparian habitat reclamation and City of Novato,
enhancement programs at recreational sites Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- including park lands and Marin Country Club Marin RCD, Costs covered under other recovery actions. See
21.1.1.3 Action Step Recreation property. 3 5 NBWD Riparian.
corridor are not disturbed or lost due to land City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- management activities (e.g. flood control, park or golf Marin County, Operations conducted normally or with minor
21.1.1.4 Action Step Recreation course landscaping, etc.). 3 25 NBWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

21.1.2 Action Recreation connectivity (impaired quality and extent)
Evaluate the effects of recreational facilities such as
levees, bike/pedestrian trails, and road crossings that
may constrain opportunities to expand channel width
and/or reconnect floodplain at recreational sites City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- including park lands and Marin Country Club Marin County, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
21.1.2.1 Action Step Recreation property. 3 5 NBWD 138.00 138 rate of $137,833/project.
Develop and implement a plan that remediates

existing recreational facilities to allow for stream City of Novato,
functions, and sites new facilities in such a way that Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- their placement does not constrain channel width or Marin RCD, Costs will vary depending on methods
21.1.2.2 Action Step Recreation floodplain connection. 3 10 NBWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

21.1.3 Action Recreation migration
City of Novato,
Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- Assess and restore passage at barriers associated Marin RCD, Costs covered under other recovery actions. See
21.1.3.1 Action Step Recreation with at recreational sites throughout the watershed. 3 5 NBWD Passage.
NvC-CCCS- /Commercial modification, or curtailment of the species
Residential
NvC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to the estuary
Curtail further development in active wetlands California
through zoning restrictions, county master plans and Coastal
Residential other Federal, State, and county planning and Conservancy,
NvC-CCCS- /Commercial regulatory processes, and land protection City of Novato,
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development agreements. 3 25 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential CDFW, City of
NvC-CCCS- /Commercial Increase monitoring and enforcement of illegal bank Novato, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development or shoreline stabilization activities. 3 10 County, NBWD 0 Kind.

California
Coastal
Conservancy,
Promote native intertidal and subtidal vegetation City of Novato,
Residential through eradication and control of non-native Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.2 miles (assume 1
NvC-CCCS- /Commercial species. Marin RCD, project/mile with 80 acres/mile) at a rate of
22.1.1.3 Action Step Development 3 10 NBWD 8.50 8.50 17 $1,026/acre.
Residential
NvC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape
Residential Minimze new development, or road construction
NvC-CCCS- /Commercial within floodplains, riparian areas, unstable soils or City of Novato, Operations conducted normally or with minor
22.1.2.1 Action Step Development other sensitive areas. 3 25 Marin County 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
City of Novato,
Residential Conserve open space in relatively intact landscapes, Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- /Commercial protect floodplain areas and riparian corridors, and Private
22.1.2.2 Action Step Development develop conservation easements. 3 25 Landowners TBD Costs for conservation easements vary.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Residential Prevent the future use of commercial and industrial CDFW, City of
NvC-CCCS- /Commercial products (e.g., pesticides) with high potential for Novato, Marin Operations conducted normally or with minor
22.1.3.1 Action Step Development contamination of local waterways. 3 15 County, NBWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
Residential Upgrade existing stormwater systems into a spatially City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- /Commercial distributed discharge network (rather than a few point Marin County, Costs will vary depending on methods
22.1.3.2 Action Step Development discharges). 3 25 NBWD TBD implemented.
Educate county and city public works departments, CDFW, City of

Residential flood control districts, and planning departments, etc., Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- /Commercial on the critical importance of maintaining riparian County, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
22.1.3.3 Action Step Development vegetation, instream LWD, and LWD recruitment. 3 5 RCD, NBWD 0 Kind.
Residential
NvC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
Residential City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- /Commercial Minimze new development within 100-year Marin County,
22.1.4.1 Action Step Development floodprone zones. 3 25 NBWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Rehabilitate areas where existing and dilapidated City of Novato,
Residential infrastructure impairs the quality of floodplain and Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
NvC-CCCS- /Commercial winter rearing for habitat for steelhead within the Marin RCD, project/mile with 80 acres/mile) at a rate of
22.1.4.2 Action Step Development watershed. 2 15 NBWD 585 585 585 1,756 $44,640/acre.
Residential Recalculate 100-year flood interval that takes into City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- /Commercial consideration global climate change and rising sea Marin County, Operations conducted normally or with minor
22.1.4.3 Action Step Development levels. 3 15 NBWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
Residential
NvC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
CDFW, City of
Residential Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- /Commercial Encourage and identify opportunities for on-site rain County, Marin Operations conducted normally or with minor
22.1.5.1 Action Step Development retention facilities. 3 25 RCD, NBWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
City of Novato, Cost based on amount and type of filter or buffer
Residential Marin County, system needed to improve conditions. Estimate
NvC-CCCS- /Commercial Develop filter or buffer systems that reduce pollutants Marin RCD, for filter strip ranges from $32,000 -
22.1.5.2 Action Step Development from entering streams and waterways. 3 15 NBWD TBD $84,000/system.
Residential
NvC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to hydrology (gravel
22.1.6 Action Development scouring events)
Residential Minimize impervious surfaces in new and City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- /Commercial development projects (SCWLFA 2006). Marin County, Operations conducted normally or with minor
22.1.6.1 Action Step Development 3 25 NBWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.

NvC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize increased landscape

CDFW, City of
Decommission and or re-locate riparian roads Novato, Marin Cost based on decommissioning 20 miles of road
NvC-CCCS- upslope to achieve desirable riparian road density County, Marin at a rate of $14,400/mile. Cost likely higher due
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads criteria (<0.1 to 0.4 Miles/Square Mile). 3 25 RCD, NBWD 144.00 144.00 288 to infrastucture..
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

Caltrans, CDFW,
City of Novato,
Ensure all future new, repair, and replacement Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- road/stream crossing provide unimpaired passage Marin RCD, Operations conducted normally or with minor
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads for all steelhead life stages. 3 25 NBWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
CDFW, City of
Conduct collaborative evaluations of priorities for Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- treatment of road-related CCC steelhead passage County, Marin Cost will vary with assessment methods and level
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads barriers, such as the Fish Passage Forum. 3 5 RCD, NBWD TBD of detail.
CDFW, City of
Use NMFS Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Novato, Marin
Stream Crossings (NMFS 2001) and appropriate County, Marin
NvC-CCCS- barrier databases when developing new or retrofitting RCD, NBWD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
All new crossings and upgrades to existing crossings CDFW, City of
(bridges, culverts, fills, and other crossings) must Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- accommodate 100-year flow event and associated County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
23.1.2.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads sediment transport. 3 25 RCD, NBWD TBD implemented.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport

decommissioning (e.g., Fishnet 4c County Roads City of Novato,
Manual; Hagans & Weaver, 1994; Oregon Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- Department of Transportation, 1999; Sommarstrom Marin RCD, Operations conducted normally or with minor
23.1.3.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads 2002). 3 25 NBWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.

bridges (including railroad bridges) should be free Caltrans, City of
span or constructed with the minimum number of Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
23.1.3.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads and facilitate fish passage. 3 25 RCD, NBWD TBD implemented.
Caltrans, CDFW,
City of Novato,
NvC-CCCS- Minimze the construction of new roads near high Marin County,
23.1.3.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads valve habitat areas or sensitive habitat areas. 3 25 NBWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Novato,
Address sediment and runoff sources from road Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- networks and other actions that deliver sediment and Marin RCD, Cost based on road inventory for 259 miles at a
23.1.3.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads runoff to stream channels. 3 10 NBWD 149.00 149.00 298 rate $1,148/mile
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

CDFW, City of
Novato, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
NvC-CCCS- County, Marin implemented and extent of rehabilitation identified
23.1.4.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads Conduct actions that hydrologically disconnect roads. 3 25 RCD, NBWD TBD in road assessment.

NvC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

Minimize new road construction within floodplains, CDFW, City of

riparian areas, unstable soils or other sensitive areas Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- until a watershed specific road management plan is County, Marin
23.1.5.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads created and implemented. 3 5 RCD, NBWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Novato,
Evaluate existing roadways within 200 meters of the Marin County,
NvC-CCCS- riparian corridor, and develop plans to decrease the Marin RCD,
23.1.5.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads ongoing impacts associated with these roads. 3 5 NBWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
NvC-CCCS- Water Diversion modification, or curtailment of the species
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

Implement passive diversion devices designed to
allow diversion of water only when minimum
streamflow requirements are met or exceeded CDFW, City of
NvC-CCCS- Water Diversion (CDFG 2004). Novato, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
25.1.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment 2 10 County, NBWD TBD implemented.
CDFW, City of
Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- Water Diversion Identify and eliminate depletion of summer base County, NBWD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
25.1.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment flows from unauthorized water uses. 2 5 SWRCB 0 Kind.
Work with recovery partners to ensure that current CDFW, City of

and future water diversions (surface or groundwater) Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- Water Diversion do not impair water quality conditions in summer or County, NBWD, Operations conducted normally or with minor
25.1.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment fall rearing reaches. 3 25 RWQCB 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
CDFW, City of
Novato, Marin
County, Marin
RCD, NBWD,
NMFS, Private
NvC-CCCS- Water Diversion Work with SWRCB and landowners to improve Landowners, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
25.1.1.4 Action Step /Impoundment survival and migration opportunities for all lifestages. 3 10 SWRCB 0 Kind.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport

25.1.2 Action /Impoundment (road conditions/density, dams etc.)
CDFW, City of
Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- Water Diversion Implement actions that minimize adverse effects of County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
25.1.2.1 Action Step /Impoundment dams and weirs. 3 15 RCD, NBWD TBD implemented.
CDFW, City of
Re-establish natural sediment delivery processes Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- Water Diversion and implement sediment reduction activities where County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
25.1.2.2 Action Step /Impoundment necessary. 3 10 RCD, NBWD TBD implemented.
NvC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

CDFW, City of
Novato, Marin
Adequately screen water diversions to prevent County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
NvC-CCCS- Water Diversion entrainment of all steelhead life stages in anadromus RCD, NBWD, implemented. Estimate for fish screens is
25.1.3.1 Action Step /Impoundment reaches. 2 15 NMFS TBD $64,158/screen.
NvC-CCCS- Water Diversion Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory


NvC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

CDFW, City of Cost based on installing a minimum of 3 stream
Assess, map, and install meters or stream gages on Novato, Marin flow gauges at a rate of $1,000/gauge. Cost does
NvC-CCCS- Water Diversion all water diversions (CDFG 2004). County, Marin not account for data management or
25.2.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment 3 10 RCD, NBWD 1.50 1.50 3 maintenance.

downstream flows, regulating season of diversion, CDFW, City of
and promoting and implementing off-stream storage Novato, Marin
NvC-CCCS- Water Diversion solutions (CDFG 2004). County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
25.2.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment 2 10 RCD, NBWD TBD implemented.

San Francisquito Creek Population


The San Francisquito Creek watershed is located on the San Francisco Peninsula and includes
portions of both San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. The watershed is approximately 45
square miles, extending from the ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains and draining to San
Francisco Bay. Much of the watershed lies in steep, mountainous areas, and the highest
elevation in the watershed is approximately 2,200 feet. Major tributaries include Los Trancos
Creek, Corte Madera Creek, West Union Creek, and Bear Creek (Leidy et al. 2005a). Recent
analysis suggests perennial, well shaded reaches of the mainstem, and these tributaries likely
supported coho salmon historically (Leidy et al. 2005b). Steelhead have been documented in the
San Francisquito Creek watershed at various densities since the 1950s (Leidy et al. 2005b). Since
there has not been consistent monitoring of the population in the watershed, data are not
available to ascertain trends in abundance. However, recent monitoring indicates that steelhead
persist in the San Francisquito system (Fong 1999; unpublished data). Rearing habitat is
available in the mainstem of San Francisquito Creek, Los Trancos Creek, West Union Creek,
Bear Creek, and their tributary streams (Leidy et al. 2005a). Current conditions, however, limit
the ability of this system to support a viable steelhead population. Access to approximately 14
kilometers of potential habitat (IP-km) in the Corte Madera Creek sub-basin is blocked by
Searsville Dam.
History of Land Use

Water storage and diversion, residential development, channelization, urban development,
road construction, and flood levee construction are among the land uses that affect the
watershed processes within the San Francisquito Creek system. Since the early 1900s, major
portions of tidal wetlands near the mouth of San Francisquito Creek were diked and filled (SFEI
2009). Major re-routing of the lower reaches took place in the late 1920s, with levees
constructed on both sides of the creek (SFEI 2009). The upper watershed consists primarily of
low-density development and open space with mid to high quality habitat for steelhead
spawning and rearing. The lower portion of the watershed, which encompasses relatively low
gradient portions of the valley floor/Bay plain adjacent to San Francisco Bay, has been
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft San Francisquito 636

extensively developed and is severely impacted by urbanization (Spence et al. 2008). On Corte
Madera Creek, approximately 500 meters upstream of the confluence with San Francisquito
Creek, Stanford University operates a 68-foot high dam in the watershed, Searsville Dam
(SCVWD 2011). Searsville Dam was constructed in 1892 and is a complete barrier to the
upstream migration of adult steelhead.

San Francisquito Creek forms a portion of the boundary between San Mateo and Santa Clara
Counties. The majority (80 percent) of the watershed is located in San Mateo County and
includes the cities of Atherton, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, East Palo Alto, and Woodside
(SCVWD 2011). The City of Palo Alto on lower San Francisquito Creek represents the
northwestern area of Santa Clara County. The watershed is governed by these various county
and municipal jurisdictions (San Francisquito Watershed Council 2005). The watershed also
includes several parks, including the City of Palo Altos Foothills Park, Huddart County Park,
and Wunderlich County Park. In addition, the National Park Service manages the 1,232-acre
Phleger Estates of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which includes a portion of West
Union Creek. Several municipalities in the watershed and the SCVWD have stream
maintenance programs that include bank stabilization, and the removal of garbage and debris
from the stream channel.
Stanford University is the largest landowner in the watershed, occupying 8,000 acres spanning
both counties. Stanford operates several water facilities in the watershed for the purpose of
diverting and storing water for landscape irrigation and fire control. Water is diverted from
Corte Madera Creek at Searsville Reservoir; from Los Trancos Creek at the Felt Lake Diversion;
and from San Francisquito Creek at the San Francisquito Pump Station. Since its construction,
Searsville Reservoir has lost approximately 80-90 percent of its water storage capacity to
sediment accumulation and its current capacity is approximately 100-200 acre-feet of water. In
2008, Stanford submitted applications to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for ESA
section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits, and a draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was
submitted in support of their applications. In December 2012, Stanford requested that NMFS
suspend the processing of their application pending completion of the Searsville Dam
alternatives study.
The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) is a government agency formed in
1999 by the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, the Santa Clara Valley Water
District, and San Mateo County Flood Control District. The SFCJPA utilizes a multi-
jurisdictional approach to solve problems and implement projects that provide multiple

communities flood protection, environmental benefits, and recreational benefits. The SFCJPA
also coordinates creek maintenance, emergency preparedness, and emergency response
communication. In 2006, the Corps, with the SFCJPA as the Local Sponsor, initiated the San
Francisquito Creek Feasibility Study to determine the feasibility of a federally funded project to
reduce flood damages, restore ecosystems, and create recreational opportunities within the San
Francisquito Creek watershed. Concurrent with the completion of the Feasibility Study, the
SFCJPA is planning and designing capital projects with the goal of reducing the potential of
flooding in the watershed.
There is substantial public interest in improving the habitat for steelhead in San Francisquito
Creek and its tributaries. There have been several studies aimed at assessing and improving
water quality and fisheries habitat in the watershed. In 2003, there was a review of local agency
storm water management policies and practices (Harris and Kocher 2006). There have been
studies of fish migration barriers (Smith and Harden 2001; Cleugh and McKnight 2002), factors
limiting steelhead production (Jones and Stokes 2006), and sediment dynamics in the watershed
(NHC and JSA 2004). In 2006, Harris and Kocher (2006) assessed the effectiveness of policies
and practices in protecting steelhead and their habitats. In coordination with Stanford, NMFS
assessed instream flow requirements for steelhead downstream of the Los Trancos and San
Francisquito water diversions during 2005 (NMFS 2006). The results of this study were used to
develop the bypass criteria for Stanfords Steelhead Habitat Enhancement Plan (SHEP).
Additionally, there are several watershed groups active in the watershed: Acterra, Beyond
Searsville Dam, and the San Francisquito Watershed Coalition (a project of Acterra). These
groups conduct education, outreach and restoration activities in the greater San Francisquito
watershed area. Stanford has completed several studies regarding Searsville Dam and is
currently conducting the Searsville Alternatives Study to address the long-term future of the
dam and reservoir.

The following key habitat attributes were rated Poor through the CAP process for steelhead:
habitat complexity (large wood frequency and shelter rating); passage/migration (physical
barriers); riparian vegetation (tree diameter, canopy cover, and species composition); water
quality (toxicity and turbidity); estuary (quality and extent); viability (adult, juvenile and smolt
density or abundance); landscape patterns (urbanization); and sediment transport (overall road
density and streamside road density) (See San Francisquito Creek CAP Results). Recovery
strategies will focus on improving these habitat attributes, restoring access to historical habitat
in the Corte Madera Creek sub-basin, as well as those needed to ensure population viability and
functioning watershed processes. Strategies that address other indicators may also be

Current Conditions
CAP viability analysis. The San Francisquito Creek CAP Viability Table results are provided

Habitat Complexity: Large wood conditions have a rating of Poor for all life stages. Habitat
Complexity: Shelter conditions have an overall rating of Fair. Channel modification is the
primary threat contributing to this condition. Additional threats contributing significantly to
this condition include Residential and Commercial Development, and Roads and Railroads.

Viability conditions have an overall rating of Poor. The threat contributing significantly to this
condition is Water Diversion and Impoundments because Searsville Dam has blocked adults
from access to approximately one third of the watershed since completion of the dam in 1892.

Sediment Transport from road density conditions have a rating of Poor for Watershed
Processes. Per watershed characterization, the San Francisquito Creek watershed has high road
densities concentrated in the urbanized area downstream. Threats contributing significantly to
this condition include Channel Modification, Roads and Railroads, and Water Diversion and
Impoundments.

Landscape Pattern: Urbanization conditions have a rating of Poor for Watershed Processes.
Major landscape disturbance within the San Francisquito watershed is associated with urban
development. Urbanization is concentrated in the lower watershed and approximately 30
percent of the entire watershed is developed as urban land uses (NMFS GIS 2009). Threats
contributing significantly to this condition are Channel Modification, Residential and
Commercial Development, and Roads and Railroads.

Passage/Migration conditions have a rating of Poor for adults and summer rearing juveniles. A
primary limiting factor for steelhead in the San Francisquito Creek watershed is blocked access
to freshwater habitat upstream of Searsville Dam. Additional impediments and barriers to
steelhead movement and upstream passage occur throughout the watershed (Cleugh and
McKnight 2002; Smith and Harden 2001; Stoecker 2002). Threats significantly contributing to
this condition are Water Diversion and Impoundments and Residential Development.

Estuary conditions have a rating of Poor for summer rearing and smolt lifestages.
Opportunities for steelhead to utilize tidal marsh areas associated with lower San Francisquito
Creek have been significantly reduced by Channel Modification. Limited access to tidal marsh
areas prevents juvenile steelhead and smolts from utilizing productive brackish water areas
adjacent to San Francisco Bay for feeding prior to outmigration.

Velocity conditions have a rating of Fair for adults and winter rearing juveniles. The floodplain
limitations present in San Francisquito Creek are primarily due to urbanization and the
associated effects of flood control. Threats contributing significantly to this condition are
Channel Modification, Residential and Commercial Development, and Roads and Railroads.

Hydrology conditions have a rating of Fair for adults, summer rearing juveniles, and eggs.
Impairment to water flow in San Francisquito Creek is due to privately owned water diversions
and stream-side wells. Naturally low stream flows in the watershed may also impair passage
flows, especially for smolts (Smith 2013). Threats contributing significantly to this condition are
Water Diversion and Impoundment.
Threats
strategies will focus on ameliorating High rated threats; however, some strategies may address
Medium and Low threats when the strategy is essential to recovery efforts. The figures and
tables that display data used in this analysis are provided in San Francisquito Creek CAP
Results.

This threat rated as Very High overall and for watershed processes. It rated as High for adults,
summer and winter rearing juveniles. Much of San Francisquito Creek, downstream of
Highway 280, has been engineering for flood water conveyance (Menlo Park 1998, SFEI 2009).
Channel modification, combined with other channel and landscape altering practices, has
destroyed estuarine habitat, disconnected streams from their floodplains, created passage
barriers, and constrained natural fluvial and geomorphic processes that create and maintain
instream and riparian habitat that support viable steelhead populations.
Another significant source of channel modification is bank protection. Bank protection

measures, such as concrete rubble, rock riprap, grouted gabion baskets and sacked concrete,
have been placed at locations throughout the watershed by local jurisdictions, water agencies,
and residential property owners to protect roads and houses. These types of structures reduce
the biological and physical integrity of stream habitats by restricting riparian vegetation growth
and lateral channel migration.

This threat was rated as High for adults, summer and winter rearing juveniles, watershed
processes, and High overall. This threat rated High due to its impact on woody debris
recruitment, water quality, floodplain connectivity, hydrology, riparian species composition,
and estuary quality and extent. The 2000 census estimated the population within the San
Francisquito Creek watershed at 33,628 individuals; 52 percent of the watershed has a housing
density higher than 1 unit per 20 acres (NMFS GIS 2009) with significant development located
in the riparian zones of the mainstem San Francisquito and many of its tributaries. With 30
percent of the watershed in developed urban land uses (NMFS GIS 2009), major modifications
to the historic hydrology and channel forms have occurred. Development in the watershed has
replaced riparian and upland vegetation and significantly increased impermeable surface area
in the watershed. Effects to instream conditions related to existing residential and commercial
developments are anticipated to continue into the future. Once established, urban/suburban
development is effectively irreversible.
As described above, the close proximity of development to San Francisquito Creek has created a
risk of flooding in urban and residential areas in the watershed. Flood control measures to
protect development in these reaches have resulted in an extensive amount of stream channel
and tidal marsh modification. Future flood control efforts may result in further losses of
riparian vegetation, channel modification, and barriers to fish passage.

Roads and Railroads
This threat was rated as High for adults, winter rearing juveniles, watershed processes, and
High overall. The San Francisquito watershed is heavily developed with very high road
densities in the urbanized lower reaches (NMFS GIS 2009). As a result, the paved road network
impacts the stream with road-born pollutants (e.g., oils, urban runoff, etc.). Road densities are
estimated at 5.5 miles of road per square mile of watershed area, and at 4.7 miles per square
mile of riparian area (NMFS GIS 2009). Paved roads also represent a significant source of the
total impervious surface within the watershed, and likely influence storm flow intensities.
Erosion rates in the watershed are high, due in part to local geology (San Francisquito
Watershed Council 2005). Corte Madera and Los Trancos creeks are considered at high risk for
landslides (SCVWD 2011). Inadequate road planning and maintenance of roads can lead to
landslides, downslope instability, and road surface erosion in watersheds. A watershed
sediment analysis of the San Francisquito Creek watershed concludes that unpaved road and
trail erosion is ubiquitous throughout the Santa Cruz Mountains, but is particularly significant
in upper Corte Madera Creek (San Mateo County), Alambique Creek (Woodside and San Mateo
Parks), Bear Gulch and some of the upper tributaries to West Union Creek in Huddart Park
(NHC & JSA 2004). High rates of erosion in these sub-watersheds appear to be linked to the
high frequency of insufficient cross drains, improperly sized culverts, ditches, and cut banks.

This threat was rated as High for adults, watershed processes, and overall. Several significant
surface water diversions in the watershed are operated to protect stream flow conditions for
steelhead. However, existing and future privately owned water diversions and stream-side
wells have the potential to degrade habitat conditions by reducing stream flow levels during
spawning, egg incubation, and summer juvenile rearing. The primary threat produced by
existing water diversions is passage impediments and barriers at impoundment structures.
Searsville Dam on lower Corte Madera Creek is a complete barrier to the upstream migration of
adult steelhead. It was built in 1892 and prevents steelhead from accessing one-third of the San
Francisquito watershed. Based on the characteristics and current habitat conditions in Corte
Madera, Dennis Martin, Alambique, Sausal, and Westridge creeks above Searsville Dam,
steelhead likely spawned and reared historically in this portion of the San Francisquito Creek
watershed. NMFS estimates approximately 14.3 IP-km of potential steelhead habitat upstream
of Searsville Dam. Searsville Dam also captures sediment transported as bedload from Corte
Madera, Sausal, and Alambique creeks in the reservoir (Jones & Stokes 2006). Gravel and
cobble for steelhead spawning has been reduced in lower Corte Madera Creek (downstream of
Searsville Dam), and, to a lesser degree, in San Francisquito Creek due to altered sediment

transport at Searsville Dam. In January 2011, Stanford announced the initiation of a process to
study the long-term future of Searsville Dam and Reservoir.
Stanford also owns the non-operating Lagunita Diversion structure at river mile 7.5 in San
Francisquito Creek. This water diversion facility was constructed in the late 1800s, and is no
longer used by Stanford to divert water. In the mid-1950s, the CDFW installed a fish ladder on
the structure, which has been modified several times since. However, the existing fish ladder
on the Lagunita Diversion Dam does impede upstream steelhead migration and does not meet
NMFS fish passage guidelines (NMFS 2001). In 2006, Stanford studied potential steelhead
passage improvements, and concluded that removing the existing fishway, concrete weir, and
apron between the abutments and restoring the channel to a more natural configuration would
best improve fish passage for adult and juvenile steelhead.
California Water Service operates a water diversion dam on Bear Gulch Creek (approximately
0.1 miles upstream of the Highway 84 crossing), often called the Upper Diversion Dam. This
concrete dam is approximately 10 feet tall and topped with an additional 3 feet of wooden
stoplogs. The dam is a complete barrier to upstream steelhead passage. California Water
Service has developed conceptual plans for fish passage at this site which would restore access
to approximately 3 kilometers of stream in Bear Gulch Creek.

The adult, summer and winter rearing lifestages are most limited by current conditions and
future threats in the San Francisquito watershed. Quality summer and winter rearing habitats
are lacking in some areas for steelhead. Impaired quality and extent of complex habitat
features, impaired water quantity, and landscape disturbances are the stresses most limiting
recovery of steelhead in the San Francisquito watershed. Finally, the inability for fish to access
upper watershed areas due to passage barriers at Searsville Dam and California Water Services
Upper Diversion Dam is another key limiting factor.

Increase Habitat Complexity and Floodplain Connectivity
Habitat complexity should be improved within poor quality reaches of San Francisquito Creek
watershed. Adding large woody debris will improve the habitat complexity of existing pool
habitats where shelter components are currently lacking. In other reaches, restoration efforts
should include implementation of wood/boulder structures into degraded reaches to increase
pool frequency and volume. Restoration efforts to create side channel areas and flood benches

would also increase habitat complexity. These complex elements will improve conditions for
summer and winter rearing juveniles.
Improve Riparian Habitat

The mainstem of San Francisquito Creek would benefit from improved riparian composition
and structure, which would increase stream shading, capture fine sediments, and improve large
woody debris recruitment. Practices to improve riparian condition include native riparian
planting and development and enforcement of riparian buffers.
Mitigate the Effects of Urban Development and Roads

Where the creek is incised and disconnected from its historic floodplain, inset floodplain
terraces could be constructed where feasible. Reaches currently channelized should, to the
extent feasible, be enhanced with constructed meanders and installation of wooden and rock
aquatic habitat features. Existing problem roads and active erosion sites should be prioritized
and addressed as part of a comprehensive sediment reduction plan for the San Francisquito
watershed. Future road construction should utilize BMPs to prevent alteration of hydrologic
processes, sediment transport, and fish passage, and avoid construction of roads within riparian
zones.
Provide Fish Passage Above Existing Barriers

Developing and implementing a plan to provide steelhead passage at Searsville Dam and
California Water Services Upper Diversion Dam. Passage at Searsville Dam will restore access
to approximately 14.3 IP-km of historic steelhead habitat and passage at the Upper Diversion
Dam will restore access to approximately 3 km of high quality habitat. These areas above the
currently impassable dams remain in relatively good condition for steelhead, and restoring
passage is a key action for recovering the species in watershed. Improving passage at other
existing partial barriers in the San Francisquito Creek watershed will also improve access to
areas in the upper watershed that offer the best spawning and juvenile rearing habitat in the
watershed. To fully address barriers in the watershed, a barrier assessment of the Corte Madera
Creek subwatershed above Searsville Dam is needed, and where appropriate, removal or
modification of barriers to provide steelhead passage is recommended or also needed.
Minimize Diversions and Diversion Effects

Diversions from direct diversions and possibly from near stream wells likely impact the
summer rearing and egg incubation lifestages in portions of the watershed. Water diversions,
which increase diurnal temperature fluctuations and reduce available rearing habitat, reduce
the quantity of water in the wetted stream channel. Efforts to address diversions could include
increased oversight by the SWRCB for permitted diversions and enforcement of applicable laws

for unpermitted diversions. Initial focus to minimize the adverse effects of diversions should be
directed at West Union Creek tributary to Bear Creek. Water diversions at Searsville Reservoir
by Stanford University influence the amount and timing of streamflow in lower Corte Madera
Creek and the San Francisquito Creek mainstem. Efforts to coordinate diversion timing and
sharing of water through conjunctive use agreements could also be developed to minimize
impacts.
Improve the Quality and Extent of the Estuary

The estuary would benefit from rehabilitation and reclamation of tidal marsh habitat. Levee
breaching and tidal channel creation in strategic locations would increase the amount of
estuarine habitat available to steelhead.

Literature Cited
Cleugh, E. and C. Mcknight. 2002. Steelhead Migration Barrier Survey of San Francisco Bay
Area Creeks (Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties). California
Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 137 pp.
Fong, D. 2004. Summer Stream Habitat and Fish Surveys for Upper West Union Creek, 1996-
2001, Golden Gate National Recreational Area. Prepared for National Park Service.
Harris, R.R. and S.D. Kocher. 2006. Local agency policies and procedures for protecting
steelhead habitat: San Francisquito watershed, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties,
California. University of California, Berkeley, Center for Forestry. 58 pp.
Jones & Stokes. 2006. Lower San Francisquito Creek Watershed Aquatic Habitat Assessment
and Limiting factors Analysis (Work Product N.1). Prepared for: the Santa Clara Valley
Water District, San Jose, CA. 88 pp.
Leidy, R. A., G. S. Becker, and B.N. Harvey. 2005a. Historical staus of coho salmon in streams
of the urbanized San Francisco estuary, California. California Fish and Game, 91: 219-
254.
Leidy, R. A., G. S. Becker, and B.N. Harvey. 2005b. Historical distribution and current status of
California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. 275 pp.
Menlo Park. 1998. San Francisquito Creek Bank Stabilization and Revegetation Existing
Conditions Report. Retrieved July 13, 2011 from
http://menlopark.org/creek/sfcindec.html.
NMFS, (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2001. Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream
Crossings.
NMFS, (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006. An assessment of bypass flows to protect
steelhead below Stanford Universitys water diversion facilities of Los Trancos Creek
and San Francisquito Creek. Santa Rosa, CA. February 15, 2006. 32 pp.

NMFS, (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Watershed Characterizations: San
Francisquito Creek Watershed.
NHC & JSA, (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants and Jones & Stokes). 2004. San Francisquito
Creek Watershed Analysis and Sediment Reduction Plan. Prepared for the San
Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority. 217 pp.
San Francisquito Watershed Council. 2005. A Vision for the San Francisquito Creek Watershed:
A View from 2005. 28 pp.
SCVWD (Santa Clara Valley Water District). 2011. Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan; San Francisquito Watershed Fact Sheet. Retrieved May 13, 2011,
from http://www.valleywater.compplan.org/watersheds/view/448.
SFEI, (San Francisco Estuary Institute). 2009. Historical Ecology of Lower San Francisquito
Creek Phase 1. Prepared for the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority. 14 pp.
Smith, J.J. 2013. Northern Santa Clara County Fish Resources. 19 pp.
Smith, J.J. and D.R. Harden. 2001. Adult Steelhead Passage in the Bear Creek Watershed.
Prepared for the San Francisquito Watershed Council. 65 pp.
Spence B.C, E.P. Bjorkstedt, J.C. Garza, J.J. Smith, D.G. Hankin, D. Fuller, W.E. Jones, R.
Macedo, T. H. Williams, E. Mora. 2008. A Framework for Assessing the Viability of
Threatened and Endangered Salmon and Steelhead in the North-Central California coast
Recovery Domain. NOAA Technical Memo: NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-423. 173 pp.
Stoecker, M. 2002. Salmonid Migration Barriers/Impediments in the San Francisquito Creek

Watershed, San Francisco Bay, CA. San Francisquito Creek Watershed Council. Updated
in 2010.

San Francisquito Creek CAP Viability Results
Current
Target Rating
Measurement
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 50
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km <50% of IP-km
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km or <16 IP-km Poor
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
Riparian Tree Diameter 39% Class 5 & >69% Class 5 & Not
& 6 across IP- & 6 across IP-
Vegetation (North of SF Bay) 6 across IP-km 6 across IP-km Specified
km km
69% Density 70-79% Density 80% Density 31% Density
Riparian Tree Diameter
rating "D" rating "D" rating "D" Not Defined rating "D" Poor
Vegetation (South of SF Bay)
across IP-km across IP-km across IP-km across IP-km

Sediment Distribution of or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km Fair
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
>1 spawner
low risk spawner
spawner density per
Spence (2008)
Flow Conditions
Condition)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
NMFS Flow
Hydrology Redd Scour Protocol score = Fair
42
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% (0.85mm) 15-17%
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm)
Gravel Quality
(Embeddedness)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Juveniles Condition

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
Percent Primary
Habitat Complexity (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average Good
Pools
Hydrology Fair
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
Hydrology (Instantaneous Protocol score = Fair
Condition) 50
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
Hydrology and/or Magnitude of Diversions/10 IP Diversions/10 Diversions/10 0 Diversions diversions/10 Fair
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Riparian
Vegetation
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP 75 to 89% IP
<50% IP km >90% IP km 75 to 89% IP-km
km (<20 C km (<20 C
Water Quality <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT Good
coho IP coho IP
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5
Fish/m^2 Fish/m^2
50-74% of 75-90% of
<50% of >90% of 75-90% of
Range Range

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Winter Rearing
Juveniles
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Not
Specified
Properly
Condition
Hydrology and/or Magnitude of Diversions/10 IP Diversions/10 Diversions/10 0 Diversions diversions/10 Fair
NMFS Flow
Hydrology Passage Flows Protocol: Risk Good
Factor Score 50
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Smolt Smolt Smolt
Smolt
abundance to
produce low
risk spawner
density per
Spence (2008)
(2008) Spence (2008) (2008)

>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of 6.475% of
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of 1% of
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of <15% of
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of 30% of
2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6 5.5
Transport Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile
0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1 4.7
Mile Mile Mile Mile

San Francisquito Creek CAP Threat Results

1 Agriculture Low Low Not Specified Not Specified Low Medium Low
2 Channel Modification High Low High High Medium Very High Very High
3 Disease, Predation and Competition Medium Not Specified Medium High Medium Low Medium
5 Suppression Not Specified Not Specified Low Low Low Low Low
6 Fishing and Collecting Medium Not Specified Low Not Specified Low Not Specified Low
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Low Low Low Low Medium Low
9 Mining Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified
10 Recreational Areas and Activities Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
11 Development High Low High High Medium High High
12 Roads and Railroads High Low Medium High Low High High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Low Not Specified Medium Not Specified Low Not Specified Low
14 Water Diversion and Impoundments High Not Specified Medium Not Specified Low High High
Threat Status for Targets and Project High Low High High Medium Very High Very High

San Francisquito Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Coastal San Francisco Bay) Recovery Actions
SFC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
SFC-CCCS- Recovery
Gather data related to the historical structure and

habitat characteristics of the fluval-tidal interface;
use this data to develop actions aimed at
restoring habitat and sediment transport through
fluvial-tidal stream reaches. Implement actions
NGOs, SFCJPA, deemed feasible and of high priority. Costs will be
Corps, USFWS, determined once an assessment of the existing
SFC-CCCS- Restore lower San Francisquito Creek (including the Cities, Counties, and historica estuary-tidal interface has been
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary fluvial-tidal interface) to a more functional tidal area. 2 20 Caltrans TBD conducted - see below recovery action.
CalTrans, Cities,
Develop an estuary rehabilitation and enhancement Corps, Counties,
SFC-CCCS- plan in efforts to reclaim historically tidal influenced Private Cost based on estuary restoration modeling at a
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary areas of San Francisquito Creek. 2 10 Landowners 339.00 339 rate of $338,679/project.
SFC-CCCS- Implement rehabilitation and enhancement Cities, Counties,

1.1.1.3 Action Step Estuary recommendations. 2 20 RCD TBD
SFC-CCCS- Investigate tidal circulation within potential tidal Cities, Counties,

1.1.1.4 Action Step Estuary marsh restoration sites. 2 10 SFCJPA 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Identify potential habitat features that will increase
SFC-CCCS- current and future estuary habitat values for rearing
1.1.1.5 Action Step Estuary steelhead. 2 10 Cities, Counties 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
Investigate water quality (D.O., temperature, salinity) continuous water quality stations at a rate of
SFC-CCCS- conditions for rearing steelhead in potential tidal $5,000/station. Cost does not account for data
1.1.1.6 Action Step Estuary marsh rehabilitation sites. 2 10 Cities, Counties 7.50 7.50 15 management or maintenance.
SFC-CCCS- Investigate potential prey items for rearing salmonids

1.1.1.7 Action Step Estuary within current and potential estuary habitat zones. 2 10 Cities, Counties 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
SFC-CCCS- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
SFC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain

Create flood refuge habitat such as hydrologically Cities, Corps, Cost based on treating 0.6 miles (assume 1
SFC-CCCS- Floodplain connected floodplains with riparian areas, or removal Counties, Private project/mile in 25% high IP) at a rate of
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity or setback of levees where appropriate. 2 20 Landowners 536 536 536 536 2,143 $44,640/acre.

flood pulse event that initiates substantial
Cities, Corps, beneficial ecological processes when associated
SFC-CCCS- Floodplain Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- Counties, Private with floodplain inundation. Cost based on riparian
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity established in low gradient response reaches. 2 10 Landowners 44.50 44.50 89 restoration model at a rate of $88,551/project.
Implement managed retreat of current development
SFC-CCCS- Floodplain and infrastructure from stream channels and Cities, Corps,
2.1.1.3 Action Step Connectivity floodplains where feasible. 3 100 Counties, FEMA 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Target restoration and enhancement of habitats that Cities, Counties,

SFC-CCCS- Floodplain will provide functioning habitat at flows intermediate NPS, Private
2.1.1.4 Action Step Connectivity between winter base flow and flood stage. 2 100 Landowners 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.

Promote restoration projects designed to create or
SFC-CCCS- Floodplain restore alcove, backchannel, ephemeral tributary, or Cities, Corps,
2.1.1.5 Action Step Connectivity seasonal pond habitats. 2 100 Counties 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Cities, Counties,
SFC-CCCS- Floodplain Delineate reaches possessing both potential winter Private
2.1.1.6 Action Step Connectivity rearing habitat and floodplain areas. 2 10 Landowners 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
SFC-CCCS- Recovery
Stanford should evaluate the potential for water
releases from Searsville Reservoir to enhance
downstream steelhead rearing habitat during the dry CDFW, NMFS,
SFC-CCCS- season and confer with NMFS on the results of the Stanford
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology evaluation. 1 10 University TBD
SFC-CCCS- Recovery
Continue to identify high priority barriers and restore Caltrans, Cities,

SFC-CCCS- passage per NMFS' Guidelines for Salmonid Counties, Private
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage Passage at Stream Crossings (NMFS 2001). 2 100 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Develop and implement a plan to provide steelhead Stanford University is currently developing
passage at Searsville Dam. Passage at Searsville alternatives for the future of Searsville Dam.
Dam will open a large percentage of the watershed Passage for steelhead above the dam will
to steelhead. Areas of the watershed above the dam ultimately depend on their final alternatives and
remain in relatively good condition for steelhead and whether or not the dam will remain. Costs for trap
SFC-CCCS- passage at the dam is a key action for recovering the Stanford and truck over a 100 year span could exceed $25
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage species in San Francisquito Creek. 1 10 University TBD million.
Modify the California Water Service diversion dam

SFC-CCCS- on Bear Gulch to ensure steelhead passage to the California Water
5.1.1.3 Action Step Passage upper 3 km of high quality habitat. 2 5 Services 750 750 Cost based on previous regional projects
Modify the culvert at Fox Hollow Road crossing on City of
SFC-CCCS- Bear Creek to ensure that steelhead passage is not Woodside, Cost based on providing passage at a rate of
5.1.1.4 Action Step Passage impeded. 2 5 County 640 640 $639,247/project.
Modify or remove the abandoned Lagunita Diversion

Dam to ensure that steelhead passage (for adults
and juveniles) is not impeded. This dam is
downstream of most of the watersheds spawning
SFC-CCCS- and rearing habitat and impedes adult and juvenile Stanford Cost based on providing passage at a rate of
5.1.1.5 Action Step Passage migration at some flows. 1 5 University 640 640 $639,247/project.
Modify or remove abandoned flashboard dam and
concrete-lined basin near the intersection of Los
Trancos Road and Alpine Road on Los Trancos City, County,
SFC-CCCS- Creek to ensure that steelhead passage is not Private Cost based on providing passage at a rate of
5.1.1.6 Action Step Passage impeded. 2 5 Landowners 640 640 $639,247/project.
Modify the apron and culvert at the Highway 84
SFC-CCCS- crossing on Bear Gulch to ensure that steelhead Cost based on providing passage at a rate of
5.1.1.7 Action Step Passage passage is not impeded. 2 5 Caltrans 640 640 $639,247/project.

Restore passage in other high priority areas of the

San Francisquito Creek watershed as identified by
watershed groups, CDFW, NMFS, the Counties of Caltrans, Cities,
SFC-CCCS- Santa Clara and San Mateo, Smith and Harden Counties, Private Cost based on the type and number of passage
5.1.1.8 Action Step Passage (2001) and existing fish passage databases. 1 10 Landowners TBD barriers. Cost estimate up to $1,278,495/project.
SFC-CCCS- Recovery Improve frequency of primary pools, LWD, and

Increase wood frequency in spawning and rearing
areas of the San Francisquito Creek watershed
(particularly upper reaches and tributaries) to the Cities, Counties, Cost based on treating 1.3 miles (assume 1
SFC-CCCS- extent that a minimum of 6-11 key LWD pieces exists NPS, Private project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity every 100 meters. 2 20 Landowners 9.50 9.50 9.50 9.50 38 $31,200/mile.
Evaluate and prescribe complex habitat features Cities, Counties,

SFC-CCCS- within the watershed that will increase shelters for Private Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity winter rearing juveniles. 2 20 Landowners 34.50 34.50 34.50 34.50 138 rate of $137,833/project.
Increase wood frequency in seasonal habitat and

migratory reaches of the San Francisquito Creek Cities, Counties,
SFC-CCCS- watershed to the extent that a minimum of 4-6 key NPS, Private
6.1.1.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity LWD pieces exists every 100 meters. 2 20 Landowners 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Increase shelters to improve winter rearing conditions Cities, Counties,

SFC-CCCS- (particularly upper reaches and tributaries) within the NPS, Private
6.1.1.4 Action Step Habitat Complexity San Francisquito Creek watershed. 2 20 Landowners 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Cities, Counties, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
SFC-CCCS- Increase the number of pools that have a minimum NPS, Private $31,200/mile. This action step should coincide
6.1.1.5 Action Step Habitat Complexity shelter of 80. 2 20 Landowners 9.50 9.50 9.50 9.50 38 with above action step.
SFC-CCCS- Recovery
7.1.1 Action Riparian Improve riparian condition
Increase tree diameter to a minimum of 70-79% Cities, Counties,

SFC-CCCS- density rating D across IP km for adult, summer and Private
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian winter rearing lifestages. 2 20 Landowners TBD
Cities, Counties, Cost based on treating 0.7 miles (assume 1

SFC-CCCS- Increase the average stream canopy cover within Private project/mile in 25% high Ip with 24 acres/mile) at a
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian summer rearing areas to a minimum of 80%. 2 20 Landowners 103.00 103.00 103.00 103.00 415 rate of $24,682/project.
Cities, Counties,
SFC-CCCS- Implement riparian tree planting in spawning and Private
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian rearing areas. 2 20 Landowners 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.

SFC-CCCS- corridor are not disturbed or lost due to land
7.1.1.4 Action Step Riparian management activities (e.g. flood control, etc.). 3 100 Cities, Counties 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Cities, Counties,
SFC-CCCS- Identify areas where non-native species are Private Cost for riparian restoration model accounted for
7.1.1.5 Action Step Riparian established. 2 10 Landowners 0 in other action steps.

Cities, Counties,
SFC-CCCS- Target areas lacking in canopy for revegetation Private
7.1.1.6 Action Step Riparian projects. 3 100 Landowners 0 Cost accounted for in other action step.
Identify all potential summer rearing areas within the Cities, Counties,
SFC-CCCS- San Francisquito Creek watershed where canopy Private
7.1.1.7 Action Step Riparian cover is not meeting the minimum canopy criteria. 2 10 Landowners 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
Institutionalize programs to purchase

SFC-CCCS- land/conservation easements to encourage the re-
7.1.1.8 Action Step Riparian establishment of natural riparian communities. 2 50 Cities, Counties 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Cities, Counties, project/mile in 5% high IP with 80 acres/mile) at a
SFC-CCCS- Target non-native species for removal and Private rate of $1,036/ acre. Cost to replant areas
7.1.1.9 Action Step Riparian revegetation with native species. 2 20 Landowners 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 17 accounted for in above action step.
SFC-CCCS- Recovery
Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
rate of $137,833/project. Cost for amount of
SFC-CCCS- Develop and implement a plan to improve coarse Stanford coarse sediment to introduce is estimated at
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment sediment conditions downstream of Searsville Dam. 2 20 University 34.50 34.50 34.50 34.50 138 $40/cu.yd.
SFC-CCCS- Recovery
Cost are accounted for by existing water quality
protection measures by city and county
Cities, Counties, municipalities. Federal and state agencies must
Improve water quality for adults, summer and winter Private continue to support and encourage measures that
SFC-CCCS- rearing juveniles and smolts by reducing exposure to Landowners, will improve upon existing conditions where
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality toxins and pollutants in San Francisquito Creek. 2 20 SWRCB 0 necessary.
Identify and remediate sources of pulses of water
SFC-CCCS- originating from human activities (e.g. flushing of Cost based on hyrdologic model at a rate of
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality swimming pools, etc.). 2 10 SWRCB 39.50 39.50 79 $78,100/project.
Cities, Counties,
Identify and develop solutions for point and non-point Santa Clara
SFC-CCCS- sources contributing to poor water quality and Valley Water
10.1.1.3 Action Step Water Quality pollution. 2 20 District, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Relocate equestrian facilities beyond the riparian Private
corridor and provide alternative crossings (e.g. Landowners,
SFC-CCCS- bridges) to restore in-stream habitat and reduce Stanford
10.1.1.4 Action Step Water Quality turbidity. 2 20 University TBD Action is considered In-Kind
Private
Landowners,
SFC-CCCS- Stanford
10.1.1.5 Action Step Water Quality Control runoff from horses and livestock facilities. 2 100 University 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Private
SFC-CCCS- Identify and remediate septic systems contributing to Landowners,
10.1.1.6 Action Step Water Quality high nutrient loading. 2 20 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Identify and remediate water quality issues
associated with Searsville Reservoir releases and
Searsville pipeline maintenance activities on San
SFC-CCCS- Francisquito and Corte Madera creeks downstream Stanford
10.1.1.7 Action Step Water Quality of Searsville Dam. 2 20 University 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Cities, Counties,
SFC-CCCS- Where feasible, utilize native plants and Private
10.1.1.8 Action Step Water Quality bioengineering techniques to stabilize banks. 3 100 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SFC-CCCS- Address other natural or manmade factors affecting

11.1 Objective Viability the species' continued existence
SFC-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and

Utilize CDFW approved implementation, Cities, Counties,

SFC-CCCS- effectiveness, and validation monitoring protocols NPS, Private
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability when assessing efficacy of restoration efforts. 3 100 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, SWFSC,
Counties, RCDs, Cost will be accounted for by monitoring
Counties, NPS, conducted as part of the Coastal Monitoring Plan
SFC-CCCS- Develop and implement a monitoring program to Stanford or by In-Kind monitoring by Stanford University or
11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability evaluate the performance of recovery efforts. 2 10 University 0 NPS.
Develop standardized watershed assessments within

sub-watersheds to define limiting factors specific to
SFC-CCCS- those areas. Encourage all major landowners to
11.1.1.3 Action Step Viability develop similar assessment methods. 2 5 Cities, Counties 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SFC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
SFC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment of floodplain

13.1.1 Action Modification connectivity

minimize the creation, or blocking access to, off Cities, Counties,
SFC-CCCS- Channel channel habitat used by salmonids as winter refuge Private
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification and seasonal rearing habitat. 1 100 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Incorporate features into flood control channels that
SFC-CCCS- Channel enhance steelhead migration under high and low flow Cities, Counties,
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification conditions. 1 10 SFCJPA 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Cities, Counties,
SFC-CCCS- Channel Evaluate design alternatives to rip-rap bank repairs Private
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification and incorporate fish habitat features. 2 100 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Cities, Counties,
SFC-CCCS- Channel Discontinue the use of gabion baskets and Private
13.1.1.4 Action Step Modification undersized rock within the bankfull channel. 2 100 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Develop Bank Stabilization and Floodplain Cities, Counties,

SFC-CCCS- Channel Guidelines (similar to those developed for the Private
13.1.1.5 Action Step Modification Stanford HCP) for use by private and public entities. 3 20 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SFC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to instream habitat

13.1.2 Action Modification complexity

Cities, Counties,
Private
Landowners,
Santa Clara
SFC-CCCS- Channel Develop stream maintenance plans that minimize Valley Water
13.1.2.1 Action Step Modification impacts to salmonid habitat complexity features. 2 10 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SFC-CCCS- Channel debris to rehabilitate existing stream complexity, pool Cities, Counties,
13.1.2.2 Action Step Modification frequency, and depth. 2 100 SFCJPA 0 Action is considered In-Kind

resulted in decreased shelter, LWD frequency, and Cities, Counties,
SFC-CCCS- Channel habitat complexity, and develop and implement site Private
13.1.2.3 Action Step Modification specific plans to improve these conditions. 1 20 Landowners 172.00 172.00 172.00 172.00 689
Cities, Counties,
Private
Landowners,
Santa Clara
Valley Water
SFC-CCCS- Channel Focus restoration efforts to increase capture of District, Stanford
13.1.2.4 Action Step Modification sediment by riparian vegetation. 2 100 University 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Cities, Counties,
SFC-CCCS- Channel Examine the feasibility of gravel and boulder Private
13.1.2.5 Action Step Modification augmentation, and implement if feasible. 2 20 Landowners 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
SFC-CCCS- Channel Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

SFC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

Develop Bank Stabilization and Floodplain Counties,

SFC-CCCS- Channel Guidelines (similar to those developed for the Federal, Public,
13.2.1.1 Action Step Modification Stanford HCP) for use by private and public entities. 2 20 Private, State 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Disease/
SFC-CCCS- Predation
14.1 Objective /Competition Address disease or predation
Disease/
SFC-CCCS- Recovery Predation Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
Disease/ Improve conditions for steelhead by decreasing the Cities, Counties,

SFC-CCCS- Predation effects of exotic vegetation within the stream and Private Cost accounted for in other actions. See
14.1.1.1 Action Step /Competition riparian corridor (see Restoration- Riparian). 3 20 Landowners 0 Riparian.
SFC-CCCS- Commercial modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
Residential/
SFC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
Residential/ Cities, Counties,

SFC-CCCS- Commercial Work with local agencies and landowners to identify Private
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development and eliminate sources of landscape disturbance. 2 20 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind

SFC-CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
Conduct road and sediment reduction assessments
to identify sediment-related and runoff-related
problems and determine level of hydrologic Caltrans, Cities,
connectivity. Address high and medium priority Counties, NPS,
SFC-CCCS- sediment delivery sites associated with roads and Private Cost based on road inventory of 235 miles of
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads railroads. 2 10 Landowners 135.00 135.00 270 road at a rate of $1,148/mile.
CalTrans, Cities,
SFC-CCCS- Conduct actions that hydrologically disconnect roads Counties, Private Cost based on amount of roads needing to be
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads and trails. 2 20 Landowners TBD hydrologically disconnected.

timeline of necessary actions. Begin with a road
SFC-CCCS- survey focused on roads in spawning and rearing
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads tributaries, followed by roads in other settings. 2 10 Cities, Counties TBD Cost for road inventory accounted for.
Work with landowners to assess the effectiveness of
SFC-CCCS- erosion control measures throughout the winter
23.1.1.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads period. 3 100 Cities, Counties 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SFC-CCCS- Water Diversion modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
SFC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

Conduct rehabilitation activities that restore channels Cities, Counties,

SFC-CCCS- Water Diversion and floodplains to extend the duration of spring and Private Cost accounted for in other action steps (e.g. see
25.1.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment summer stream flows. 1 20 Landowners TBD CHANNEL MODIFICATION).
Cities, Counties,
Private
Landowners,
Develop and implement strategies that slow urban Santa Clara Cost based on amount of urban runoff to treat.
SFC-CCCS- Water Diversion runoff during the spawning and migration season Valley Water Cost estimated for infiltration ponds to range
25.1.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment (slow it, spread it, sink it). 2 20 District TBD between $12,000 to $35,000 per pond.
Implement flow schedules developed for the Bear
SFC-CCCS- Water Diversion Gulch diversions to optimize steelhead spawning and California Water
25.1.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment rearing conditions. 1 10 Service 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Improve coordination between the agencies and
others to address season of diversion, off-stream
reservoirs, bypass flows protective of steelhead and Counties, NMFS,
SFC-CCCS- Water Diversion their habitats and avoidance of adverse impacts SWRCB, Water
25.1.1.4 Action Step /Impoundment caused by water diversion. 1 10 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Work with local watershed groups and landowners to
re-establish natural flow regime to improve adult
SFC-CCCS- Water Diversion migration to spawning habitats and smolt out Landowners,
25.1.1.5 Action Step /Impoundment migration to the ocean. 1 10 RCD, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SFC-CCCS- Water Diversion

25.1.1.6 Action Step /Impoundment Review and enforce water rights and bypass flows. 1 10 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Stevens Creek

Spawner Density Target: 900 adults

The Stevens Creek watershed contains approximately 20 miles of perennial channel (NMFS GIS
2009); however, due to reservoir blockage, only approximately 8.1 stream miles remain accessible
(NMFS GIS 2009), and of these 8.1 miles, only approximately 3.7 miles provide spawning and
rearing habitat (Becker et al 2007). Systematic adult or juvenile fish surveys covering a substantial
period of time have not been conducted within the Stevens Creek watershed, so accurately
estimating past adult or juvenile fish abundance is difficult. Accounts and reports indicate the
historic presence of a sustained steelhead run within Stevens Creek (Leidy et al. 2005); however,
the potential of the watershed to support an anadromous run was dramatically reduced by
construction of Stevens Creek Reservoir in 1935 (Leidy et al. 2005, Stillwater Sciences 2004). Yet,
O. mykiss do persist in Stevens Creek, both above and below the reservoir (Leidy et al. 2005). It is
generally thought to contain a reproducing steelhead population (SCBWMI 2001) and is one of
the few remaining Santa Clara Valley region streams to contain a viable steelhead run (Santa
Clara Valley Water District 2011 A).
Wetted channel sustaining O. mykiss downstream of the reservoir is maintained primarily via
releases from Stevens Creek reservoir. Distribution downstream of the reservoir is limited by
habitat, and during summer, seasonal drying downstream of Stevens Creek Dam likely severely
limits or precludes smolt survival (Stillwater Sciences 2004). Upstream of the reservoir, density
and distribution data are lacking; however, Leidy et al. (2005) note the presence of O. mykiss
within mainstem reaches upstream of the reservoir. These above-reservoir reaches contain much
of the naturally perennially wetted habitat in the watershed (Stillwater Sciences 2004), and
anthropogenic habitat alterations within these reaches remain limited, suggesting that they could
again be important to the support of an anadromous steelhead population if passage past Stevens
Creek Dam were restored.
History of Land Use

Discussion of the progression of development and land use within the Stevens Creek watershed
is available in Stillwater Sciences (2004) and SCBWMI (2001). In general, agricultural (orchard)
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Stevens Creek 664

and light suburban development gradually transitioned to more intensive suburban and urban
development as the primary land uses within the watershed. Presently, approximately 41% of
the watershed by area is developed as urban land uses (NMFS GIS 2009). Most development is
concentrated within the watershed area downstream of the reservoir (see Residential and
Commercial Development below) where steelhead presently have access. This urbanization and
Stevens Creek Reservoir have important effects on watershed processes, hydrology, passage, and
instream habitat within the Stevens Creek system.

By percentage, approximately 84 percent of the 31 square-mile Stevens Creek watershed is
privately held, approximately 9 percent is a combination of local (city/county) parks and
recreational holdings, and approximately 6 percent is in Federal holdings (NMFS GIS 2009).
Within the Santa Clara Valley, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is the primary
water resource agency (SCVWD 2011 B). Within Stevens Creek, SCVWD operates water
conveyance infrastructure (including Stevens Creek reservoir), performs stewardship duties, and
provides flood control services. Additionally, the SCVWD is in the process of drafting a Habitat
Conservation Plan [the Three Creeks Habitat Conservation Plan (TC-HCP)], which will include
Stevens Creek Reservoir. The schedule for finalizing and implementing the TC-HCP is uncertain
at the time of this assessment; however, NMFS and SCVWD are involved in ongoing discussions
directed towards the goal of creating a plan that will improve instream conditions for steelhead.
Resource management within the basin, including survey efforts and instream restoration efforts,
is largely carried out by SCVWD. However, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) has been active in performing stream surveys, and several public interest groups,
including Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, CLEAN South Bay, Santa Clara County Creeks
Coalition, and the California Nature Conservancy, are active in the watershed. For more
information on the organizations active in Stevens Creek, see SCBWMI 2001, SCBWMI 2003, and
SCBWMI 2011.

The following habitat attributes were rated Poor through the CAP process: Passage, migration,
water quality, viability, estuary, lagoon, hydrology, landscape patterns, and sediment transport.
Recovery strategies will typically focus on ameliorating these habitat indicators, although
strategies that address other indicators may also be developed where their implementation is
critical to restoring properly functioning habitat conditions within the watershed.

Current Conditions
our CAP viability analysis. The Stevens Creek CAP Viability Table results are provided below.

Water quality is limiting steelhead survival in Stevens Creek. The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) list of assessed waters includes Stevens Creek as a threatened
waterbody for the 2004 assessment and an impaired water body for the 2006 assessment (US EPA
2011a). Causes of water quality impairment for Stevens Creek include debris and pesticides,
toxicity, mercury, and PCBs (US EPA 2011B, US EPA 2011C, and US EPA 2011 D). Support of
several water quality attainment measures are currently threatened, including: aquatic life
support, cold freshwater habitat, fish consumption, migration of aquatic organisms, municipal
and domestic supply, overall use support, spawning, reproduction, and/or early development,
warm freshwater habitat, and wildlife habitat (US EPA 2011b). These limitations likely affect
steelhead distribution and survival.
Turbidity data within the Stevens Creek watershed is not available. However, Stillwater Sciences
(2004) notes observations of turbid water exiting the reservoir and presence of silty deposits
downstream of the reservoir. Stillwater Sciences (2004) considers turbidity a potential contributor
to limiting factors, and recommends turbidity monitoring. Threats contributing significantly to
this condition include: Roads and Railroads.

Li (2000) electrofished approximately 750 linear feet of channel downstream of the reservoir, and
encountered 487 O. mykiss (multiple year classes). Fall electrofishing surveys performed in 2010,
2013, and 2014 encountered juvenile steelhead densities ranging between 0.00- and 0.51 fish per
linear foot (fish/lin-ft) in 2010 (Abel 2011), 0.02- and 0.17 fish/lin-ft in 2013 (Leicester and Smith
2014a), and 0.00-0.02 fish/lin-ft in 2014 (Leicester and Smith 2014b).
In general, within the reach downstream of the reservoir, habitat suitability decreases with
increasing distance downstream. Higher quality habitat has been observed in some downstream
reaches in some years; however, habitat quality may vary between years and be affected by
reservoir releases and water-year type. For example, a restoration reach at the Blackberry Farm
Site was observed in 2010 to have improved water clarity and substrate (Smith 2011), and

relatively high juvenile steelhead densities (0.51 fish/lin-ft as reported by Abel 2011), and growth
as compared to other areas surveyed in the watershed (Leicester and Smith 2014, Abel 2011, and
Smith 2011). However, this same reach was observed to have decreased fish densities in 2013
(Leicester and Smith 2014a) and 2014 (Leicester and Smith 2014b), and was noted to be impaired
by sediments discharged from turbid reservoir releases in 2013 and previous years (Leicester and
Smith 2014b). Seasonal drying downstream of Stevens Creek Dam likely limits the success of
smolt outmigration in some years (Stillwater Sciences 2004), and the presence of significant
barriers likely limit abundance and distribution of all lifestages by blocking adult migration,
limiting smolt outmigration, and constraining up- and down-channel movement of juveniles
(further discussion on barriers is provided below in Impaired Passage & Migration). Further,
steelhead density and distribution information for Stevens Creek is limited: smolt emigration and
adult return data are not available, and although O. mykiss are known to persist above the
reservoir, densities within above-reservoir reaches are not well known. Threats contributing
significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification; and Water Diversions and
Impoundments.

There are limited data available regarding the distribution of pool/riffle ratios and pool
complexity within the Stevens Creek system. Pool/run (flatwater)/riffle ratios (Entrix 2000) and
habitat (Stillwater Sciences 2004) assessment for the reaches downstream of the reservoir indicate
suboptimal pool/riffle/flatwater ratios within Stevens Creek. Also, Stillwater Sciences (2004)
noted that multiple factors have altered channel morphology downstream of the reservoir,
substantially diminishing rearing habitat. These metrics are indicative of impaired stream
function, an effect likely associated with reservoir-related hydrology alterations and the high
concentrations of development within the watershed (see Residential and Commercial Development
below).
Above-reservoir data are limited, but considering that these reaches continue to support O. mykiss
(Leidy et al. 2005) and that above-reservoir development is relatively limited, NMFS suspects
they contain suitable habitat to support steelhead. Threats contributing significantly to this
condition include: Channel Modification; Residential and Commercial Development; and Water

Primary factors affecting hydrology in Stevens Creek include reservoir-related flow regulation
and effects related to urbanization (e.g., channelization, increased impervious surfaces, and flood
control projects). The magnitude, frequency, and duration of instream flows in Stevens Creek
have been affected by urbanization and flow regulation, likely affecting adult steelhead attraction

and passage, redd scour, predation of juveniles, and smolt outmigration (Stillwater Sciences
2004). Seasonal drying is a limiting factor within the downstream reaches of Stevens Creek, a
historically intermittent stream. Current reservoir operations provide flows that extend the
summer rearing habitat to reaches downstream of historic limits. The Fisheries and Aquatic
Habitat Collaborative Effort developed a reservoir operation approach to implement flows to
maintain a cold water management zone downstream of the reservoir (Santa Clara Valley Water
District et al. 2003). However, the extension of rearing habitat downstream of the reservoir does
not offset reservoir blockage and its effects, which preclude access to upstream rearing habitat
(Stillwater Sciences 2004). Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel
Modification; Residential and Commercial Development; Roads and Railroads; and Water

Stevens Creek Reservoir blocks passage to approximately 56 percent of the historic steelhead
habitat in the watershed (NMFS GIS 2011), eliminates access to historically important spawning
and rearing reaches, and is thought to be a primary contributor to the decline of the steelhead run
in Stevens Creek (Stillwater Sciences 2004, Leidy et al. 2005). Numerous partial barriers below
the reservoir (Santa Clara Valley Water District 2010, NMFS GIS 2010, Stillwater Sciences 2004,
Cleugh and Mcknight 2002) and impaired hydrology (Stillwater Sciences 2004) affect both adult
and juvenile movement throughout the remaining accessible habitat. Additionally, smolt
outmigration may be limited by flow availability in dry years (Stillwater Sciences 2004). Threats
Commercial Development; Recreation; Roads and Railroads; and Water Diversions and
Impoundments.

The floodplain limitations present today in the Stevens Creek system downstream of the reservoir
are primarily due to urbanization and the resulting effects of altered hydrology, and channel
confinement. Connectivity between stream channel and floodplain habitat may improve in some
locations within the Stevens Creek system through future restoration efforts. Similarly, the
installation of bank stabilization projects that remediate outdated methods and incorporate
methods that allow for steam functions, such as the restoration projects at the Blackberry Farm
site (City of Cupertino 2010, NMFS 2008, NMFS 2013), may improve floodplain connectivity.
However, because floodplain connectivity has been irretrievably lost in many cases due to
urbanization and bank stabilization, the overall degraded condition is expected to persist
throughout much of the system. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include:
Channel Modification; Residential and Commercial Development; and Water Diversions and
Impoundments.

Within the CAP workbook, road density is used to indicate the degree of sediment transport
alteration within the watershed. Per watershed characterization, the Stevens Creek system has
high road densities concentrated within the urbanized area downstream of the reservoir (NMFS
GIS 2009); suggesting altered drainage networks, streamflow and sediment transport and storage
regimes, and accelerated erosion processes. Coarse substrate embeddedness and the lack of
cobble and boulder aggregations potentially limit overwintering habitat availability and quality
in Stevens Creek (Stillwater Sciences 2004). Altered flow patterns and channel alterations,
together with reduced sediment supply downstream of the dam and fine sediment input both
above and below the reservoir, likely contribute to this condition (Stillwater Sciences 2004).
Upstream of Stevens Creek Reservoir, alterations to sediment transport processes are likely
minimal. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Channel Modification;
Residential and Commercial Development; Roads and Railroads; and Water Diversions and
Impoundments.

Major landscape disturbance within the Stevens Creek system is associated with urban
development; 41percent of the entire Stevens Creek watershed is developed as urban land uses
(NMFS GIS 2009). Urbanization is concentrated within the watershed area downstream of
Stevens Creek Dam (see Residential and Commercial Development, below). Due to blockage by
Stevens Creek Reservoir, the current spatial extent of urbanization traces the current steelhead
distribution within the Stevens Creek watersheds, suggesting that steelhead are likely affected to
a high degree by altered watershed processes resulting from these landscaped disturbances.
Threats contributing significantly to this condition include: Residential and Commercial
Development; Roads and Railroads; and Water Diversions and Impoundments.
Instream Habitat Complexity: Reduced Large Wood and/or Shelter

Downstream of Stevens Creek Reservoir, large wood is limiting (Entrix 2000). Although a
relatively large amount of woody debris exists within the upper two miles of the below-reservoir
reach (Stillwater Sciences 2004), many reaches downstream of the reservoir have been armored
and channelized to minimize flood risk and bank erosion. Adequate instream shelter is limited
throughout much of the below-reservoir reaches. Having a large urban interface between the
stream environment and upslope areas that traditionally supply LWD likely impairs wood
recruitment to the stream, translating into reduced shelter and instream habitat values. In Stevens
Creek, this lack of large wood that results in fewer deep pools, reduced holding habitat, and
reduced spawning gravels may affect adults (Stillwater Sciences 2004). Additionally, LWD
limitations may affect rearing juveniles by decreasing shelter and overwintering habitat

(Stillwater Sciences 2004). Juvenile steelhead within these reaches most likely experience reduced
summer survival and growth due to poor LWD volume and shelter conditions. Channel
restorations incorporating instream habitat features, such as the restoration projects at the
Blackberry Farm site (City of Cupertino 2010, NMFS 2008, NMFS 2013), may help to increase large
wood frequency and improve instream shelter within Stevens Creek. However, because the
stream functions that maintain instream habitat complexity are highly compromised, ongoing
restoration may be necessary to improve and maintain instream habitat function. Threats
Commercial Development; and Water Diversions and Impoundments.
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that were rated as High or Very High. Recovery
and tables that display data used in this analysis are provided in Stevens Creek CAP Results
Much of Stevens Creek, especially the downstream most reaches, has been channelized. Channel
modification, combined with other channel and landscape altering practices, has destroyed
estuarine habitat, disconnected streams from their floodplains, and limited stream functions
necessary to maintain instream and riparian habitat essential to supporting a robust steelhead
population.

The 2010 census estimated the population within the Stevens Creek area at over 52,320
individuals; 27% of the watershed has a housing density higher than 1 unit per 20 acres, and 41%
of the watershed area is developed as urban land uses (NMFS GIS 2015). Development is
concentrated within the watershed area downstream of the reservoir; 89% of watershed area
downstream of the reservoir is developed as urban (NMFS GIS 2011). The high level of urban
development has increased the impervious area within the watershed, greatly impacting
hydrology as well as the pollutant level within the aquatic environment, and impairing instream
conditions (passage, instream habitat, hydrology, and floodplain connection) necessary for the
support of a robust steelhead population. Due to blockage by Stevens Creek Dam, the current
spatial extent of this urbanization traces the current steelhead distribution in Stevens Creek,
suggesting that steelhead are likely affected to a high degree.
Roads and Railroads

Road networks within the Stevens Creek watershed are largely paved systems associated with
urban development. As a result, much of the impact resulting from the roads within the Steven
Creek watershed relates to road-born pollution (e.g., oils, urban runoff, etc.) and their direct
delivery into the aquatic system. Furthermore, the Stevens Creek system has a relatively high
concentration of roads within riparian zones (3.9 miles of roads per square mile of 100 meter
riparian buffer) (NMFS GIS 2009); paved roads represent a significant source of the total
impervious surface within the basin, and likely influence storm flow intensity and duration
during winter.

Stevens Creek is highly affected by water operations at Stevens Creek Reservoir. These water
management operations affect all lifestages within the Stevens Creek system by blocking passage,
limiting migration periods, and altering hydrology and instream habitat. Stevens Creek
Reservoir affects the hydrology and habitat quality downstream of the dam. Water diversions
downstream of the reservoir may affect instream habitat and result in stranding of juvenile O.
mykiss. Winter storm flow of up to 1,500 cubic feet per second is diverted into Stevens Creek from
neighboring Permanente Creek (Stillwater Sciences 2004); however, the effect of the diversion on
stream functions and the steelhead population within Stevens Creek is not well known.

Recreational areas and activities likely have little effect on steelhead or steelhead habitat within
Stevens Creek watershed, and in general, provide protections for the creek and its associated
habitats that support steelhead. However, Stillwater Sciences (2004) note that heavy recreational
use within some tributaries may result in increased steelhead mortality. Also, because riparian
trail and park areas are often sited within the floodplain, some recreational areas may potentially
affect riparian habitat, floodplain connection, and instream habitat maintenance.

Threat and condition analysis within the CAP workbook suggests that all lifestages except eggs
are limited by conditions within Stevens Creek. Primary factors contributing to habitat
limitations and limiting steelhead abundance within the Stevens Creek watershed are extensive
watershed development for urban, suburban, and commercial land uses, and municipal water
system development. The reservoir is a complete barrier to migration, and downstream of the
reservoir, numerous partial barriers exist, affecting movement of adults and juveniles. Extensive
watershed development and stream channel alteration have affected watershed functions and
stream habitat to such a degree that successful anadromy within Stevens Creek is in question.
Restoration actions should target addressing these issues within high potential stream reaches,

and should consider passage above Stevens Creek Dam in order to provide access to important
above-reservoir reaches.

Passage improvement is of the highest priority in the Stevens Creek system. Passage barriers
downstream of Stevens Creek Dam should be systematically and opportunistically remediated.
Concrete flood control channels with long distances of flat, concrete channel bed, and grade
control structures in the lower reaches of Stevens Creek impair upstream passage.
Passage Above the Reservoir

The stream habitat located above the reservoir was historically important in supporting a
steelhead population within the Stevens Creek system. The habitat and function of these
currently inaccessible reaches cannot be effectively replaced through enhancement of
downstream reaches due to natural differences in gradient and hydrology between the below-
and above-reservoir reaches, and the effects of anthropogenic landscape alteration (e.g.,
urbanization and floodplain development) within the below-reservoir reaches. Steelhead
occupancy in reaches upstream of the reservoir would increase population viability and increase
population resiliency in the event of drought or other factors affecting flow or habitat conditions
downstream of Stevens Creek Dam. Thus, the reservoir should be assessed for passage options,
and volitional passage facilities that coordinate with ongoing reservoir operations or other
biologically sound passage programs should be implemented.
Reservoir Operation to Benefit All Lifestages of Steelhead

Stevens Creek Reservoir should be operated in such a manner as to benefit all lifestages of
steelhead within Stevens Creek. Considerations should include, but not be limited to, water
temperature, flow velocity, ramping rates (as necessary to prevent scour of eggs, or displacement
or stranding of juveniles), sediment transport, channel maintenance, instream habitat
maintenance, and adult and smolt migratory cues.

The effects of diversion operations downstream of the reservoir should be evaluated. If
operations are found to be detrimental to steelhead or their habitat (e.g., flow reductions, small
fish entrainment), these operations should be either curtailed or re-operated to benefit all
lifestages of steelhead. On-channel water intakes should be screened to prevent entrainment of
fry and juvenile steelhead.


Efforts should be made to locate and address sources of suspended sediment (turbidity) conveyed
to the reservoir. Restoration efforts should focus on providing channel maintenance/forming
flows necessary to mobilize bedload material throughout Stevens Creek downstream of the
reservoir, providing suitable gravel material from upstream sources, and removing/remediating
structures and areas of the stream that impair sediment transport processes.
Increase Instream Habitat and Cover and Increase Instream Channel Complexity
Instream habitat and cover should be improved within the Stevens Creek system downstream of
the reservoir. Methods may include placing large woody debris, rock weirs, and boulders within
affected reaches. All structures should be designed to function within the known range of flows
at any given project site in order to provide for the needs of all steelhead lifestages.

Shelter ratings are Low within much of Stevens Creek downstream of the reservoir largely due
to an absence of LWD and limited channel complexity. Where applicable, restoration efforts
should incorporate instream wood/boulder structures into degraded reaches to improve habitat
complexity and shelter availability.

Efforts should be made to improve water quality throughout the Stevens Creek system. In
particular, efforts should focus on limiting or treating urban runoff and limiting input of debris,
pesticides, toxicity, mercury, and PCBs.

Literature Cited
Abel, J. 2011. Juvenile steelhead/trout index sampling, Stevens Creek, 2010. Santa Clara Valley
Water District. 18 Nov 2011.
Becker, G.S., I.J. Reining, D.A. Asbury, A. Gunther (2007). San Francisco Estuary watersheds
evaluation identifying promising locations for steelhead restoration in tributaries of
the San Francisco estuary.
City of Cupertino (2010). Retrieved January 31, 2010 from

http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=314

Leicester, M. and Smith, J. (2014a). Stevens Creek Environmental Conditions and Fish Resources
in 2013. California Department of Fish and Wildlife: 47.
Leicester, M. and Smith, J. (2014b). Stevens Creek Environmental Conditions and Fish Resources
in 2014. California Department of Fish and Wildlife: 23.
National Marine Fisheries Service (2008). Biological Opinion. Stevens Creek Corridor Park and
Stream Restoration Project at Blackberry Farm in Santa Clara County, California.
National Marine Fisheries Service (2013). Biological Opinion. Blackberry Farm Phase 2
Restoration of Stevens Creek.

Santa Clara Valley Water District (2010). FAHCE Stevens Creek Fish Passage Enhancement
Final Planning Study Report. Capital Program Services Division. January 2010.
Santa Clara Valley Water District (2011A). Lower Peninsula. Retrieved February 4, 2011 from
http://www.valleywater.org/services/LowerPeninsula.aspx
Santa Clara Valley Water District (2011B). Services. Retrieved January 26, 2011, from
http://www.valleywater.org/services.aspx.
Santa Clara Valley Water District, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al. (2003).
Settlement Agreement Regarding Water Rights of the Santa Clara Valley Water District
on Coyote, Guadalupe, and Stevens Creeks.
SCBWMI (Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative). 2001. Volume One, Watershed.

Smith, J. 2011. Santa Clara County steelhead ecology. Powerpoint presentation with text. Santa
Clara Creek Coalitions Creeks and Watershed Conference, Santa Clara, CA November
2011.
Stillwater Sciences (2004). Stevens Creek Limiting Factors Analysis Final Technical Report.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2011 A). Waterbodies matching
search criteria: Area equals CA and waterbody name contains stevens creek
http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_index.search_wb?p_area=CA&p_cycle=2004.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2011 B). 2004 Waterbody Report for
Stevens Creek. Retrieved February 3, 2011 from
http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_au_id=CAR20550020
19990218134341_00&p_cycle=2004&p_state=CA&p_report_type=
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2011 C). 2006 Waterbody Report
for Stevens Creek. Retrieved February 3, 2011 from
http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_list_id=CAR20550020
19990218134341&p_cycle=2006&p_report_type=T
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2011 D). 2006 Waterbody Report
for Stevens Creek Reservoir. Retrieved February 3, 2011 from
http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_list_id=CAL20550031
20050519182844&p_cycle=2006&p_report_type=T

Stevens Creek CAP Viability Results
Current
Target Rating
Measurement
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
69% Density 70-79% Density 80% Density 70-79% Density
rating "D" rating "D" rating "D" Not Defined rating "D" Fair

50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
>1 spawner
low risk spawner
spawner density per
Spence (2008)
Flow Conditions
2 Eggs Condition Hydrology (Instantaneous Good
Condition)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 50
Hydrology Redd Scour Good
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 50
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% (0.85mm) 15-17%
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm)
Gravel Quality
(Embeddedness)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Juveniles Condition

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
Percent Primary
Pools
Hydrology Fair
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
Flow Conditions
Hydrology (Instantaneous Poor
Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score
Condition)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 >75
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*

Riparian
Vegetation
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP 75 to 89% IP
<50% IP km >90% IP km 50 to 74% IP-km
km (<20 C km (<20 C
coho IP coho IP
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5
Fish/m^2 Fish/m^2
50-74% of 75-90% of
<50% of >90% of <50% of
Viability Spatial Structure Historical Historical Poor
Range Range

Winter Rearing
Juveniles
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Not
Specified
Properly
Condition
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% IP-Km (>6 50-74% IP-Km 75-90% IP-Km >90% IP-Km (>6 >90% IP-km (>6
Smoltification Temperature Very Good
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
Smolt Smolt Smolt
Smolt
abundance to
produce low
risk spawner
density per
Spence (2008)
(2008) Spence (2008) (2008)

>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of 17.25% of
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of 1.1% of
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of 0% of
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of >20% of
2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6
Sediment >3 Miles/Square >3 Miles/Square
Road Density Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Poor
Transport Mile Mile
Mile Mile Mile
0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1
Sediment Streamside Road >1 Miles/Square >1 Miles/Square
Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Poor
Transport Density (100 m) Mile Mile
Mile Mile Mile

Stevens Creek CAP Threat Results

Overall Threat
Rank
2 Channel Modification Very High Low Very High Very High Very High High Very High
3 Competition Low Not Specified Low Low Medium Low Low
5 Fire Suppression Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified
7 Ranching Low Not Specified Low Low Low Not Specified Low
Logging and Wood
8 Harvesting Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified
9 Mining Medium Not Specified Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
10 Activities High Not Specified High High High Low High
11 Development High Low Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High
12 Roads and Railroads Very High Low Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
Water Diversion and
14 Impoundments Very High Low Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High
Project Very High Low Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High

Stevens Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Coastal San Francisco Bay) Recovery Actions
StC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
StC-CCCS- Recovery
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Evaluate the estuary to determine the degree to Clara, Santa
which ecological conditions can be enhanced; Clara Valley
StC-CCCS- identify key limiting factors, and develop and Water District,
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary implement a plan to remedy these limiting factors. 3 10 USFWS 118.79 118.79 238 NMFS 2008, pg. 58
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Clara, Santa
Restore and enhance estuarine habitat; improve Clara Valley
StC-CCCS- complex habitat features; provide fully functioning Water District, Cost based on treating 5 acres (assume 10% of
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary habitat (CDFG 2004). 3 10 USFWS 123.00 123.00 246 total estuarine acres) at a rate of $49,200/acre.
StC-CCCS- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
StC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain
Develop and implement plans to provide seasonally

appropriate flows from Stevens Creek Dam
necessary to activate the floodplain (see Restoration- Santa Clara Costs accounted for in subsequent actions related
StC-CCCS- Floodplain Habitat Complexity, Restoration- Hydrology, Threat- Valley Water to habitat complexity, hydrology, and water
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity Water Diversion/Impoundment). 2 5 District 0 diversion/impoundment.
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain Cost based on riparian and wetland restoration
Assess floodplain conditions within Stevens Creek. View, City of model at a rate of $88,551 and $255,968/project,
Develop and implement plans to maintain floodplain Sunnyvale, respectively. Cost will vary with amount of
connection where existing, and reconnect County of Santa watershed area assessed and extent of floodplain
disconnected floodplain habitat where feasible (see Clara, Santa connection restoration efforts. Moderate estimate
StC-CCCS- Floodplain Restoration- Habitat Complexity, and Restoration- Clara Valley is $29,070 /acre of earthmoving (NMFS2008, pg
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity Riparian). 2 10 Water District 172.50 172.50 345 26).
During winter and spring, implement periodic large

Stevens Creek Reservoir Dam outlet works to
provide stream channel maintenance flows. When Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- Floodplain possible, time these flows so that they coincide with Valley Water
2.1.1.3 Action Step Connectivity natural rainfall events. 2 10 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind

StC-CCCS- Recovery

diversion and storage on steelhead by maintaining a Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- more natural hydrograph, and providing flows to Valley Water Costs will vary depending on methods
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology benefit all life stages of steelhead. 2 5 District, SWRCB TBD implemented.

Restoration- Floodplain Connectivity, Restoration- Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- Habitat Complexity, Threat- Channel Modification, Valley Water Cost will be dependent upon amount of water
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology and Threat- Residential/Commercial Development). 1 10 District TBD required, and extent of the program.
StC-CCCS- Recovery
Caltrans, City of
Cupertino, City of
Los Altos, City of
Mountain View,
City of
Improve and maintain exiting fish passage structures Sunnyvale,
within below reservoir facilities (i.e., fish ladders); County of Santa
identify and remedy problem culverts, crossings, Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- grade control structures, diversions, etc. in the Clara Valley Costs will vary depending on methods
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage Stevens Creek watershed; remove defunct facilities. 2 15 Water District TBD implemented.
Caltrans, CDFW,
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
Expedite projects providing improved steelhead View, City of
passage and stable channel conditions. See the Sunnyvale, Estimate of $278,409/project within suburban
California Department of Fish and Game barrier County of Santa setting used (CDFG 2004, pg I-16), and an
survey report (Cleugh and McKnight 2002), Clara, Santa estimte of 5 barriers to be improved/removed.
StC-CCCS- coordinate with Santa Clara Valley Water District, Clara Valley Passage improvement is of the highest priority -
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage and perform more current surveys as needed. 1 5 Water District 1,392 1,392 expedite.
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of Cost estimate from:
Sunnyvale, Steelhead Abundance/Distribution project type
County of Santa (NMFS 2008, pg 58). Cost is approximate.
Clara, Santa Support and expedite projects that contribute to
StC-CCCS- Evaluate existing above-reservoir habitat for its ability Clara Valley above-reservoir passage
5.1.1.3 Action Step Passage to support steelhead. 1 5 Water District 112.52 113 investigation/implementation.

Perform a passage feasibility study specific to

Stevens Creek Reservoir. See HDRs field report
prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(HDR 2010) for initial reconnaissance efforts.
Include water system uses and reservoir operations Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- in this assessment. Include both adult immigration Valley Water Consider both volitional and non-volitional
5.1.1.4 Action Step Passage and adult/smolt emigration passage requirements. 1 5 District TBD passage methods in the assessment.
program(s) that are coupled with the reservoir flow Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- plans and operations necessary to facilitate long- Valley Water Costs will vary depending on methods
5.1.1.5 Action Step Passage term implementation. 2 10 District TBD implemented.
Using cost estimates from a draft fish passage

assessment performed by HDR engineering Inc.
(2009) for Los Padres Dam: cost estimates range
depending on methodology. For this estimate:
15 million for ladder installation (trap and haul
Caltrans, Santa less)
StC-CCCS- Expeditiously implement the most feasible and Clara Valley 10 million for 100 years of operation (trap and
5.1.1.6 Action Step Passage biologically beneficial passage program. 1 10 Water District 12,500 12,500 25,000 haul similar).
Caltrans, CDFW,
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Acquire funding necessary to ensure the long-term Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- operations, and future improvement of this passage Clara Valley
5.1.1.7 Action Step Passage program. 1 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
StC-CCCS- Recovery Improve frequency of primary pools, LWD, and
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
Identify locations where channel modification has View, City of
resulted in decreased shelter, LWD frequency, and Sunnyvale,
specific plans to improve these conditions. Consider Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- flow rates and discharges when designing LWD and Clara Valley Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity shelter enhancement features. 3 10 Water District 69.00 69.00 138 rate of $137,833/project.
Focus initial efforts within the Cold Water
Management Zone downstream of Stevens Creek
Dam (see Appendix E of the May 2003 Fisheries and Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort Draft Settlement Valley Water Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity Agreement). 2 10 District 0 habitat complexity.
CDFW, Santa
StC-CCCS- Perform pre- and post-project monitoring to assess Clara Valley Cost based on steelhead juvenile surveys for
6.1.1.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity steelhead use within improved reaches. 3 15 Water District 22.33 22.33 22.33 67 Coastal SF Bay at a rate $4,460/year.
StC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
6.2 Objective Habitat Complexity mechanisms

StC-CCCS- Recovery Improve frequency of primary pools, LWD, and
CDFW, City of
Cupertino, City of
Los Altos, City of
Mountain View,
City of
Sunnyvale,
Educate county and city public works departments, County of Santa
flood control districts, and planning departments, etc., Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- on the critical importance of maintaining riparian Clara Valley Estimate from General Education and Outreach
6.2.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity vegetation, instream LWD, and LWD recruitment. 3 15 Water District 25.38 25.38 25.38 76 cost: $76,136/program (CDFG, 2004 pg I.42)
StC-CCCS- Recovery
7.1.1 Action Riparian Improve riparian conditions
CDFW, City of
Cupertino, City of
Los Altos, City of
Mountain View,
City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Identify reaches dominated by exotic vegetation, and Clara, Santa Cost based on treating 0.3 miles (assume 1
StC-CCCS- develop and implement site specific plans to restore Clara Valley project/mile in 5% high IP with 80 acres/mile) at a
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian these reaches. 3 25 Water District 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 25 rate of $1,015/acre.
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
Identify reaches suffering from riparian View, City of
encroachment, and develop and implement site Sunnyvale,
Consider thinning of dense native riparian vegetation Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- as necessary to better allow healthy species- and Clara Valley Cost based on riparian restoration model at a rate
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian age- composition. 3 5 Water District 89.00 89 of $88,551/project.
Develop and implement flow schedules from
reservoirs necessary to maintain healthy riparian Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- conditions (see Objective, Actions, and Action Steps Valley Water Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian within: Restoration- Hydrology). 3 25 District 0 hydrology.
StC-CCCS- Recovery

City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Improve spawning and foraging conditions for Sunnyvale,
steelhead in the Stevens Creek system downstream County of Santa
of Stevens Creek Dam by decreasing sedimentation, Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- and improving instream gravel quantity and quality. Clara Valley Costs will vary depending on methods
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment 2 15 Water District TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
Identify sources of sedimentation, and develop and View, City of
implement a plan to address these sources; include Sunnyvale,
the effects of historic and ongoing gravel mining County of Santa
operations, water system operations (hydrograph Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- alterations), and urban development in this Clara Valley Cost based on erosion assessment of 25% of
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment assessment.. 3 5 Water District 77.00 77 total watershed acres at a rate of $15.14/acre.
Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- Provide flows and instream conditions necessary to Valley Water Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment provide mobilization and maintenance of gravels. 3 5 District 0 hydrology.
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
Perform reach restoration to facilitate gravel View, City of
maintenance. Include methods such as instream Sunnyvale,
restoration and a gravel placement program. Include County of Santa Estimate is for one mile of lagre scale reach
flow schedules necessary for mobilization and Clara, Santa restoration (NMFS 2008, pg 27) - cost will vary
StC-CCCS- "maintenance" of gravel quantity and quality suitable Clara Valley depending on extent of restoration efforts, and
8.1.1.4 Action Step Sediment for steelhead. 1 5 Water District 843 843 843 843 843 4,218 methodologies employed.
StC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species range or
10.1 Objective Water Quality habitat
StC-CCCS- Recovery
Maintain suitable temperatures downstream of

Stevens Creek Dam (see the reservoir rule curves
that provide for maintenance of a "cold water
management zone" downstream of Stevens Creek County of Santa
Dam - Appendix E of the May 2003 Fisheries and Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort Draft Settlement Clara Valley Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality Agreement). 2 25 Water District TBD water diversion.

City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Evaluate the effects of groundwater recharge Sunnyvale,
facilities, on stream temperature. Develop and County of Santa
implement a plan to address any effects. Include Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- methods to address warming of stream water within Clara Valley Costs will vary depending on methods
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality restoration plans for these reaches. 2 25 Water District 0 implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
StC-CCCS- Recovery
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of San
Jose, City of
Evaluate point and non-point sources contributing to Sunnyvale, Cost based on installing a minimum of 3
poor water quality, including sources contributing County of Santa continuous water quality monitoring stations at a
StC-CCCS- debris, pesticides, and sediment (turbidity); develop Clara, rate of $5,000/station. Cost does not account for
10.1.2.1 Action Step Water Quality and implement a plan to address these sources. 3 10 SCVURPPP 7.50 7.50 15 data management or maintenance.
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Avoid, or at a minimum minimize, the use of Clara, Santa
commercial and industrial products (e.g. pesticides) Clara Valley
StC-CCCS- with high potential for contamination of local Water District,
10.1.2.2 Action Step Water Quality waterways. 3 25 USEPA 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of San
Jose, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Encourage the use of native vegetation in new Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- landscaping to reduce the need for watering and Clara Valley
StC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
11.1 Objective Viability mechanisms
StC-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and


CDFW, CDFW
Law
Enforcement,
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
environmental law enforcement personnel (i.e., OLE, Santa
StC-CCCS- CDFW wardens; park rangers, federal service Clara Valley Cost estimate for Fish and Game Warden from
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability enforcement agents, etc.). 3 25 Water District 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 56 Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009.
StC-CCCS- Address other natural or manmade factors affecting
11.2 Objective Viability the species' continued existence
StC-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and

City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
Implement a monitoring program to evaluate the County of Santa
performance (population response) of recovery Clara, Santa Costs for monitoring population status and trends
StC-CCCS- efforts. Coordinate with CDFW Coastal Monitoring Clara Valley are covered under the Coastal Monitoring Plan -
11.2.1.2 Action Step Viability Program. 3 25 Water District 0 See Monitoring Chapter.
Implement standardized assessment protocols (i.e., Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- CDFW habitat assessment protocols) to ensure ESU- Valley Water
11.2.1.3 Action Step Viability wide consistency. 3 25 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Perform standardized adult upmigration surveys.
Include assessment above significant below- Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- reservoir barriers. Valley Water Monitoring estimate for: Production, Run timing,
11.2.1.4 Action Step Viability 2 25 District 10.09 10.09 10.09 10.09 10.09 50 and Size monitoring (NMFS 2008, pg 58)
Santa Clara Costs for monitoring population status and trends
StC-CCCS- Valley Water are covered under the Coastal Monitoring Plan -
11.2.1.5 Action Step Viability Perform standardized adult spawning (redd) surveys. 2 25 District 0 See Monitoring Chapter.
11.2.1.6 Action Step Viability Perform standardized smolt outmigration surveys. 2 25 District 0 See Monitoring Chapter.
11.2.1.7 Action Step Viability Perform standardized juvenile rearing surveys. 2 25 District 0 See Monitoring Chapter.
Monitor population status for response to recovery

actions, habitat improvements, and recovery action City of San Jose,
monitoring efforts to reflect new habitat Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- improvements and accessible habitat expansions; Clara Valley Cost accounted as part of other monitoring
11.2.1.8 Action Step Viability use this information to adapt recovery strategies. 2 25 Water District 0 components in above action steps.
StC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
StC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa Cost based on number and type of stream bed
Clara, Santa and bank stability to be used. Estimate for
StC-CCCS- Channel Where feasible, implement alternatives to bank Clara Valley bioengineering methods range from $418/100' x
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification hardening; utilize bioengineering. 2 10 Water District TBD 10' (WSDOT 2001).
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
All proposed levees should be designed to account Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- Channel for minimal maintenance associated with an intact Clara Valley Costs will vary depending on methods
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification and functioning riparian zone. 2 10 Water District TBD implemented.
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
When levees are utilized, design to allow Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- Channel maintenance of an intact and functioning riparian Clara Valley
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
integrate other habitat-forming features including Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- Channel large woody debris and riparian plantings and other Clara Valley
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Thoroughly investigate the ultimate cause of channel Sunnyvale,
modifications and maintenance. Identify and target Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- Channel remediation of watershed process disruption as an Clara Valley

City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Evaluate existing and future stream crossings to Sunnyvale,
identify threats to natural hydrologic processes. County of Santa
Replace or retrofit crossings to achieve more natural Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- Channel conditions, and improved passage and stream Clara Valley
13.1.1.6 Action Step Modification function. 3 10 Water District 0 See cost estimates within PASSAGE
StC-CCCS- Channel Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
StC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of San
Jose, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Promote streamside conservation measures, Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- Channel including conservation easements, setbacks, and Clara Valley
13.2.1.1 Action Step Modification riparian buffers (CDFG 2004). 3 15 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
Counties and municipalities should adopt a policy of City of Mountain
managed retreat (removal of problematic View, City of
infrastructure and replacement with native vegetation Sunnyvale,
StC-CCCS- Channel or flood tolerant land uses) for areas highly County of Santa
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
StC-CCCS- Channel Avoid or minimize the effects from flood control County of Santa
13.2.1.3 Action Step Modification projects on salmonid habitat. 3 25 Clara 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Disease
StC-CCCS- /Predation
Disease
StC-CCCS- Recovery /Predation Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,

CDFW, City of
Cupertino, City of
Los Altos, City of
Identify locations within the watershed that support Mountain View,
exotic piscivorous fish species, and develop and City of
implement a plan to decrease the effects of predation Sunnyvale,
Disease habitat and cover that provides refuge for salmonids, Clara, Santa Cost based on amount of exotic piscivorous fish
StC-CCCS- /Predation and/or the elimination of instream conditions that Clara Valley species to be removed. Cost for pikeminnow
21.1 Objective Recreation range
StC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
CDFW, City of
Cupertino, City of
Los Altos, City of
Sunnyvale,
Evaluate the effects of recreational facilities such as County of Santa
bike/pedestrian trails, and road crossings that may Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- constrain opportunities to expand channel width Clara Valley Cost will vary with assessment methods and level
21.1.1.1 Action Step Recreation and/or reconnect floodplain. 3 5 Water District TBD of detail.
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
Develop and implement a plan that remediates View, City of
existing recreational facilities to allow for stream Sunnyvale,
functions, and sites new facilities in such a way that County of Santa
their placement does not constrain channel width or Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- floodplain connection (see FLOODPLAIN Clara Valley Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
21.1.1.2 Action Step Recreation CONNECTIVITY 2 10 Water District 0 floodplain connectivity.
StC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Clara, Private
Landowners,
Santa Clara
Encourage acquisition and protection of riparian Valley Water
StC-CCCS- corridors and stream areas, and incorporate these District, State
21.1.2.1 Action Step Recreation areas into existing or new protected areas. 3 25 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential
StC-CCCS- /Commercial Address the present or threatened destruction,
22.1 Objective Development modification, or curtailment of habitat or range
Residential
StC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed

City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
Improve conditions for steelhead by reducing the View, City of
density of existing residential and commercial Sunnyvale,
development where feasible, and remediating County of Santa
Residential existing development contributing to poor stream Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- /Commercial conditions. Clara Valley Costs will vary depending on methods
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development 3 25 Water District TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Residential Upgrade existing stormwater systems into a spatially Clara, Santa Cost based on amount of existing system needing
StC-CCCS- /Commercial distributed discharge network (rather than a few point Clara Valley to be upgraded. Cost estimated at $11,065/storm
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development discharges). 2 25 Water District TBD drain.
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Residential Maintain intact and properly functioning riparian Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- /Commercial buffers to filter and prevent fine sediment input from Clara Valley
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Residential Improve steelhead survival by minimizing the input of Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- /Commercial sediment or toxic compounds originating from Clara Valley Costs will vary depending on methods
22.1.1.5 Action Step Development commercial or residential development. 3 25 Water District TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
Residential commercial and residential areas into a spatially Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- /Commercial distributed network rather than a few point Clara Valley Costs will vary depending on methods
22.1.1.6 Action Step Development discharges. 3 25 Water District TBD implemented.

County and local codes should require spatially

distributed storm drain networks and runoff controls
from new developments. General code provisions to Cities, Counties,
Residential develop retrofit conversion of impervious surface to RWQCB, Santa
StC-CCCS- /Commercial pervious or on-site runoff infiltration during Clara Valley
22.1.1.7 Action Step Development redevelopment should be developed. 3 5 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential
StC-CCCS- /Commercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
Residential
StC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Residential New development should minimize storm-water Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- /Commercial runoff, changes in duration, or magnitude of peak Clara Valley
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Design new development to allow streams to Sunnyvale,
meander in historical patterns; protecting riparian County of Santa
Residential zones and their floodplains or channel migration Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- /Commercial zones averts the need for bank erosion control in Clara Valley
22.2.1.2 Action Step Development most situations. 3 25 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
Design new developments to avoid unstable slopes, County of Santa
Residential wetlands, areas of high habitat value, and similarly Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- /Commercial constrained sites that occur adjacent to a steelhead Clara Valley
22.2.1.3 Action Step Development watercourse. 3 25 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Residential Sunnyvale,
StC-CCCS- /Commercial Minimize new development within riparian zones and County of Santa
22.2.1.4 Action Step Development the 100 year floodprone zones. 3 25 Clara 0 Action is considered In-Kind

CDFW, City of
Cupertino, City of
Los Altos, City of
Mountain View,
City of
Institutionalize programs to purchase Sunnyvale,
land/conservation easements to encourage the re- County of Santa
establishment and/or enhancement of natural riparian Clara, NMFS,
Residential communities. Restore uplands for watershed Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- /Commercial processes; restore stream channel and floodplain for Valley Water
22.2.1.5 Action Step Development steelhead use. 3 25 District TBD Costs for conservation easements vary.
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Residential Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- /Commercial Minimize future development in floodplains or off Clara Valley
22.2.1.6 Action Step Development channel habitats. 3 25 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, City of
Cupertino, City of
Los Altos, City of
Mountain View,
City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Residential Encourage infill and high density developments over Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- /Commercial dispersal of low density rural residential Clara Valley
StC-CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
Caltrans, City of
Cupertino, City of
Los Altos, City of
Mountain View,
City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Design new roads that minimize impacts to riparian Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- areas and are hydrologically disconnected from the Clara Valley
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads stream network. 3 25 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Caltrans, City of
Cupertino, City of
Los Altos, City of
Mountain View,
City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Address sediment and runoff sources from road Clara, Santa Costs will vary depending on methods
StC-CCCS- networks and other actions that deliver sediment and Clara Valley implemented and should be identified from road
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads runoff to stream channels. 3 25 Water District TBD assessment.
Caltrans, City of
Cupertino, City of
Los Altos, City of
Mountain View,
City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- Clara Valley Costs will vary depending on methods
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads Conduct actions that hydrologically disconnect roads. 3 25 Water District TBD implemented.
StC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and
Caltrans, City of
Cupertino, City of
Los Altos, City of
Mountain View,
City of
Bridges associated with new roads or replacement Sunnyvale,
span or constructed with the minimum number of Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation Clara Valley
StC-CCCS- Water Diversion modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
StC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
Focus initial efforts within the "cold water

management zone" (see Appendix E of the May
2003 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- Water Diversion Effort Draft Settlement Agreement) downstream of Valley Water
25.1.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment Stevens Creek Dam. 1 10 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
During winter and spring implement moderate winter

baseflows to provide adequate water depths
necessary for upstream and downstream migration
between Stevens Creek Dam and the San
Francisco Bay (see Appendix E of the May 2003 Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- Water Diversion Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort Valley Water
25.1.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment Draft Settlement Agreement). 1 10 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind

During winter and spring implement periodic migrant

attractant flows necessary to attract adult fish
upstream, and encourage outmigration of smolts
(see Appendix E of the May 2003 Fisheries and Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- Water Diversion Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort Draft Settlement Valley Water
25.1.1.3 Action Step /Impoundment Agreement). 1 10 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Stevens Creek Dam outlet works to provide stream
channel maintenance flows. When possible, time Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- Water Diversion these flows so that they are coincident with natural Valley Water
25.1.1.4 Action Step /Impoundment rainfall events. 1 10 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
During summer and fall, maintain cool water

temperatures (18 degrees C or less) throughout as
much of the "cold water management zone" as
possible (see Appendix E of the May 2003 Fisheries Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- Water Diversion and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort Draft Valley Water
25.1.1.5 Action Step /Impoundment Settlement Agreement). 1 10 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
During summer and fall, manage release rates so Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- Water Diversion that depths and velocities favoring fry and juvenile Valley Water
25.1.1.6 Action Step /Impoundment steelhead are provided. 1 10 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind

baseflow, and other planned releases) to Stevens
Creek below Stevens Creek Dam as necessary to
minimize deleterious effects of flow
increases/decreases. See ramping rate criteria
presented in Appendix E of the May 2003 Fisheries Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- Water Diversion and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort Draft Valley Water
25.1.1.7 Action Step /Impoundment Settlement Agreement. 1 10 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, City of
Cupertino, City of
Los Altos, City of
Mountain View,
City of
Sunnyvale, Cost based on treating 2.8 miles (assume 1
County of Santa project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
Design and install instream habitat enhancement Clara, Santa $31,200/mile. Cost significantly higher for greater
StC-CCCS- Water Diversion projects to optimize habitat attributes associated with Clara Valley level of engineering and oversight. For example,
25.1.1.8 Action Step /Impoundment rearing and migration. 2 5 Water District 88.00 88 the estimate for ELJ is $124,800/ELJ.
CDFW, City of
Cupertino, City of
Los Altos, City of
Mountain View,
City of
Install instream habitat enhancement features Sunnyvale,
designed to increase the quantity and quality of fry County of Santa
and juvenile steelhead habitat by creating habitats Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- Water Diversion with depth, velocity, and cover components that favor Clara Valley
25.1.1.9 Action Step /Impoundment these life stages. 1 10 Water District 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.

CDFW, City of
Cupertino, City of
Los Altos, City of
Mountain View,
City of
Sunnyvale,
Santa Clara
StC-CCCS- Water Diversion Design all habitat enhancements to function within Valley Water
25.1.1.10 Action Step /Impoundment the anticipated range of flows. 1 25 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Perform a detailed study assessing the degree to Santa Clara

StC-CCCS- Water Diversion which imported water is used within Stevens Creek Valley Water Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
25.1.1.11 Action Step /Impoundment and its effects on the steelhead population 2 10 District 79 79 a rate of $78,100/project.
City of Cupertino,
City of Los Altos,
City of Mountain
View, City of
Sunnyvale,
County of Santa
Clara, Santa
StC-CCCS- Water Diversion Minimize the negative effects of diversion facilities on Clara Valley
25.1.1.12 Action Step /Impoundment salmonid habitat. 2 25 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Allow all "fisheries flows" (baseflows, and passage, Santa Clara

StC-CCCS- Water Diversion attractant, and channel maintenance flows) to bypass Valley Water
25.1.1.13 Action Step /Impoundment or flow through diversion facilities. 1 25 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum Populations
Miller Creek
Role within DPS: Dependent
Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio

Role within DPS: Dependent
San Mateo Creek


Historic abundance data are generally lacking for this diversity strata (Spence et al. 2008 and
2012), and systematic population density studies have not been performed; however, available
information indicates that the current distribution and abundance of steelhead in these
watersheds are much reduced from historic conditions (Leidy et al. 2005, Spence et al. 2008 and
2012). In a 2010 snorkle survey in Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio, 10 of 12 locations surveyed
had steelhead present in low numbers (Rodoni 2010). Steelhead continue to enter the system and
reproduce successfully (Leidy et al 2005). Steelhead were present historically in San Mateo Creek,
and small numbers may use the area below Crystal Springs Reservoir (Leidy et al. 2005). Miller
Creek supports multiple age classes of steelhead found in fairly recent sampling (Leidy et al.
2005).
History of Land Use, Land Management and Current Resources

Prior to the late 1840s, landscape modifications within the San Francisco Bay region were small
and localized, but accelerated thereafter, resulting in the highly modified conditions seen today
(Goals Project 1999). Land use activities associated with urban, industrial, and agricultural
development (i.e., diking, draining, and filling of wetlands and tidally-influenced areas;
construction of salt ponds, roads, bridges, and airports; marina, commercial, industrial, and
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Coastal San Francisco 702
Vol. IV, Central California Coast Steelhead Bay Diversity Stratum
residential developments) have altered aquatic habitat quality in the Bay Area and contributed
to population declines for species (including listed salmonids) that rely upon bay lands for
feeding or breeding (Goals Project 1999). Within the Coastal San Francisco Bay stratum, this
history of land development has resulted in most streams being characterized by highly modified
watershed conditions reflective of urban and industrial development, and water-allocation
operations (e.g., reservoirs, diversions and associated infrastructure). While all three creeks are
characterized by similar land use histories, and reflect the general land use distribution
containing significant areas in urban development, Miller Creek and Arroyo Corte Madera del
Presidio differ from San Mateo Creek and from most other streams in the Interior and Coastal
San Francisco Bay strata in that they lack a large reservoir (Rich 1995).

Numerous private, and local, state, and Federal government entities are responsible for land and
resource management within the watersheds of the Coastal San Francisco Bay Stratum.
Regulated activities include, but are not limited to: resource extraction, infrastructure
maintenance, development, restoration and resource management, shipping, commercial and
recreational fishing, and recreation.
Resource management in Miller Creek includes local property owners, County of Marin, the
communities of Marinwood and Lucas Valley, and others. Resource management in San Mateo
Creek includes local property owners, the City of San Mateo, the Town of Hillsborough, County
of San Mateo, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and others. Resource
management in Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio includes local property owners, County of
Marin, and the town of Mill Valley.
Current Conditions
our Rapid Assessment viability analysis. The results are provided below. Recovery strategies
will focus on improving these conditions.

This attribute was rated as Poor for its effect on summer rearing juveniles. Tree canopy cover
throughout the urbanized reaches is typically Fair to Poor. These conditions likely result in
elevated summer water temperature, high embeddeness levels, prevalent stream bank erosion,
and limited LWD recruitment for rearing salmonids. Threats contributing to this condition
include: Residential and Commercial Development, Channel Modification, and
Disease/Predation/Competition.

This attribute was rated as Poor for its effects on adult, summer rearing juveniles, and smolt
lifestages; and as Fair for its effect on winter rearing juveniles. Smolts depend on a functional
estuary to complete the physiological process of transition from freshwater to sea water. The
tidally influenced reaches of San Francisco Bay tributaries are highly altered and lack historic
complexity (Goals Project 1999). Tidal reaches of all three creeks are highly altered, highly
urbanized, and have been filled and channelized (NMFS 2009, 2011). Additionally, they lack
estuarine complexity beneficial to juveniles and smolts. Threats contributing to this condition
include Channel Modification, Residential and Commercial Development, and Roads and
Railroads.

This attribute was rated as Poor for its effect on winter rearing juveniles, and as Fair for its effect
on adults. Due to the highly urbanized conditions found in the lower reaches of both Miller and
San Mateo creeks (NMFS 2009, 2011), engineered channel modifications and floodplain
disconnection are prevalent throughout these streams. Threats contributing to this condition
include Residential and Commercial Development, Channel Modification, Roads and Railroads,
and Water Diversion and Impoundments.

This attribute was rated as Fair for its effect on the egg lifestage. Gravel scouring events have the
potential to destroy or degrade spawning and rearing habitat. However, it is not known if
adverse scouring events are a significant cause of egg mortality throughout these creeks.
Additionally, on San Mateo Creek, accessible reaches downstream of Crystal Springs Reservoir
are not usually subjected to flashy storm water runoff events due to flow regulation by the
reservoir. Modifications to operations of the Lower Crystal Springs Dam to better address
steelhead needs downstream of the dam have been prescribed (NMFS 2010), and will commence
in the near future (anticipated in summer 2014). Threats contributing to this condition include
Residential and Commercial Development, Roads and Railroads, and Water Diversions and
Impoundments.

This attribute was rated as Fair for its effect on eggs and summer rearing juveniles, and as Poor
for its effect on adults and smolts. Flow alteration associated with reservoir discharges and
altered hydrology within urbanized watershed areas impairs instream hydrology; limiting the
maintenance of instream habitat and substrate, and potentially resulting in flows and
temperatures insufficient to support steelhead. Current reservoir operations at Crystal Springs
Reservoir on San Mateo Creek impair stream flow; altering discharge timing and volumes. These
hydrograph alterations likely affect adult passage by muting attractant flows and curtailing
passage opportunities at some partial, but significant, migratory barriers, and reducing the
quality and quantity of juvenile rearing habitat. However, as discussed above, future flows
supporting steelhead will be implemented by SFPUC; thus, the effects of the reservoir on this
condition are expected to be reduced in the future. Threats contributing significantly to this
condition include Channel Modification, Severe Weather Patterns, and Water Diversions and
Impoundments.

This attribute was rated as Poor for its effect on adults, winter rearing and summer rearing
juveniles, and smolts. Significant complete and partial passage barriers exist on both Miller and
San Mateo creeks. Since the late 1800s, access to 80 percent of the San Mateo Creek watershed
has been precluded by Crystal Springs Reservoir (NMFS 2009, Spence et al. 2008). Additionally,
within accessible reaches on San Mateo and Miller creeks, passage is typically impaired by partial
passage barriers or barriers of unknown status (Cleugh and Mcknight 2002; National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2013). These barriers impede or preclude access to
important spawning and rearing habitat, and according to Spence et al. (2008) contributing to the
likely lack of viability of populations in the stratum. The threats contributing significantly to this
condition include Residential and Commercial Development, Channel Modification, Roads and
Railroads, Water Diversion and Impoundments, and Agriculture.

This attribute was rated as Poor for its effect on adults, and winter rearing and summer rearing
juveniles. Instream habitat features and channel complexity necessary to support all lifestages
are typically impaired. As indicated by the poor pool frequency and pool/riffle ratios, the highly
modified channel conditions in these watersheds constrain habitat complexity necessary for the
support of steelhead. Threats contributing to this condition include Residential and Commercial
Development, Channel Modification, Roads and Railroads, and Water Diversion and
Impoundments

This attribute was rated as Poor for its effect on adult, winter rearing and summer rearing
juveniles, and smolt lifestages. The highly modified channel conditions in these watersheds
constrain habitat complexity, including large woody debris and other complex features necessary
for the support of steelhead. Threats contributing to this condition include Residential and
Commercial Development, Channel Modification, Roads and Railroads, and Water Diversion
and Impoundments.

This attribute was rated as Poor for its effect on adults, eggs, and winter rearing and summer
rearing juvenile lifestages. Sediment transport, and thereby instream substrate invertebrate food
resources and spawning habitat, is affected by development and management of the streams in
this stratum. Urbanization and flood control projects in the lower reaches of both streams likely
result in accumulation of fines that can also impair substrate quality. Also, on San Mateo Creek,
Crystal Springs Reservoir intercepts nearly all of the sediment from the upper watershed. This
reduces coarse sediments, resulting in erosion, incision, and other changes to the streambed and
banks downstream of the dam. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include
Residential and Commercial Development, Channel Modification, Roads and Railroads, and
Water Diversion and Impoundments.

As in watersheds elsewhere in the Coastal San Francisco Bay Stratum, steelhead are present in
low numbers. Available information (Leidy et al. 2005; Spence et al. 2008, 2012) indicates that the
current distribution and abundance of steelhead in these watersheds are much reduced from
historic conditions. Both Miller Creek and San Mateo Creek have been evaluated by NMFS
Technical Recovery Team for the North-Central California Coast Recovery Domain (TRT) (Spence
et al. 2008 and 2012). The TRT (Spence et al. 2008 and 20102) classified San Mateo Creek as being
at high risk of extinction and Miller Creek as data deficient, though Spence et al. (2008) notes that
Miller Creek and others identified as data deficient may be at high risk of extinction. In a 2010
snorkle survey in Arroyo Corete Madera del Presidio, 10 of 12 locations surveyed had steelhead
present in low numbers (Rodoni 2010). Threats contributing significantly to this condition
include Water Diversions and Impoundments, and Disease, Predation and Competition.

This attribute was rated as Fair for its effect on summer rearing juveniles and smolts. In the lower
reaches of these watersheds, temperatures are more likely to be suboptimal, particularly for
summer rearing lifestages. As noted above for Hydrology: Impaired Water Flow, impaired flows
limit steelhead survival and reproduction in the accessible reaches of San Mateo Creek; as a result,
water temperatures are likely elevated. Threats contributing significantly to this condition
include Residential and Commercial Development, Channel Modification, Roads and Railroads,
and Water Diversion and Impoundments.
Water Quality: Turbidity & Toxicity
This condition was rated as Poor for its effect on adults, summer rearing juveniles, winter rearing
juveniles, and smolts. Likely due to the high density of urbanization within these watersheds,
water quality within much of the accessible reaches is degraded and likely limiting for steelhead.
Water quality for all three creeks is impaired (EPA 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2014). According to EPA
(2013a) diazinon is a cause of impairment in Miller Creek, and probable sources in this watershed
include urban runoff and storm sewers. Causes of impairment in San Mateo Creek include
diazanon and trash (EPA 2013b) and sediment toxicity (EPA 2013c). In San Mateo Creek,
probable sources of sediment toxicity are unknown (EPA 2013c), and probable sources of
diazinon and trash impairments are illegal dumping and urban runoff/storm sewers (EPA 2013b).
In Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio, diazinon, pesticides, and urban runoff are sources of
impairment (EPA 2014). Threats contributing to this condition include Residential and
Commercial Development and Roads and Railroads.
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that rate as a primary or secondary concern
(See Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum Rapid Assessment Threats Results). Recovery
strategies will focus on ameliorating High threats; however, some strategies may address other
threat categories when the strategy is essential to recovery efforts.
Agriculture
Neither Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio nor San Mateo Creek have land in agricultural
production (NMFS 2009), and Miller Creek has three percent of the watershed area mapped as
agriculture (NMFS 2011). Thus, the effect of agriculture is expected to be limited to the Miller
Creek watershed.
Engineered stream flood control channels occur in accessible reaches of these watersheds, and
are most prevalent within the lower, more heavily urbanized sections. As a result, this threat is
rated High. Engineered channels typically lack habitat features found within natural stream
channels, and often impede upstream steelhead migration by creating either physical or
hydraulic barriers. Channel modification within these streams, combined with other channel and
landscape altering practices, has destroyed estuarine habitat, disconnected streams from their
floodplains, and constrained natural fluvial and geomorphic processes necessary to create and
maintain habitats that support viable steelhead populations.
In San Mateo Creek, channel modification has reduced the amount of channel diversity and
complexity. Accessible portions of San Mateo Creek have been significantly modified by
suburban and urban development. The lower four miles of San Mateo Creek consist of
unvegetated and heavily armored stream banks with development encroaching on the
floodplains. Similarly, portions of both Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio and Miller Creek
within urban and suburban areas are affected by channel modification; impairing riparian and
instream conditions.

Significant high density development is primarily located in the currently accessible reaches of
these watersheds. Miller Creek has 25% of the watershed area in urban development (NMFS
2011), and San Mateo Creek has 18% of the watershed area in urban development (NMFS 2009).
Additionally, passage impediments largely restrict steelhead distribution to urbanized reaches
especially in San Mateo Creek where Crystal Springs Reservoir blocks access to undeveloped
areas in the upper watershed (NMFS 2009, 2011), exacerbating the effects of urban development
on these populations. Portions of Miller Creek upstream of suburban development contain intact
riparian areas; however, within developed areas, roads and development encroach into riparian
areas, and bank erosion is widespread. Urbanization, ditching, and the construction of storm
drains have concentrated storm runoff, resulting in channel incision, bank failures, loss of
riparian, sediment accumulation, and at culverts and road crossings partial sediment barriers
(nbwatershed.org 2013). Development has generally constrained floodplains and reduced
riparian cover, and bank stabilization and flood-control measures have resulted in channelization
of stream courses. Major modifications to the historic hydrology and channel forms have
occurred in these reaches. Future development within riparian and near stream areas is expected
to be limited; however, the existing urban footprint is unlikely to diminish, and within
undeveloped accessible reaches, such as in Miller Creek, future development could potentially
exacerbate existing limiting conditions.
Roads and Railroads

Road density in these watersheds is relatively low; however, road density within the riparian
area is high1, indicating the likelihood for roadways to impair stream, riparian, and floodplain
habitats. Additionally, in San Mateo Creek, steelhead distribution is primarily limited to
urbanized reaches (NMFS 2009) where roadway effects are most prevalent. Additionally,
roadways outside of the urbanized reaches may also contribute to poor instream and floodplain
conditions. Without road decommissioning projects, this threat is likely to continue in the future.
1
Miles of roads per square mile of riparian buffer (buffer is 100 meters on either side of the stream
centerline) is 5.9 for Miller Creek (NMFS 2011), and 4.1 for San Mateo Creek (NMFS 2009).
This threat was rated as a Medium to Low threat. Drought could seriously degrade water flow
and temperatures available to steelhead in the lower reaches. Extreme flood events could result
in major input of sediment from upslope locations. Additionally, with global climate change
expected to result in increased frequency of severe storms (Aumann, Ruzmaikin and Teixeira
2008) and increased flooding in the San Francisco Bay area (Knowles 2009, 2010; Cloern, Knowles,
Brown, Cayan, Dettinger, et al. 2011), there is the potential that existing stormwater conveyance
infrastructure will be inadequate to convey storm flows. Implications are that future flood events
will affect streams in the San Francisco Bay area, affecting infrastructure, human health and
safety, and environmental resources (including steelhead habitat). Such impacts are a potential
concern in both San Mateo and Miller creeks; however, compared to San Mateo Creek and other
similarly highly developed watersheds, the Miller Creek watershed retains much of its rural
character in tidal portions of the watershed. As a result of this relatively less developed condition,
the threat of flooding impacts may be less in Miller Creek than those observed in other more
highly developed San Francisco Bay streams.

Water diversions and impoundments were rated as a High threat. This is primarily due to the
Crystal Springs Reservoir located on San Mateo Creek since there are no known large diversions
or impoundments located in the Miller Creek watershed. Operation of the Crystal Springs
Reservoir by the SFPUC over the past 125 years has significantly altered steelhead habitat in
reaches of San Mateo Creek downstream of reservoir. The lack of winter high flow events has
resulted in the accumulation of fine sediment, encroachment of riparian vegetation, and
simplification of channel form; impairing instream, floodplain and riparian habitat necessary for
the support of steelhead.

Threat and current condition analysis suggests that extensive watershed development for urban,
suburban, and commercial land uses are likely limiting factors affecting steelhead abundance
within both Miller and San Mateo creeks, and within San Mateo Creek, passage and instream
flow and habitat are impaired by the effects of Crystal Springs Reservoir. Combined, the effects
of development (e.g., urban, suburban, and associated infrastructure) and water allocation
facilities and operations, impair stream functions and habitat, and limit all lifestages of steelhead
within these creeks. Restoration actions in both creeks should target these issues within high
potential stream reaches, improve passage within accessible reaches, and in San Mateo creek
consider passage above Crystal Springs Reservoir in order to provide access to important upper
watershed reaches.
Improve Passage
Passage impediments should be systematically remediated. Priorities should focus on those that
occur low in the system.

Crystal Springs Reservoir should be operated according to the criteria developed during
consultation with NMFS (NMFS 2010).
Passage at Reservoirs
Crystal Springs Reservoir on San Mateo Creek acts as a complete passage barrier that blocks
access to approximately 80 percent of habitat in the upper watershed. These upper watershed
reaches were historically important for the steelhead populations in this watershed, at least in the
main channel along the San Andreas fault. The habitat and function of the reservoir reaches
cannot be effectively replaced through enhancement of downstream reaches. Thus, to address
the effects of upstream passage blockage, studies to evaluate the potential biological benefits and
technical feasibility of a steelhead passage program should be performed, and if deemed
technically feasible and biologically beneficial, a passage program to restore anadromy to the
upper watershed should be implemented.
Increase Habitat Complexity

Habitat complexity should be improved throughout the impaired reaches in these watersheds.
All structures should be designed to function within an established range of flows to optimize
habitat conditions for all steelhead lifestages.

stream channel. When possible, existing development should be retrofitted to restore access to
floodplain and flood bench habitat, and to allow for natural channel functions.
Increase Estuary Habitat

Efforts to increase estuarine habitat should be maintained, where present, and should be
expanded and implemented where needed elsewhere throughout the stratum. Projects should
include efforts to improve tidal and subtidal habitat complexity and should consider the needs
of rearing and emigrating salmonids.
Improve Riparian Composition

Many of the reaches within the urbanized areas would benefit from improved riparian
composition and structure, which would improve LWD recruitment, and increase instream
shelter for juvenile fish. General practices to improve riparian condition include exotic vegetation
removal, riparian planting and maintenance, and implementing channel maintenance flows
necessary to support a riparian corridor that is diverse in species and age structure.
Improve Sediment Transport and Address Upslope and Instream Sources of Excess Sediment
Restoration efforts should consider improving substrate conditions throughout channelized
reaches. In San Mateo Creek, restoration efforts should focus on providing channel
maintenance/forming flows downstream of the reservoir as necessary to mobilize bedload
material, and provide suitable gravel material from upstream sources.

Efforts should be made to improve water quality. In particular, efforts should focus on limiting
or treating urban runoff to decrease diazinon, trash, and toxic sediments.
Literature Cited
Aumann, H. H., Ruzmaikin, A., and Teixeira, J. (2008). Frequency of severe storms and global
warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L19805, doi:10.1029/2008GL034562. Retrieved
February 15, 2013 from the Wiley Online Library Web site:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034562/full
Bond, M., S. Hayes, C. Hanson, and B. MacFarlane. 2008. Marine Survival of steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) enhanced by a seasonally closed estuary. Can. J. Aquat. Sci. 65:
2242-2252.
Cleugh, E., & Mcknight, C. (2002). Steelhead migration barrier survey of San Francisco Bay Area
Creeks (Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties): California
Department of Fish and Game.
Cloern, J. E., Knowles, N., Brown, L. R., Cayan, D., Dettinger, M. D., Morgan, T. L., et al. (2011).
Projected evolution of California's San Francisco Bay-delta-river system in a century of
climate change. PLoS ONE, 2011(E24465).
Goals Project. (1999). Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals. A report of habitat recommendations
prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, Calif./S.F. Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Oakland, CA. (pp. 320).
Knowles, N. (2009). Potential inundation due to rising sea levels in the San Francisco Bay
Region. California Climate Change Center. Sacramento, California.
Knowles, N. (2010). Potential Inundation Due to Rising Sea Levels in the San Francisco Bay
Region. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 8:1. Available at
http://escholarship.org/uc/search?entity=jmie_sfews;volume=8;issue=1. Data from
website: http://cascade.wr.usgs.gov.
Leidy, R. A., G. S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. (2005). Historical distribution and current status of
steelhead/rainbow trout (Onchorynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary,
California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. 275 pgs.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (2009). Watershed characterization, San Mateo Creek
watershed. NMFS Southwest Region, Habitat Conservation Division. October 2009.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (2010). Biological opinion for the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commissions (SFPUC) proposed Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements,
Crystal Springs/San Andreas Transmission System Upgrade, and San Joaquin Pipeline
System projects in San Mateo and San Joaquin Counties, California. NMFS Southwest
Region, Protected Resources Division. Ocotber 2010.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (2011). Watershed characterization, Miller Creek
watershed (excludes Gallinas Creek). NMFS Southwest Region, Habitat Conservation
Division. January 2010.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2013). Southwest Region (SWR)
Critical Habitat Mapper. NOAA Fisheries. Retrieved on August 20, 2013, from:
http://mapping.fakr.noaa.gov/SWRCH/.
Nbwatershed.org. (2013). The historical ecology of Miller Creek. Retrieved on September 3,

2013, from: http://www.nbwatershed.org/millercreek/index.html
Pearce, S., McKee, L., and Shonkoff, S. (2005). Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source
Assessment. A technical report of the Regional Watershed Program, San Francisco
Estuary Institute (SFEI), Oakland, California. SFEI Contribution no. 316, 102 pp.
Rich, AA. (1995). Feasibility Study to Rehabilitate the Fishery Resources of the Arroyo Corte
Madera del Presidio Watershed, Mill Valley, California. 83 pp.
Spence, B.C., Bjorkstedt, E.P., Garza, J.C., Smith, J.J., Hankin, D.G., Fuller, D., Jones, W.E.,
Macedo, R., Williams, T.H., and Mora, E. (2008). A framework for assessing the viability
of threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead in the north-central California coast
recovery domain. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science
Center. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-423. April 2008.
Spence, B.C., Bjorkstedt, E.P., Paddock, S., and Nanus, L. (2012). Updates to biological viability
criteria for threatened steelhead populations in the north-central California coast
recovery domain. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center,
Fisheries Ecology Division. March 23, 2012.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2014). 2010 Waterbody Report for
Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio. Accessed on November 24, 2014, from:
http://ofmpub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_au_id=CAR203200202000041
3134900&p_cycle=2010&p_state=CA&p_report_type=
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2013b). 2010 Waterbody Report for
Miller Creek. Accessed on August 22, 2013, from:
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2013c). 2010 Waterbody Report for San
Mateo Creek. Accessed on August 22, 2013, from:
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2013c). 2010 Waterbody Report for San
Mateo Creek, Lower. Accessed on August 22, 2013, from:
mdl_waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_au_id=CAR2044003320090202015405&p_cyc
le=2010&p_state=CA&p_report_type=
CCC Steelhead DPS: Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum (San Mateo/Miller/Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio)

P = Poor
Riparian Vegetation: Composition, Cover & Tree Diameter P
Estuary: Quality & Extent P P F P
Velocity Refuge: Floodplain Connectivity F P

Hydrology: Redd Scour F
Hydrology: Baseflow & Passage Flows P F F P
Passage/Migration: Mouth or Confluence & Physical Barriers P P P P
Habitat Complexity: Percent Primary Pools & Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratios P P P
Habitat Complexity: Large Wood & Shelter P P P P
Sediment: Gravel Quality & Distribution of Spawning Gravels P P P P
Viability: Density, Abundance & Spatial Structure P P P
Water Quality: Temperature F F
Water Quality: Turbidity & Toxicity P P P P
CCC Steelhead DPS: Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum (San Mateo/Miller/Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio)
Stresses






Quality & Quantity
Pool/Riffle Ratio
Temperatures
Diversity
Shelter
Events
Extent
Threat Scores
L: Low
M: Medium
H: High
Agriculture H H H L L M M M L M
Channel Modification H H H H H H H H H H H
Disease, Predation, and Competition M M L L M M H L L
Fire, Fuel Management, and Fire Suppression M L M L L L L L L L

Livestock Farming and Ranching M L M L L M M M L M
Logging and Wood Harvesting L L L L L L L L L L
Recreational Areas and Activities M M M L L L L L L L
Residential and Commercial Development H H H H H H H H H H
Roads and Railroads H H L H H H H H H H
Severe Weather Patterns M H M M H M M M M M M
Water Diversions and Impoundments H H H H H H H H H H H L
Fishing and Collecting M
Miller Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Coastal San Francisco Bay) Recovery Actions
MiC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
MiC-CCCS- Recovery
Develop an estuary rehabilitation and enhancement
MiC-CCCS- plan in efforts to reclaim historically tidal influenced Marin County, Cost estimate for the development of an estuary
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary areas. 2 10 Marinwood 250.00 250 rehabilitation and enhancement plan.
Identify potential habitat features that will increase
MiC-CCCS- current and future estuary habitat values for rearing Marin County,
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary steelhead. 2 10 Marinwood TBD Cost accounted for in above action step.
Cost based on a minimum of 3 continuous
Investigate water quality (D.O., temperature, salinity) monitoring stations at a rate of $5,000/station.
MiC-CCCS- conditions for rearing steelhead in potential tidal Marin County, Cost does not include data management or
1.1.1.3 Action Step Estuary marsh rehabilitation sites. 2 10 Marinwood 7.50 7.50 15 maintenance.
Increase the inner estuary hydrodynamics that have
MiC-CCCS- been altered by levees, dikes, culverts, and tide Marin County, Cost based on treating 10% of total estuarine
1.1.1.4 Action Step Estuary gates. 2 10 Marinwood 96.00 96.00 192 acres at a rate of $49,200/acre.
MiC-CCCS- Floodplain range
2.1 Objective Connectivity
MiC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain
MiC-CCCS- Floodplain Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- Marin County, Cost based on riparian restoration monitoring at a
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity established in low gradient response reaches. 2 10 Marinwood 44.50 44.50 89 rate of $88,551/project.
Design and implement floodplain rehabilitation Cost based on treating 0.25 miles (assume 1
MiC-CCCS- Floodplain projects that target velocity refuge for migrating Marin County, project/mile in 25% high IP with 80 acres/mile) at
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity salmonids. 2 10 Marinwood 446.50 446.50 893 a rate of $44,640/acre.
MiC-CCCS- Recovery
Utilize vegetation methods and bio-techniques to
establish a low flow channel throughout the flood
control channel. Incorporate features that create
MiC-CCCS- velocity refuge during high flow events for Marin County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage immigrating adults. 2 5 Marinwood 0 Kind.
MiC-CCCS- Marin County, Cost based on providing passage at one partial
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage Modify or remove passage impediments. 1 5 Marinwood 640 640 barrier at a rate of $639,247/project.
MiC-CCCS- range
6.1 Objective Habitat Complexity
MiC-CCCS- Recovery
Evaluate and prescribe an appropriate number of key
LWD pieces to enhance summer rearing conditions Cost based on treating 1 mile (assume 1
MiC-CCCS- in potential steelhead spawning and rearing areas Marin County, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity throughout the watershed. 2 10 Marinwood 16.00 16.00 32 $31,200/mile.
MiC-CCCS- Recovery
Evaluate and prescribe habitat features that will

increase primary pool depth and frequency for winter
MiC-CCCS- and summer rearing juveniles, and quality stagging Marin County,
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity pools for migrating/staging adults. 2 10 Marinwood 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
MiC-CCCS- Recovery
Increase shelter and habitat complexity features that

improve survival of emigrating juvenile and adult
MiC-CCCS- steelhead; include efforts in areas such as flood Marin County,
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity control channels that lack habitat complexity. 2 10 Marinwood 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
MiC-CCCS- Recovery
Identify areas where canopy cover is impaired, and Cost based on treating 0.04 miles (assume 1
MiC-CCCS- prescribe and implement measures to improve Marin County, project/mile in 55% high IP with 80 acres/mile) at
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian riparian habitat. 2 10 Marinwood 40.00 40.00 80 a rate of $24,862/acre.
MiC-CCCS- corridor are not disturbed or lost due to land Marin County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian management activities. 2 10 Marinwood 0 Kind.
MiC-CCCS- range
8.1 Objective Sediment
MiC-CCCS- Recovery Improve instream gravel quality to reduce
Evaluate, design, and implement gravel quality and
quantity strategies to the extent that the maximum Cost based on treating 0.04 miles (assume 1
MiC-CCCS- amount of spawning and incubation habitat is Marin County, project/mile in 5% high IP) at a rate of $139/cu.
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment achieved. 2 10 Marinwood 0.70 0.70 1 yd.
Add channel roughness (logs, boulders) in strategic
MiC-CCCS- locations to encourage spawning tailout formations Marin County,
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment and gravel sorting. 2 10 Marinwood 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
MiC-CCCS- Recovery
Identify if water temperatures are limiting steelhead Cost based on installing a minimum of 3 stream
viability in Miller Creek and, if found to be limiting, temperature gauges at a rate of $500/gauge.
MiC-CCCS- develop and implement measures to reduce water Marin County, Cost does not account for data management or
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality temperatures where needed. 2 10 Marinwood 2 maintenance.
MiC-CCCS- Recovery
These actions are considered normal duties of
local (city and county) agencies. Federal and
Identify and provide solutions for point and non-point state agencies should continue to encourage
MiC-CCCS- sources contributing to poor water quality and Marin County, improvements in water quality and the expansion
10.1.2.1 Action Step Water Quality pollution. 2 5 Marinwood 0 of additional studies.
MiC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
12.1.1 Action Agriculture connectivity (impaired quality and extent)
Conserve open space in contiguous landscapes,

MiC-CCCS- protect floodplain areas and riparian corridors, and
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture develop conservation easements. 3 10 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MiC-CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (impaired gravel quality
12.1.2 Action Agriculture and quantity)
MiC-CCCS- Address sources from agricultural activities that Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
12.1.2.1 Action Step Agriculture deliver sediment and runoff to stream channels. 2 10 Marin County 0 Kind.
MiC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
MiC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
Protect all existing areas that provide winter refuge
MiC-CCCS- Channel and seasonal habitat for juvenile steelhead from Marin County,
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification channelization. 2 10 Marinwood 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Ensure that all existing channel designed for flood
conveyance incorporate features that enhance
MiC-CCCS- Channel steelhead migration under high and low flow Marin County,
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification conditions. 2 10 Marinwood 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MiC-CCCS- Channel Develop Bank Stabilization and Floodplain Marin County,
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification Guidelines for use by private and public entities. 2 10 Marinwood 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MiC-CCCS- Channel Evaluate design alternatives to rip-rap bank repairs Marin County,
13.1.1.4 Action Step Modification and incorporate fish habitat features. 2 10 Marinwood 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MiC-CCCS- Recovery Channel (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
13.1.2 Action Modification toxicity
MiC-CCCS- Channel Conduct rehabilitation activities that reconnect Marin County, Cost accounted for in other recovery actions.
13.1.2.1 Action Step Modification channels to floodplains. 2 10 Marinwood 0 See Floodplain Connectivity.
Develop and implement strategies that slow urban Cost based on feasible methods to slow urban
MiC-CCCS- Channel runoff during the spawning and migration season Marin County, runoff. Practices could include flood retention
13.1.2.2 Action Step Modification (slow it, spread it, sink it). 2 10 Marinwood TBD basins, bypass channels, or vegetated swales.
MiC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and
Ensure that existing engineered and modified
channels incorporate features that enhance
MiC-CCCS- Channel steelhead migration under high and low flow Marin County,
13.1.3.1 Action Step Modification conditions. 2 10 Marinwood 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MiC-CCCS- Channel Incorporate velocity refuge features in all existing Marin County,
13.1.3.2 Action Step Modification engineered and modified channels. 2 10 Marinwood 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Install features that provides shelter for emigrating

MiC-CCCS- Channel juvenile salmonids - focus efforts on areas, such as Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles at a rate of
13.1.3.3 Action Step Modification flood control channels, where shelter is most limited. 2 10 Marinwood 268.00 268.00 536 $1,07,400/mile.
Prevent or minimize any future channel modification
MiC-CCCS- Channel in potentially high value seasonal habitat and Marin County,
13.1.3.4 Action Step Modification migration (staging) areas. 3 10 Marinwood 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MiC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

habitat complexity, and develop and implement site
MiC-CCCS- Channel specific plans to provided shelter and velocity refuge Marin County, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration monitoring
13.1.4.1 Action Step Modification for migrating and rearing steelhead. 2 10 Marinwood 69.00 69.00 138 at a rate of $137,833/project.
MiC-CCCS- Channel debris to rehabilitate existing stream complexity, pool Marin County,
13.1.4.2 Action Step Modification frequency, and depth. 2 10 Marinwood 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Prevent the removal of habitat forming structures
MiC-CCCS- Channel (LWD, boulders, vegetation, etc.) in all natural Marin County,
13.1.4.3 Action Step Modification waterways. 2 10 Marinwood 0 Action is considered In-Kind
MiC-CCCS- ercial modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
Residential/Comm
MiC-CCCS- Recovery ercial Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
meander in historical patterns; protecting riparian
Residential/Comm zones and their floodplains or channel migration
MiC-CCCS- ercial zones averts the need for bank erosion control in
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development most situations. 3 10 Marinwood 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/Comm
MiC-CCCS- ercial Avoid or minimize new development within riparian Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development zones and the 100 year floodprone zones. 3 10 Marinwood 0 Kind.
Residential/Comm
MiC-CCCS- ercial Minimize future development in floodplains or off Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
22.1.1.3 Action Step Development channel habitats. 2 10 Marinwood 0 Kind.
Residential/Comm Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
MiC-CCCS- Recovery ercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Cost based on amount of filter or buffer system

Residential/Comm Develop filter or buffer systems that reduce pollutants needed. Cost can range widely depending upon
MiC-CCCS- ercial from entering streams and waterways of Miller feasible solution. A infiltration pond is estimated
22.1.2.1 Action Step Development Creek. 2 10 Marinwood TBD to cost between $11,881 to $35,125/pond.
Residential/Comm Implement education programs and install signs to

MiC-CCCS- ercial promote public awareness of salmon and steelhead Cost based on installing 5 signs at a rate of
22.1.2.2 Action Step Development and their habitats within the Miller Creek watershed. 3 5 Marinwood 5.00 5 $1,000/sign.
MiC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport
MiC-CCCS- Address high and medium priority sediment delivery Marin County, Cost based on developing a road inventory for
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads sites associated with roads and railroads. 2 10 Marinwood 78.50 78.50 157 136 miles of road at a rate of $1,148/mile.
Cost based on amount of sediment delivered

Address sediment and runoff sources from road from road network. Completion of a road
MiC-CCCS- networks and other actions that deliver sediment and Marin County, inventory should identify sources of sediment and
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads runoff to stream channels. 2 10 Marinwood TBD actions to reduce sediment delivery.
MiC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
MiC-CCCS- Marin County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads Conduct actions that hydrologically disconnect roads. 2 10 Marinwood 0 Kind.
Prevent or minimize the construction of new roads
MiC-CCCS- near high value habitat areas or sensitive habitat Marin County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads areas. 3 10 Marinwood 0 Kind.
MiC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and
MiC-CCCS- Ensure that all future road/stream crossing provide Marin County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
23.1.3.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads passage for all steelhead life stages. 3 10 Marinwood 0 Kind.
MiC-CCCS- Identify and remedy all road/stream crossings that Marin County, Cost based on providing passage at 4 stream
23.1.3.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads impair or prevent steelhead migration. 1 10 Marinwood 1,279 1,279 2,557 crossings at a rate of $639,247/project.
Arroyo de Corte Madera del Presidio, Central California Coast Steelhead (Coastal San Francisco Bay) Recovery Actions
ACMP- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
ACMP- Recovery
CCCS-1.1.1 Action Estuary Increase the quality and extent of estuarine habitat
ACMP- Marin County, Cost based on treating 18 acres of estuarine
CCCS- Develop and implement estuary rehabilitation and Marin RCD, habitat (assume 10% of total estuarine habitat) at
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary enhancement strategies. 3 10 MMWD 443.00 443.00 886 a rate of $49,200/acre
ACMP- Recovery
CCCS-1.1.2 Action Estuary Increase and enhance habitat complexity features
ACMP-
CCCS- Evaluate, and if feasible implement restoration Marin County,
1.1.2.1 Action Step Estuary projects that integrate upland and intertidal habitats. 3 10 MMWD TBD Cost accounted for in above action step.

ACMP- enhance native benthic flora and fauna (such as
CCCS- native bivalves) to reduce habitat related effects of Marin County,
1.1.2.2 Action Step Estuary non-native invasive species. 3 15 MMWD TBD Cost accounted for in above action step.
ACMP- Evaluate and implement, where feasible, programs to Marin County,

CCCS- enhance native riparian and wetland flora to reduce Marin RCD,
1.1.2.3 Action Step Estuary habitat related effects of past or present land-uses. 3 15 MMWD TBD Cost accounted for in above action step.
Use only native plant species in restoration, FHWA, Friends

inspecting all live restoration and construction of Corte Madera
ACMP- materials for aquatic invasive species and cleaning Creek, Marin
CCCS- all equipment prior to and post County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
1.1.2.4 Action Step Estuary restoration/construction. 2 15 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
ACMP- techniques. Also, when unsatisfactory results are FHWA, Marin
CCCS- identified, implement responses to address causes of County, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
1.1.2.5 Action Step Estuary poor results. 3 25 RCD 0 Kind.
ACMP- Recovery
CCCS-1.1.3 Action Estuary Reduce toxicity and pollutants
Evaluate water quality conditions (salinity, dissolved
ACMP- oxygen, temperature) in potential steelhead estuary Cost based on installing a minimum of 3
CCCS- rearing areas. Marin County, continuous water quality stations at a rate of
1.1.3.1 Action Step Estuary 3 10 MMWD 7.50 7.50 15 $5,000/station.
ACMP- Marin County,
CCCS- Implement tidal restoration projects that help capture Marin RCD, Cost accounted for through implementation of
1.1.3.2 Action Step Estuary and provide treatment of upland runoff. 3 25 MMWD TBD other action steps.
Marin County,
ACMP- MMWD,
CCCS- Plan and implement Total Maximum Daily Load plans SWRCB, US Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
1.1.3.3 Action Step Estuary for known pollutant impairments. 3 10 EPA 0 Kind.
FHWA, Friends
of Corte Madera
ACMP- Creek, Marin
CCCS- Plan and implement structural solutions to reduce County, Marin
1.1.3.4 Action Step Estuary urban storm runoff pollutant loads. 3 25 RCD, MMWD TBD
ACMP- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
ACMP- Recovery Floodplain

Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
ACMP- Marin County,
CCCS- Floodplain Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- Marin RCD,
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity established in modified channel areas. 3 5 MMWD 50.00 50 Cost based on best professional judgement.
Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
ACMP- Marin County,
CCCS- Floodplain Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- Marin RCD,
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity established in low gradient response reaches. 3 10 MMWD 50.00 50 Cost based on best professional judgement.

ACMP- areas in efforts to identify rehabilitation and habitat Marin County,
CCCS- Floodplain enhancement sites with emphasis on increasing Marin RCD,
2.1.1.3 Action Step Connectivity floodplain habitat. 3 10 MMWD TBD Cost accounted for in above action steps.
Marin County,
ACMP- Encourage willing landowners to restore historical Marin RCD,
CCCS- Floodplain floodplains or offchannel habitats through MMWD, Private Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
2.1.1.4 Action Step Connectivity conservation easements, etc. 3 15 Landowners 0 Kind. Costs for conservation easements vary.
ACMP- Design and implement floodplain rehabilitation Marin County,
CCCS- Floodplain projects that target velocity refuge for migrating Marin RCD,
2.1.1.5 Action Step Connectivity salmonids. 2 25 MMWD TBD Cost accounted for in above action step.
ACMP- Design and implement floodplain rehabilitation Marin County,
CCCS- Floodplain projects that target winter rearing habitat for juvenile Marin RCD,
2.1.1.6 Action Step Connectivity steelhead. 3 15 MMWD TBD Cost accounted for in above action step.
ACMP- Recovery
CCCS-3.1.1 Action Hydrology Improve passage flows

ACMP- pulse-flows, magnitude, duration, and timing of
CCCS- freshets) that preclude adult and smolt passage over Cities, Marin Costs based on implementing other action steps
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology critical riffles and other nature obstacles. 1 5 County, MMWD TBD (e.g. off-channel storage, irrigation efficiency, etc.)
ACMP- Establish a comprehensive stream flow evaluation
CCCS- program to determine instream flow needs for Marin County, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology steelhead. 3 10 MMWD 39.50 39.50 79 a rate of $78,100/project
ACMP-
CCCS- Protect the natural hydrograph during the steelhead Cities, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
3.1.1.3 Action Step Hydrology migration season (November thru June). 1 5 County, MMWD TBD implemented.
ACMP- Recovery
ACMP- Marin County,
CCCS- Identify and maximize opportunities for aquifer MMWD, Private Costs will vary depending on methods
3.1.2.1 Action Step Hydrology recharge. 3 25 Landowners TBD implemented.
Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
Marin County,
ACMP- Marin RCD,
CCCS- Develop and implement strategies for efficient water MMWD, Private Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
3.1.2.2 Action Step Hydrology use. 3 10 Landowners 0 Kind.
ACMP-
CCCS- Develop and implement a water use plan ensuring Marin County,
3.1.2.3 Action Step Hydrology base-flow sustainability. 3 10 MMWD TBD
ACMP- Marin County, streamflow gauges at a rate of $1,000/gauge.
CCCS- Require streamflow gaging devices to evaluate Marin RCD, Cost does not account for data management or
3.1.2.4 Action Step Hydrology impairment to current streamflow conditions. 2 5 MMWD 3.00 3 maintenance.
ACMP- Implement conjunctive use of water for water projects Marin County,
CCCS- whenever possible to maintain or restore steelhead Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
3.1.2.5 Action Step Hydrology habitat. 2 5 MMWD 0 Kind.
ACMP- Recovery
Cities, Marin
ACMP- Continue to identify high priority barriers and restore County, Marin
CCCS- passage per NMFS' Guidelines for Salmonid RCD, MMWD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage Passage at Stream Crossings (NMFS 2001). 1 5 NMFS 0 Kind.
ACMP- Recovery
CCCS-6.1.1 Action Habitat Complexity Improve large wood frequency
Friends of Corte
Increase wood frequency in spawning and rearing Madera Creek,
ACMP- areas to the extent that a minimum of six key LWD Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles at a rate of
CCCS- pieces exists every 100 meters in 0-10 meters BFW Marin RCD, $31,200/mile. Cost likely higher if greater level of
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity streams. 2 15 MMWD 5.33 5.33 5.33 16 engineering and oversight is needed.
Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
ACMP- Develop strategies to optimize hydraulic diversity and Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles at a rate of
CCCS- habitat complexity when implementing/installing LWD Marin RCD, $31,200/mile. Cost likely higher if greater level of
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity structures. 3 10 MMWD 8.00 8.00 16 engineering and oversight is needed.
Friends of Corte
Madera Creek,
ACMP- Develop and install seasonal habitat rearing features Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles at a rate of
CCCS- that achieve optimal performance during spring/fall Marin RCD, $31,200/mile. Cost likely higher if greater level of
6.1.1.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity baseflow conditions throughout the watershed. 3 15 MMWD 5.33 5.33 5.33 16 engineering and oversight is needed.
ACMP- Recovery
CCCS-6.1.2 Action Habitat Complexity Improve frequency of primary pools
that more than 40% of summer rearing pools meet
ACMP- primary pool criteria (>2.5 feet deep in 1st and 2nd Marin County,
CCCS- order streams; >3 feet in third order or larger Marin RCD, Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity streams.) 2 15 MMWD 0 habitat complexity.
ACMP- Evaluate, develop, and implement strategies to Marin County,
CCCS- increase primary pool frequency in high priority Marin RCD, Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
6.1.2.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity reaches throughout the watershed. 3 15 MMWD 0 habitat complexity.
ACMP- Recovery
CCCS-6.1.3 Action Habitat Complexity Improve shelter rating
ACMP- Marin County,
CCCS- Increase the number of pools that have a minimum Marin RCD, Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity shelter of 80 (See NMFS criteria). 3 15 MMWD 0 habitat complexity.
ACMP- Marin County,
CCCS- Evaluate, identify, and improve shelters in pools Marin RCD, Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
6.1.3.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity throughout the watershed. 3 15 MMWD 0 habitat complexity.
ACMP- Recovery
CCCS-6.1.4 Action Habitat Complexity Improve pool/riffle/flatwater ratios (hydraulic diversity)
ACMP- Evaluate, identify, and develop strategies that will Marin County,
CCCS- encourage riffle habitat formation throughout the Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
6.1.4.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity watershed. 3 10 MMWD 0 Kind.
ACMP- Recovery
ACMP- Increase the average stream canopy cover within all Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.2 miles (assume 1
CCCS- current and potential spawning and rearing reaches Marin RCD, project/mile in 5% high IP with 20 acres/mile
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian to a minimum of 80%. 2 10 MMWD 49.00 49.00 99 treated) at a rate of $24,682/acre
Increase the stream canopy by planting appropriate
native riparian trees and shrubs along the stream
where shade canopy is not at acceptable levels. In
ACMP- many cases, planting will need to be coordinated to Marin County,
CCCS- follow bank stabilization or upslope erosion control Marin RCD,
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian projects. 2 25 MMWD TBD Cost accounted for in above action steps.
ACMP- corridor are not disturbed or lost due to land Marin County,
CCCS- management activities (roads, cattle, flood control, Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian etc.). 2 25 MMWD 0 Kind.
ACMP- Evaluate, design, and implement strategies to Marin County,
CCCS- rehabilitate native riparian communities and Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
7.1.1.4 Action Step Riparian encourage large long standing trees. 3 10 MMWD 0 Kind.
ACMP- Promote streamside conservation measures, Marin County,
CCCS- including conservation easements, setbacks, and Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
7.1.1.5 Action Step Riparian riparian buffers. 3 25 MMWD 0 Kind.
ACMP- Recovery Improve instream gravel quality to reduce

CCCS-8.1.1 Action Sediment embeddedness
Increase the percentage of pool tail-out embeddness
ACMP- with values of 1s and 2s (See NMFS Conservation
CCCS- Action Planning Attribute Table Report) within all Marin County, Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment spawning reaches. 2 15 MMWD TBD habitat complexity.
ACMP- CDFW, Marin Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
CCCS- Evaluate. develop, and implement spawning gravel County, Marin project/mile in 5% high IP with 100 cu. yds.mile) at
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment augmentation programs in essential areas. 3 15 RCD, MMWD 0.67 0.67 0.67 2 a rate of $39.52/cu. yd.
ACMP- Add channel roughness (logs, boulders) in strategic CDFW, Marin
CCCS- locations to encourage spawning tailout formations County, Marin Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment and gravel sorting. 2 15 RCD, MMWD TBD habitat complexity.
ACMP- Recovery Improve gravel quantity and distribution for macro-

CCCS-8.1.2 Action Sediment invertebrate production (food)
Increase the percentage of gravel quality

embeddedness to values of 1s and 2s (See NMFS
ACMP- Conservation Action Planning Attribute Table Report) CDFW, Marin
CCCS- in all current and potential juvenile salmonid summer County, Marin Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
8.1.2.1 Action Step Sediment and seasonal (fall/winter/spring) rearing areas. 2 15 RCD, MMWD TBD habitat complexity.
ACMP- Increase stream bed and bank stability using CDFW, Marin
CCCS- biotechnical materials (vegetation, plant fiber, and County, Marin Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
8.1.2.2 Action Step Sediment native wood and rock), where appropriate. 2 15 RCD, MMWD TBD habitat complexity.
Caltrans, CDFW,
ACMP- FHWA, Marin
CCCS- Re-mediate upland sources (prevent eroded soils County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
8.1.2.3 Action Step Sediment form entering the stream system). 3 20 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
ACMP- Add channel roughness features (logs, large CDFW, Marin
CCCS- boulders) to trap cobbles in current and potential County, Marin Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
8.1.2.4 Action Step Sediment seasonal reaches. 2 15 RCD, MMWD TBD habitat complexity.
ACMP-
CCCS- Recovery
Address water pollution from non-point sources
ACMP- within the watershed through outreach, education CDFW, Marin
CCCS- and enforcement. County, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality 3 10 RCD, MMWD 0 Kind.
Identify nutrient loading sources causing poor water

ACMP- quality conditions for steelhead and implement CDFW, Marin
CCCS- strategies for remediating or avoiding future inputs of County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality pollution to watershed streams. 3 10 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
Avoid, or at a minimum minimize, the use of
ACMP- commercial and industrial products (e.g., pesticides) CDFW, Marin
CCCS- with high potential for contamination of local County, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
10.1.1.3 Action Step Water Quality waterways. 2 10 RCD, MMWD 0 Kind.
ACMP- Marin County,
CCCS- Marin RCD, Costs will vary depending on methods
10.1.1.4 Action Step Water Quality Control urban runoff. 3 25 MMWD TBD implemented.
Caltrans, CDFW,
ACMP- Encourage the use of native vegetation in new Marin County,
CCCS- landscaping to reduce the need for watering and Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
10.1.1.5 Action Step Water Quality application of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. 3 25 MMWD, NMFS 0 Kind.
ACMP- CDFW, Marin
CCCS- Identify and fix septic systems contributing to high County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
10.1.1.6 Action Step Water Quality nutrient loading. 3 10 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
ACMP-
CCCS- Recovery
Implement comprehensive evaluation and monitoring
program to determine areas where poor riparian
ACMP- habitat is contributing to increased water CDFW, Marin
CCCS- temperatures limiting juvenile steelhead survival and County, Marin Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
10.1.2.1 Action Step Water Quality aquatic habitat potential. 3 10 RCD, MMWD TBD riparian.
ACMP- Rehabilitate or restore riparian corridor conditions CDFW, Marin
CCCS- within all current and potential high value habitat County, Marin Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
10.1.2.2 Action Step Water Quality summer rearing areas. 3 10 RCD, MMWD TBD riparian.
ACMP- Develop and implement appropriate tree plantings CDFW, Marin
CCCS- strategies in efforts to rehabilitate summer rearing County, Marin Costs accounted for in previous actions related to
10.1.2.3 Action Step Water Quality habitat for juvenile steelhead. 3 10 RCD, MMWD TBD riparian.
ACMP-
CCCS- Recovery
Caltrans, CDFW,
ACMP- FHWA, Marin
CCCS- Identify and remediate unstable banks and other County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
10.1.3.1 Action Step Water Quality sediment sources. 3 15 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
ACMP- CDFW, Marin
CCCS- Where feasible, utilize native plants and County, Marin Operations conducted normally or with minor
10.1.3.2 Action Step Water Quality bioengineering techniques to stabilize banks. 3 25 RCD, MMWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
Identify and implement strategies to reduce landslide
ACMP- hazard areas and other upslope sources of fine CDFW, Marin
CCCS- sediment (hillslope hollows, deep-seated landslides, County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
10.1.3.3 Action Step Water Quality etc.). 3 10 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
ACMP-
processes (e.g., hydrology, geology, fluvial-
ACMP- geomorphology, water quality, and vegetation), CDFW, Marin
CCCS- instream habitat, and factors limiting steelhead County, Marin Cost will vary with assessment methods and level
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability production. 3 10 RCD, MMWD TBD of detail.
ACMP- Continue and expand upon watershed and instream CDFW, Marin
CCCS- habitat assessments and population status County, Marin Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability monitoring; use new knowledge to adapt strategies. 3 15 RCD, MMWD 46.00 46.00 46.00 138 rate of $137,833/project.
ACMP- CDFW, Marin
CCCS- Conduct periodic, standardized spawning surveys to County, Marin Costs for adults spawner surveys are covered in
11.1.1.3 Action Step Viability estimate adult abundance in the watershed. 3 25 RCD, MMWD the Monitoring Chapter.
ACMP- CDFW, Marin Cost for conducting standarized habitat
CCCS- Conduct habitat surveys to monitor change in key County, Marin assessments will be developed for the Coastal
11.1.1.4 Action Step Viability habitat variables. 3 25 RCD, MMWD TBD Monitoring Plan.
ACMP- CDFW, Marin
CCCS- Initiate smolt outmigration study and develop smolt County, Marin Costs for smolt outmigration studies are covered
11.1.1.5 Action Step Viability abundance estimates. 2 10 RCD, MMWD in the Monitoring Chapter.
CDFW, Marin
ACMP- County, Marin
CCCS- Improve conditions for steelhead through supporting RCD, MMWD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
ACMP- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
ACMP-
ACMP- Flood control projects or other modifications

CCCS- Channel facilitating new development (as opposed to Marin County,
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification protecting existing infrastructure) should be avoided. 3 25 MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind

ACMP- minimize future impediments from blocking access to
CCCS- Channel off channel habitat used by salmonids as refuge and Marin County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification winter rearing habitat during high stream flows. 2 25 MMWD 0 Kind.
ACMP-
ACMP- All proposed flood control projects should include Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.25 miles (assume 1
CCCS- Channel habitat protection, and/or features to create salmonid Marin RCD, project/mile in 25% of flood control channele) at a
13.1.2.1 Action Step Modification habitat diversity. 2 10 MMWD 134 134 267 rate of $1,070,400/mile.
ACMP- Ensure future retention and recruitment of large

CCCS- Channel woody debris and root wads to rehabilitate existing Marin County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
13.1.2.2 Action Step Modification stream complexity, pool frequency, and depth. 3 15 MMWD 0 Kind.
ACMP- Protect existing natural channel reaches from
CCCS- Channel channelization and enhance winter refuge and Marin County,
13.1.2.3 Action Step Modification seasonal habitat features where appropriate. 2 15 MMWD TBD
ACMP-
All proposed levees should be designed to account
ACMP- for minimal maintenance associated with an intact
CCCS- Channel and functioning riparian zone. Marin County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
13.1.3.1 Action Step Modification 3 25 MMWD 0 Kind.
Identify locations where channel modification,

including existing flood control projects, has resulted
in decreased shelter, LWD frequency, and habitat
complexity, and develop and implement site specific
ACMP- plans to improve these conditions. Consider flow Marin County,
CCCS- Channel rates and discharges when designing LWD and Marin RCD, Costs will vary depending on methods
13.1.3.2 Action Step Modification shelter enhancement features. 2 15 MMWD TBD implemented and extent of rehabilitation.
ACMP- Incorporate velocity refuge habitat features in all Marin County,
CCCS- Channel future and existing engineered and modified Marin RCD,
13.1.3.3 Action Step Modification channels. 2 20 MMWD TBD Cost accounted for in above action step.
ACMP- Prevent any future removal of habitat forming
CCCS- Channel structures (LWD, boulders, vegetation, etc.) in Marin County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
13.1.3.4 Action Step Modification natural waterways. 3 15 MMWD 0 Kind.
ACMP-
CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
ACMP- floodplains and meadows to extend the duration of Marin County,
CCCS- Channel the summer flow and provide refuge from high winter Marin RCD,
13.1.4.1 Action Step Modification flows. 2 15 MMWD TBD Cost accounted for in above action step.
ACMP- modification or curtailment of the species habitat or
ACMP-
18.1.1 Action Livestock (reduced large wood and/or shelter)
Promote the re-vegetation of the native riparian plant Marin County,
ACMP- community within inset floodplains and riparian Marin RCD, Cost based on treating 0.2 miles (assume 1
CCCS- corridors to provide future recruitment of large wood MMWD, Private project/mile in 5% high IP with 80 acres/mile) at a
18.1.1.1 Action Step Livestock and other shelter components. 3 10 Landowners 197.50 197.50 395 rate of $24,682/acre.
ACMP-
18.1.2 Action Livestock (road condition/density, dams, etc.)
ACMP- and prevent fine sediment input from entering Marin RCD,
CCCS- streams of the watershed. MMWD, Private Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
18.1.2.1 Action Step Livestock 2 25 Landowners 0 Kind.
Encourage the NRCS, RCDs, and other appropriate
ACMP- organizations to increase the number of landowners Marin County,
CCCS- participating in sediment reduction planning and Marin RCD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
18.1.2.2 Action Step Livestock implementation. 3 15 MMWD, NMFS 0 Kind.
ACMP-
CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to riparian species
18.1.3 Action Livestock composition and structure
ACMP- Re-establish native plant communities in riparian Marin County,
CCCS- zones to increase stream canopy to a minimum of Marin RCD,
18.1.3.1 Action Step Livestock 80%. 3 25 MMWD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
ACMP- Develop and implement riparian setbacks/buffers that
CCCS- protect existing native riparian species composition Marin County,
18.1.3.2 Action Step Livestock and structure. 3 10 MMWD TBD
ACMP- ercial modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
ACMP- Residential/Comm
CCCS- Recovery ercial Prevent or minimize impairment to the estuary
Reduce and minimze habitat modification that has

caused, is causing, or may cause impaired habitat
conditions affecting juveniles by minimizing adverse
effects of future development in and around the bay.
ACMP- Residential/Comm When development is planned, implement projects
CCCS- ercial that incorporate elements to protect and enhance Marin County,
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development habitat. 3 25 MMWD TBD
Curtail further development in active wetlands
through zoning restrictions, county master plans and
ACMP- Residential/Comm other Federal, State, and county planning and
CCCS- ercial regulatory processes, and land protection Marin County,
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development agreements. 3 25 USACE, USEPA 0 Action is considered In-Kind
ACMP- Residential/Comm CDFW, Marin

CCCS- ercial Increase monitoring and enforcement of illegal bank County, MMWD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
22.1.1.3 Action Step Development or shoreline stabilization activities. 2 15 NMFS OLE 0 Kind.
Promote native intertidal and subtidal vegetation
ACMP- Residential/Comm through eradication and control of non-native Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
CCCS- ercial species. Marin RCD, project/mile in 5% high IP with 80 acres/mile) at a
22.1.1.4 Action Step Development 3 5 MMWD 42.00 42 rate of $1,036/acre.
CCCS- Recovery ercial Prevent or minimize increased landscape
ACMP- Residential/Comm Avoid or minimize new development, or road
CCCS- ercial construction within floodplains, riparian areas, FHWA, Marin
22.1.2.1 Action Step Development unstable soils or other sensitive areas. 3 25 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
ACMP- Residential/Comm Conserve open space in un-fractured landscapes, implemented.
CCCS- ercial protect floodplain areas and riparian corridors, and Marin County, Costs for conservation easements vary.
22.1.2.2 Action Step Development develop conservation easements. 3 15 MMWD TBD
ACMP- Residential/Comm Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
CCCS- Recovery ercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Marin County,
ACMP- Residential/Comm Minimize the future use of commercial and industrial Marin RCD,
CCCS- ercial products (e.g., pesticides) with high potential for MMWD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
22.1.3.1 Action Step Development contamination of local waterways. 3 25 SWRCB 0 Kind.
ACMP- Residential/Comm Upgrade existing stormwater systems into a spatially
CCCS- ercial distributed discharge network (rather than a few point FHWA, Marin
22.1.3.2 Action Step Development discharges). 3 15 County, MMWD TBD
CCCS- Recovery ercial Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
CCCS- ercial Minimize new development within 100-year Marin County,
22.1.4.1 Action Step Development floodprone zones. 3 25 MMWD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Rehabilitate areas where existing and dilapidated
ACMP- Residential/Comm infrastructure impairs the quality of floodplain and Marin County, Cost based on treating 0.2 miles (assume 1
CCCS- ercial winter rearing for habitat for steelhead within the Marin RCD, project/mile in 5% high IP with 80 acres/mile) at a
22.1.4.2 Action Step Development watershed. 2 15 MMWD 238.33 238.33 238.33 715 rate of $44,640/acre.
ACMP- Residential/Comm Recalculate 100-year flood interval that takes into FHWA, Marin
CCCS- ercial consideration global climate change and rising sea County, Marin
22.1.4.3 Action Step Development levels. 3 10 RCD, MMWD 39.50 39.50 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CCCS- Recovery ercial Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
ACMP- Residential/Comm Marin County,
CCCS- ercial Encourage and identify opportunities for on-site rain Marin RCD, Costs will vary depending on methods
22.1.5.1 Action Step Development retention facilities. 2 15 MMWD, NMFS TBD implemented.
ACMP- Residential/Comm Marin County, implemented. Estimate for filter or buffer strip
CCCS- ercial Develop filter or buffer systems that reduce pollutants Marin RCD, system range from $11464 to $29,039/filter for a
22.1.5.2 Action Step Development from entering streams and waterways. 3 10 MMWD TBD 25 ft. wide grass filter.
Residential/Comm
ACMP- ercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
ACMP-
Cost based on decommissioning 2.4 miles of

ACMP- Decommission and or re-locate riparian roads riparian road network at a rate of $14,440/mile.
CCCS- upslope to achieve desirable riparian road density Caltrans, FHWA, Cost will be significantly higher if riparian roads
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads criteria (<0.1 to 0.4 Miles/Square Mile). 2 10 Marin County 17.50 17.50 35 are part of urban/suburban infrastructure.
ACMP-
ACMP- Ensure all future new, repair, and replacement
CCCS- road/stream crossing provide unimpaired passage Caltrans, FHWA,
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads for all steelhead life stages. 2 10 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Use NMFS Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at
ACMP- Stream Crossings (NMFS 2001) and appropriate Caltrans, FHWA,
CCCS- barrier databases when developing new or retrofitting Marin County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
ACMP- (bridges, culverts, fills, and other crossings) must
CCCS- accommodate 100-year flow event and associated Caltrans, FHWA, Costs will vary depending on methods
23.1.2.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads sediment transport. 3 10 Marin County TBD implemented.
ACMP-
decommissioning (e.g., Fishnet 4c County Roads
ACMP- Manual; Hagans & Weaver, 1994; Oregon
CCCS- Department of Transportation, 1999; Sommarstrom Caltrans, FHWA, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
23.1.3.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads 2002). 2 25 Marin County 0 Kind.

ACMP- span or constructed with the minimum number of
CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation Caltrans, FHWA, Costs will vary depending on methods
23.1.3.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads and facilitate fish passage. 3 25 Marin County TBD implemented.
ACMP-
CCCS- Minimze the construction of new roads near high Caltrans, FHWA,
23.1.3.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads valve habitat areas or sensitive habitat areas. 3 25 Marin County 0
ACMP- Address sediment and runoff sources from road
CCCS- networks and other actions that deliver sediment and Caltrans, FHWA,
23.1.3.4 Action Step Roads/Railroads runoff to stream channels. 3 25 Marin County TBD
ACMP-
Caltrans, FHWA,
Marin County,
ACMP- Marin RCD,
CCCS- Private Cost based on number and type of methods used
23.1.4.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads Conduct actions that hydrologically disconnect roads. 3 25 Landowners TBD to hydrologically disconnect roads.
ACMP-
CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
Establish a moratorium on new road construction

ACMP- within floodplains, riparian areas, unstable soils or
CCCS- other sensitive areas until a watershed specific road Caltrans, FHWA,
23.1.5.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads management plan is created and implemented. 3 25 Marin County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
ACMP- Evaluate existing roadways within 200 meters of the

CCCS- riparian corridor, and develop plans to decrease the Caltrans, FHWA,
23.1.5.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads ongoing impacts associated with these roads. 3 10 Marin County TBD Cost accounted for in other action steps.
ACMP-
CCCS- Reduce road densities by at least 10 percent over Caltrans, FHWA, Cost based on decommissioning 22 miles of road
23.1.5.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads the next 10 years, prioritizing high risk areas. 3 10 Marin County 159.00 159.00 318 network at a rate of $14,440/mile.
ACMP- Water Diversion/ modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
CCCS-25.1 Objective Impoundment range
ACMP-
CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
CDFW, Marin
ACMP- County, Marin
CCCS- Water Diversion/ Identify and eliminate depletion of summer base RCD, MMWD, Operations conducted normally or with minor
25.1.1.1 Action Step Impoundment flows from unauthorized water uses. 2 10 SWRCB 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
ACMP- CDFW, Marin

CCCS- Water Diversion/ Continue to prohibit new or increased surface water County, MMWD, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
25.1.1.2 Action Step Impoundment diversions for existing permit holders. 3 25 SWRCB 0 Kind.
ACMP- water diversions (surface or groundwater) do not CDFW, Marin
CCCS- Water Diversion/ impair water quality conditions in summer or fall County, Marin Operations conducted normally or with minor
25.1.1.3 Action Step Impoundment rearing reaches. 2 25 RCD, MMWD 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
Marin County,
Marin RCD,
ACMP- MMWD, Private
CCCS- Water Diversion/ Work with SWRCB and landowners to improve Landowners, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
25.1.1.4 Action Step Impoundment survival and migration opportunities for all lifestages. 2 25 SWRCB 0 Kind.
ACMP-
CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport
25.1.2 Action Impoundment (road conditions/density, dams etc.)
ACMP- CDFW, Marin
CCCS- Water Diversion/ Implement actions that minimize adverse effects of County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
25.1.2.1 Action Step Impoundment dams and weirs. 2 15 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented.
ACMP- Re-establish natural sediment delivery processes CDFW, Marin
CCCS- Water Diversion/ and implement sediment reduction activities where County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
25.1.2.2 Action Step Impoundment necessary. 3 15 RCD, MMWD TBD implemented.
ACMP-
CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and
25.1.3 Action Impoundment migration
Work with partners to ensure that all current and
ACMP- future water diversions (surface or groundwater) do
CCCS- Water Diversion/ not impair migration patterns of all steelhead life CDFW, Marin Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
25.1.3.1 Action Step Impoundment history stages. 2 25 County, MMWD 0 Kind.
CDFW, Marin
ACMP- County, Marin Costs will vary depending on methods
CCCS- Water Diversion/ Adequately screen water diversions to prevent RCD, MMWD, implemented and number of diversions to be
25.1.3.2 Action Step Impoundment entrainment of all steelhead life stages. 3 15 NMFS TBD screened.
ACMP- Water Diversion/ Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

CCCS-25.2 Objective Impoundment mechanisms
ACMP-
CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
ACMP- Allow all "fisheries flows" (baseflows, and passage, CDFW, Marin
CCCS- Water Diversion/ attractant, and channel maintenance flows) to bypass County, MMWD, Operations conducted normally or with minor
25.2.1.1 Action Step Impoundment or flow through diversion facilities. 1 5 NMFS 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
CDFW, Marin
ACMP- Assess, map, and install stream gages on all water County, Marin
CCCS- Water Diversion/ diversions (CDFG 2004). RCD, MMWD, Costs will vary depending on methods
25.2.1.2 Action Step Impoundment 3 5 NMFS TBD implemented.

downstream flows, regulating season of diversion, CDFW, Marin
ACMP- and promoting and implementing off-stream storage County, Marin
CCCS- Water Diversion/ solutions (CDFG 2004). RCD, MMWD, Operations conducted normally or with minor
25.2.1.3 Action Step Impoundment 1 5 NMFS, SWRCB 0 modifications are considered In-Kind.
San Mateo Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Coastal San Francisco Bay) Recovery Actions
SMatC- modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
SMatC- Recovery
SMatC- Develop an estuary assessment and enhancement City of San Cost estimate for the development of an estuary
CCCS- plan that would look to identify any historically tidal Mateo, County of assessment and enhancement plan for the mouth
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary influenced areas that may be restored in the future. 2 10 San Mateo 150 150 of San Mateo Creek.
SMatC- Identify potential habitat features that will increase City of San
CCCS- current and future estuary habitat values for rearing Mateo, County of
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary steelhead. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
SMatC- Investigate water quality (D.O., temperature, salinity) City of San
CCCS- conditions for rearing steelhead in potential tidal Mateo, County of Cost based on installing 3 continuous monitoring
1.1.1.3 Action Step Estuary marsh rehabilitation sites. 2 10 San Mateo 7.50 7.50 15 stations at a rate of $5,000/station.
SMatC- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
SMatC- Recovery Floodplain


SMatC- Design and implement floodplain rehabilitation City of San project/mile in 25% high IP and 10 acres per mile)
CCCS- Floodplain projects that target velocity refuge for migrating Mateo, County of at a rate of $44,640/acre. Cost could be reduced
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity salmonids. 2 10 San Mateo 223 223 447 if combined with other action steps.
SMatC- Design and implement floodplain rehabilitation City of San
CCCS- Floodplain projects that target winter rearing habitat for juvenile Mateo, County of
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity steelhead. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
SMatC- Recovery

SMatC- pulse-flows, magnitude, duration, and timing of
CCCS- freshets) that preclude adult and smolt passage over
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology critical riffles and other nature obstacles. 1 20 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- Identify and implement flow requirements that
CCCS- support adult and juvenile steelhead migration Cost based on hydrologic model at a rate of
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology downstream of Crystal Springs Reservoir. 1 5 SFPUC 79.00 79 $78,100/project.
SMatC-
CCCS- Identify flow requirements that protect emigrating
3.1.1.3 Action Step Hydrology juvenile and adults steelhead (kelts). 1 20 SFPUC 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
SMatC-
CCCS- Implement spawning and rearing habitat curves
3.1.1.4 Action Step Hydrology downstream of Crystal Springs Reservoir . 1 50 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- Implement flow schedules that optimize steelhead
CCCS- spawning and rearing conditions downstream of
3.1.1.5 Action Step Hydrology Crystal Springs Reservoir. 1 20 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- Recovery
SMatC- Evaluate and if deemed biologically beneficial, and

CCCS- technically feasible, prescribe and implement
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage passage methodologies for Crystal Springs reservoir. 1 5 SFPUC TBD
SMatC- Develop and implement a reservoir bypass flows that
CCCS- protect migrating steelhead through flood control
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage channels. 1 5 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Cost based on treating 1 known partial
SMatC- impediment at a rate of $639,247/project. Cost
CCCS- Improve passage conditions at known barriers may actually be less due to need for only minor
5.1.1.3 Action Step Passage downstream of Crystal Springs Reservoir. 1 5 SFPUC 640 640 improvements at this site.
SMatC- Recovery
City of San
Evaluate and prescribe an appropriate number of key Mateo, County of
SMatC- LWD pieces to enhance summer rearing conditions San Mateo, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
CCCS- in potential steelhead spawning and rearing areas SFPUC, Town of rate of $137,833/project. Cost could be reduced
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity throughout the watershed. 2 10 Hillsborough 69.00 69.00 138 if combined with other action steps.
SMatC- Recovery
City of San
Evaluate and prescribe habitat features that will Mateo, County of
SMatC- increase primary pool depth and frequency for winter San Mateo,
CCCS- and summer rearing juveniles, and quality stagging SFPUC, Town of
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity pools for migrating/staging adults. 2 10 Hillsborough 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
SMatC- Recovery
City of San
Increase shelter and habitat complexity features that Mateo, County of
SMatC- improve survival of emigrating juvenile and adult San Mateo,
CCCS- steelhead; include efforts in areas such as flood SFPUC, Town of
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity control channels that lack habitat complexity. 2 10 Hillsborough 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
SMatC- Recovery
Identify areas in the lower reaches (within

approximately downstream-most 1.5-2 miles of San City of San
SMatC- Mateo Creek) where canopy cover is not meeting the Mateo, County of Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume
CCCS- minimum canopy criteria, and prescribe and San Mateo, minimum of 10 acres/mile) at a rate of
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian implement measures to improve riparian habitat. 2 10 SFPUC 62.00 62.00 124 $24,682/acre.
Ensure that mature trees within the steam riparian City of San
SMatC- corridor are not disturbed or lost due to land Mateo, County of
CCCS- management activities (roads, cattle, flood control, San Mateo,
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian etc.). 2 10 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- Recovery Improve instream gravel quality to reduce

CCCS-8.1.1 Action Sediment embeddedness
SMatC- quantity strategies to the extent that the maximum City of San Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
CCCS- amount of spawning and incubation habitat is Mateo, County of rate of $137,833/project. Cost for gravel
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment achieved. 2 10 San Mateo 69.00 69.00 138 augmentation estimated at $37/cu. yd.
SMatC- Add channel roughness (logs, boulders) in strategic City of San
CCCS- locations to encourage spawning tailout formations Mateo, County of
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment and gravel sorting. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
SMatC-
CCCS- Recovery
Identify if water temperatures are limiting steelhead City of San

SMatC- viability in San Mateo Creek and, if found to be Mateo, County of
CCCS- limiting, develop and implement measures to reduce San Mateo, Cost based on installing 5 stream temperature
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality water temperatures where needed. 2 10 SFPUC 1.25 1.25 3 gauges at a rate of $500/gauge.
SMatC-
CCCS- Recovery
City of San
SMatC- Identify and provide solutions for point and non-point Mateo, County of
CCCS- sources contributing to poor water quality and San Mateo, Cost based on a minimum of 3 continuous
10.1.2.1 Action Step Water Quality pollution. 2 10 SFPUC 7.50 7.50 15 monitoring stations at a rate of $5,000/station.
SMatC- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
SMatC-
SMatC- Protect all existing areas that provide winter refuge City of San
CCCS- Channel and seasonal habitat for juvenile steelhead from Mateo, County of
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification channelization. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Ensure that all existing channel designed for flood
SMatC- conveyance incorporate features that enhance City of San
CCCS- Channel steelhead migration under high and low flow Mateo, County of
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification conditions. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- City of San
CCCS- Channel Develop Bank Stabilization and Floodplain Mateo, County of
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification Guidelines for use by private and public entities. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- City of San
CCCS- Channel Evaluate design alternatives to rip-rap bank repairs Mateo, County of
13.1.1.4 Action Step Modification and incorporate fish habitat features. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- Conserve open space in contiguous landscapes, City of San

CCCS- Channel protect floodplain areas and riparian corridors, and Mateo, County of
13.1.1.5 Action Step Modification develop conservation easements. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
CCCS- Recovery Channel (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
13.1.2 Action Modification toxicity
SMatC- City of San
CCCS- Channel Conduct rehabilitation activities that reconnect Mateo, County of Cost accounted for in other recovery actions.
13.1.2.1 Action Step Modification channels to floodplains. 2 10 San Mateo 0 See Floodplain Connectivity.
Cost based on amount of urban runoff
SMatC- Develop and implement strategies that slow urban City of San contributing to poor habitat conditions. Cost for
CCCS- Channel runoff during the spawning and migration season Mateo, County of infiltration ponds estimated between $12,000 to
13.1.2.2 Action Step Modification (slow it, spread it, sink it). 2 10 San Mateo TBD $35,000/pond.
SMatC-
SMatC- channels incorporate features that enhance City of San
CCCS- Channel steelhead migration under high and low flow Mateo, County of
13.1.3.1 Action Step Modification conditions. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- City of San
CCCS- Channel Incorporate velocity refuge features in all existing Mateo, County of
13.1.3.2 Action Step Modification engineered and modified channels. 2 10 San Mateo TBD Cost accounted for in action step below.
SMatC- Install features that provides shelter for emigrating City of San
CCCS- Channel juvenile salmonids - focus efforts on areas, such as Mateo, County of Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
13.1.3.3 Action Step Modification flood control channels, where shelter is most limited. 2 10 San Mateo 268 268 536 project) at a rate of $1,070,400/mile.
SMatC- Prevent or minimize any future channel modification City of San
CCCS- Channel in potentially high value seasonal habitat and Mateo, County of
13.1.3.4 Action Step Modification migration (staging) areas. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC-
CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to instream habitat

SMatC- habitat complexity, and develop and implement site City of San
CCCS- Channel specific plans to provided shelter and velocity refuge Mateo, County of Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
13.1.4.1 Action Step Modification for migrating and rearing steelhead. 2 10 San Mateo 69.00 69.00 138 rate of $137,833/project.
SMatC- Encourage retention and recruitment of large woody City of San
CCCS- Channel debris to rehabilitate existing stream complexity, pool Mateo, County of
13.1.4.2 Action Step Modification frequency, and depth. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- Prevent the removal of habitat forming structures City of San
CCCS- Channel (LWD, boulders, vegetation, etc.) in all natural Mateo, County of
13.1.4.3 Action Step Modification waterways. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- Commercial modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
SMatC- Residential/
CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
SMatC- Residential/ zones and their floodplains or channel migration City of San
CCCS- Commercial zones averts the need for bank erosion control in Mateo, County of
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development most situations. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- Residential/ City of San
CCCS- Commercial Avoid or minimize new development within riparian Mateo, County of
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development zones and the 100 year floodprone zones. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- Residential/ City of San
CCCS- Commercial Minimize future development in floodplains or off Mateo, County of
22.1.1.3 Action Step Development channel habitats. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- Residential/ Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
CCCS- Recovery Commercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
SMatC- Residential/ Develop filter or buffer systems that reduce pollutants City of San Cost based on amount of filter or buffer system
CCCS- Commercial from entering streams and waterways of San Mateo Mateo, County of needed. Cost estimate for a 25-ft wide filter strip
22.1.2.1 Action Step Development Creek. 2 10 San Mateo TBD ranges between $9,000 to $23,000
Implement education programs and install signs to
SMatC- Residential/ promote public awareness of salmon and steelhead City of San
CCCS- Commercial and their habitats within the San Mateo Creek Mateo, County of
22.1.2.2 Action Step Development watershed. 3 10 San Mateo 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC-
SMatC- City of San
CCCS- Address high and medium priority sediment delivery Mateo, County of Cost based on road inventory for 150 miles of
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads sites associated with roads and railroads. 2 10 San Mateo 86.50 86.50 173 road at a rate of $1,148/mile.
SMatC- Address sediment and runoff sources from road City of San
CCCS- networks and other actions that deliver sediment and Mateo, County of Cost based on amount of road network delivering
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads runoff to stream channels. 2 10 San Mateo TBD sediment to streams.
SMatC-
SMatC- City of San
CCCS- Mateo, County of Cost based on amount of road network needing to
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads Conduct actions that hydrologically disconnect roads. 2 10 San Mateo TBD be hydrologically disconnected.
SMatC- City of San
CCCS- Prevent or minimize construction of new roads near Mateo, County of
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads high value habitat areas or sensitive habitat areas. 2 10 San Mateo 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC-
SMatC- City of San
CCCS- Ensure that all future road/stream crossing provide Mateo, County of
23.1.3.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads passage for all steelhead life stages. 1 10 San Mateo 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- City of San
CCCS- Identify and remedy all road/stream crossings that Mateo, County of Cost accounted for in above recovery actions.
23.1.3.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads impair or prevent steelhead migration. 1 5 San Mateo 0 See Passage.
SMatC- Water Diversion modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or
CCCS-25.1 Objective /Impoundment range
SMatC-
CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and
SMatC-
CCCS- Water Diversion Design all habitat enhancements to function within
25.1.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment the anticipated range of flows. 2 5 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
designed to increase the quantity and quality of fry
SMatC- and juvenile steelhead habitat by creating habitats
CCCS- Water Diversion with depth, velocity, and cover components that favor
25.1.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment these life stages. 2 5 SFPUC 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
SMatC-
SMatC- baseflows downstream of all reservoirs to provide
CCCS- Water Diversion adequate water depths necessary for upstream and
25.1.2.1 Action Step /Impoundment downstream migration. 1 25 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- During winter and spring implement periodic migrant

CCCS- Water Diversion attractant flows necessary to attract adult fish
25.1.2.2 Action Step /Impoundment upstream, and encourage outmigration of smolts. 1 5 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
during winter and spring, implement periodic large
SMatC- pulse "maintenance" flows from reservoirs. When
CCCS- Water Diversion possible, time these flows so that they coincide with
25.1.2.3 Action Step /Impoundment natural rainfall events. 1 5 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- During summer and fall, manage release rates so
CCCS- Water Diversion that depths and velocities favoring fry and juvenile
25.1.2.4 Action Step /Impoundment steelhead are provided. 1 5 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- baseflow, and other planned releases) as necessary
CCCS- Water Diversion to minimize deleterious effects of flow
25.1.2.5 Action Step /Impoundment increases/decreases. 1 5 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
SMatC- improving the spatial and temporal pattern of surface
CCCS- Water Diversion flows throughout spawning, rearing, and migration
25.1.2.6 Action Step /Impoundment areas. 1 5 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Interior San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum
This stratum includes populations of steelhead that spawn in tributaries to San Francisco (SF)
Bay that exhibit the warmer, drier characteristics of basins that lie well inland of the coast.
Assessments of the Supporting populations:
Alameda Creek
Coyote Creek
Napa River
Petaluma River
Sonoma Creek
Interior SF Bay Diversity Stratum Rapid Assessment
o Codornices Creek
o Pinole Creek
o San Leandro Creek
o San Lorenzo Creek
o San Pablo Creek
o Wildcat Creek
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Interior San Francisco Bay 740
CCC steelhead Interior S.F. Bay Diversity Stratum, Populations, Historical Status, Populations
*IP was not developed for these populations by the SWFSC.

Interior S.F. Alameda Creek I Essential 108.3 27.2 2,900

Bay
Codornices Creek* D Supporting N/A N/A N/A
Coyote Creek I Essential 109.3 27.0 3,000
Green Valley/Suisun I Essential 64.3 33.3 2,100

Creek
Napa River I Essential 233.2 20 4,700
Petaluma River I Essential 64.9 33.2 2,200
Pinole Creek* D Supporting N/A N/A N/A
San Leandro Creek I Supporting 5.4 6-12 30-63
San Lorenzo Creek I Supporting 18.6 6-12 110-221
San Pablo Creek I Supporting 8.6 6-12 50-101
Sonoma Creek I Essential 128.7 24.3 3,100
Wildcat Creek* D Supporting N/A N/A N/A
Interior San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum Recovery Target 18,000
CCC steelhead Interior San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum
Alameda Creek Population

Diversity Stratum: Interior San Francisco Bay

The limited amount of information available regarding the historical accounts of steelhead
within the Alameda Creek watershed indicates their presence between the construction of
Calaveras Dam and the Alameda Creek Diversion Dam (ACDD), completed in 1925, and the
construction of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Weir in 1972. Photographic accounts
document the existence of a historical steelhead run; however, there are not scientific records
regarding the size of steelhead spawning populations or the distribution of spawning and
rearing areas that once occurred within the watershed.
Although steelhead do not currently have volitional access to suitable habitat areas above the
BART Weir, there are well-documented reports of adult steelhead being sighted in the Alameda
Creek Flood Control Channel (below the BART Weir). Since 1998, steelhead have been
captured and relocated above the BART Weir at various locations throughout Niles Canyon and
lower Alameda Creek by local government agencies and citizen action groups. Unfortunately,
little spawner success has been documented as a result of this effort and no adult steelhead have
been observed at or below the BART Weir during the last five spawning seasons (2009, 2010,
2011, 2012, and 2013). Designs for a fish passage facility are underway in an effort to re-
establish volitional passage over the BART Weir.
After volitional passage at the BART Weir is re-established, steelhead will likely utilize many of
the same habitats that are presently occupied by resident O. mykiss. However, the extent of
anadromy will be limited by the three long standing dams (Calaveras Dam, Turner Dam, and
Del Valle Dam) within the watershed. In areas below these dams during the summer rearing
season, resident O. mykiss are currently found in the higher gradient canyon reaches of Alameda
Creek and its adjacent tributaries. These areas typically retain cool water pools throughout the
summer months due to their large bedrock geology and considerable high value habitat.
Although, some high-value habitat exists below the dams, the highest densities of O. mykiss
exist above Calaveras and San Antonio reservoirs. These reservoir populations are known to be
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Alameda Creek 743

self-sustaining and have been documented expressing an adfluvial life-history strategy
(spending most of their lives in the reservoirs and migrating to tributary streams to spawn).
History of Land Use

The Alameda Creek watershed has experienced a number of land-use practices that have
resulted in major changes to watershed processes and related instream morphology. Over the
past 150-years, the watershed has experienced major channel modifications for flood control
purposes, urbanization, agricultural development, grazing, and the development of domestic
water supply. Much of the historic farmland has now been urbanized; however, cattle grazing
is still the predominant land use within undeveloped lands throughout the watershed. As
noted above, three major dams within the watershed have severely altered the natural
hydrology and have significantly reduced the amount of accessible high value steelhead habitat
that historically existed within the watershed. In addition to these historic and ongoing land
uses, substantial portions of the watershed are designated as regional and state parklands.

The majority of the lower and northern portions of Alameda Creek watershed are divided by
the urban cities of San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, Fremont, Hayward, and Union
City. Water resources and operations within the Alameda Creek watershed are controlled by
the Alameda County Water District (ACWD), Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7), the Department
of Water Resources (DWR), and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The
SFPUC and DWR operate three major dams in the watershed, two operated by SFPUC and one
by DWR. ACWD, SFPUC, and Zone 7 are the three local agencies responsible for water supply
operations in the watershed. The SFPUC owns and manages much of the southern watershed
historically occupied by steelhead. Zone 7 owns and manages about a third of the channels in
the Livermore Valley portion of the watershed. The cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton
also own and manage portions of the channels for flood protection. The Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District manages the lower Alameda Creek Flood Control
Channel and many of the county roads and stream culverts throughout the watershed. East
Bay Regional Park District manages the parklands and various water bodies within the
watershed for recreational opportunities. Private landowners receive some assistance from the
Natural Resource Conservation Service with managing their agricultural and cattle grazing
lands. There are also many stakeholders and NGOs, including the Alameda Creek Alliance,
involved in restoring steelhead to Alameda Creek that participate in the Alameda Creek
Fisheries Restoration Workgroup. The following pertinent documents are available for the
Alameda Creek watershed:

Evaluating Priority Life History Tactics for Reintroduced Alameda Creek Steelhead
(NMFS 2012)
Calaveras Dam Replacement Project Biological Opinion (NMFS 2011)
Stonybrook Creek Watershed: A Strategic Plan for Eliminating Barriers to Steelhead
Migration (MLA 2010)
Calaveras Dam Replacement Project Fisheries Technical Report (Hagar 2008)
Alameda Creek Population Recovery Strategies and Instream Flow Assessment for
Steelhead Trout (McBain & Trush 2007)
Alameda Creek Aquatic Resource Monitoring Reports (SFPUC 2005-2009)
Evaluation of the Potential Historical and Current Occurrence of Steelhead within the
Livermore-Amador Valley (Zone 7 2004)
A Preliminary Assessment of Potential Steelhead Habitat in Sinbad Creek, Alameda
County (Kondolf 2004)
Supplementation Alternatives for Restoration of a Viable Steelhead Run to Alameda
Creek (CSCC 2004)
Aerial Survey if the Upper Alameda Creek Watershed to Assess Potential Rearing
Habitat for Steelhead (BSSPPUC 2003)
Migratory Fish Stream Report for the Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin-Tri-Valley
(Mohr 2002)
An Assessment of the Potential for Restoring a Viable Steelhead Population in the
Alameda Creek watershed (ACFRW 2000)
Alameda Creek Water Resources Study (SFWD 1995)

The following indicators were rated Poor through the CAP process: LWD frequency, passage
flows, physical barriers, floodplain connectivity, turbidity, spawner density, flow conditions
(instantaneous condition and baseflow), estuary quality and extent, magnitude of diversions,
temperature, spatial structure, smolt abundance, and stream side road density. Recovery
strategies will typically focus on ameliorating these habitat indicators, although strategies that
address other indicators may also be developed where their implementation is critical to
restoring properly functioning habitat conditions within the watershed.
Current Conditions
our CAP viability analysis. The Alameda Creek CAP Viability Table results are provided


The current condition of Alameda Creek has resulted in the loss of a viable steelhead run.
Barriers and impaired hydrologic conditions within the watershed have significantly
contributed to a functionally extinct steelhead population. Future passage projects will re-
establish access to the upper Alameda Creek watershed. However, even if a few adult
steelhead return and successfully spawn, the number of offspring produced will be so low that
the population will still be at a High risk of extinction. Investigations regarding the suitability
of the adfluvial stocks located within Calaveras and San Antonio reservoirs as potential source
populations for a future jump-starting program are underway.

Alameda Creek hydrology has been greatly altered by development, flood control, and water
supply activities. These hydrology impairments have left very few remaining habitat segments
that are considered suitable for all lifestages of steelhead. Hydrology conditions have an overall
rating of Poor for all targets but especially for summer rearing juveniles. Flow releases to
Arroyo del Valle have been made since 1979, and Zone 7 and ACWD manage flow releases
from Del Valle Reservoir to comply with the live stream requirement which is a condition of
Zone 7 and ACWDs water right permits. Minimal or no flow releases from all fours major
dams (including the ACDD) coupled with lost perennial, cool stream habitat above these
facilities, have severely limited summer rearing productivity. Impaired hydrologic conditions
have greatly limited the migration window duration and the availability of suitable spawning
(including incubation) conditions for steelhead.

Various passage impediments have been identified and documented by Alameda Creek
watershed stakeholders (Gunther 2000; Moir 2002; SFPUC 2010a, 2010b, 2010c). Cumulatively,
these barriers have resulted in a 95% reduction in the historical habitat once occupied by
steelhead (Spence 2008). Passage impediments within the watershed vary in scale from partial
to complete barriers. The most notable complete barrier in the watershed is the BART Weir,
located shortly above head-of-tide within the Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel.
However, efforts are underway to construct a fish passage facility over the BART Weir by
2015/16. Once steelhead have access to habitat beyond the BART Weir, they still will remain
restricted from accessing the high value habitat existing above Turner, Calaveras, and Del Valle
dams.

Numerous modifications have severely altered the hydrodynamics and historical extent of the
tidal interaction between Alameda Creek and San Francisco Bay/Estuary. Historically, miles of
complex tidal delta habitat existed at the mouth of Alameda Creek (SFEI 2010). During the
1970s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a massive flood channel below the BART
Weir that resulted in the complete relocation of the Alameda Creek mouth. The current
Alameda Creek mouth is confined by this constructed flood control channel. Additionally,
adjacent levees and salt pond developments have significantly reduced miles of tidal sloughs
that previously contributed to the historical extent of the Alameda Creek estuary. Estuary
rearing is an important stage for juvenile steelhead. The loss of this highly productive habitat
has further reduced rearing opportunities for steelhead and lowered steelhead population
productivity in the Alameda Creek watershed. The proposed South Bay Salt Pond Restoration
Project, once implemented, is anticipated to benefit CCC steelhead and critical habitat. The
restoration of 960 acres of tidal habitat at former salt production ponds in the South Bay will
expand the quantity of estuarine habitat in the South Bay and enhance the quality of existing
habitat.

Instream habitat quality throughout major portions of Alameda Creek has been limited by
reduced instream habitat complexity. The northern watershed has been extensively altered by
urban development and channel modifications. Niles Canyon is currently limited in the
amount of preferable habitat features that provide shelter from predation for all steelhead
lifestages. The lower watershed flood control channel has been cleared of most habitat
complexity features during past maintenance practices, limiting shelter for smolts and adult
steelhead as they migrate to and from the SF Bay.

Floodplain habitat during the wet season has been severely disconnected from the active stream
channel throughout much of the watershed due to channel modification designed to enhance
flow conveyance through urbanized areas. Lost floodplain connectivity within the Alameda
Creek watershed limits the amount of velocity refuge available to migrating juvenile and adult
steelhead during peak storm events. Additionally, the loss of potentially high-value floodplain
habitat in the lower and northern watershed has limited juvenile steelhead rearing potential
within the watershed during winter and spring months. Moreover, following the loss of
floodplain connectivity in the northern watershed, many stream reaches have become greatly
incised and are known to be sources of fine sediment.

As a consequence of urban development and channel modification, the diversity of geomorphic
features within much of the Alameda Creek watershed has been greatly reduced. Poor
riffle/run/pool ratios are a further indication of currently degraded habitat conditions and
reduced population productivity. Riffles are essential habitat components for feeding and
spawning steelhead. Pools can be equally important for foraging, but also may be the only
summer rearing habitat available during dry conditions and provide important staging areas
for migrating steelhead during the winter. The northern (i.e., lower) watershed areas are the
most geographically altered areas, and subsequently contain a limited number of pool and riffle
habitat. The loss of these geomorphic features in the northern and lower watershed is most
limiting to steelhead production during the winter season.

Coarse sediment in many reaches of the Alameda Creek watershed is of high quality for
spawning, egg incubation, and macro-invertebrate production. However, below Calaveras,
Turner, and Del Valle dams sediment transport has been eliminated resulting in degraded
spawning gravel conditions. Moreover, miles of high-value habitat consisting of quality coarse
material are currently inaccessible due to all the major dams in the watershed. Cattle grazing
and ranching has also significantly degraded gravel quality in potential spawning reaches
throughout many of the un-urbanized areas.

Summer rearing habitat is limited throughout many reaches of Alameda Creek. Instream
temperatures were likely warm historically, although historical evidence suggests significant
groundwater sources existed that likely aided in cooling surface water conditions within lower
sections of the watershed during the dry season. For example, it is hypothesized a historic
lagoon (Tulare Lake) once existed at the head of the Arroyo De La Laguna which likely
provided a significant source of cooler groundwater that drained into Niles Canyon. The
lagoon no longer exists, and Niles Canyon water temperatures are currently considered
marginal for summer rearing steelhead. Discharge from quarry pits and the South Bay
Aqueduct may have also contributed to higher temperatures in Niles Canyon. Additionally,
limited releases from all major reservoirs within the watershed have severely impaired flow
and water temperatures in some potential rearing areas. Moreover, significant alterations to the
riparian corridor have also accelerated thermal warming of streamflow within many sections of
the watershed.

Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that rate as High or Very High (See Alameda
Creek CAP Results). Recovery strategies will likely focus on ameliorating High rating threats;
however, some strategies may address Medium and Low threats when the strategy is essential
to recovery efforts.

Calaveras, San Antonio, and Del Valle reservoirs are the major impoundments altering flow
throughout the watershed. The Alameda Creek Diversion Dam/Tunnel (ACDD/T) and the
ACWDs water diversion facility also heavily influence hydrologic conditions downstream of
their locations. However, future threats to hydrology from Calaveras Reservoir and ACDD/T
are projected to be significantly reduced as the SFPUC has recently completed consultation with
NMFS, which includes a future flow regime prescribed for steelhead. The SFPUC is also
currently involved in a Habitat Conservation Plan process with NMFS that will target releases
from San Antonio Reservoir. Similarly, ACWD is currently undergoing a pre-consultation
process to address passage at the BART Weir and associated bypass flow operations. Impaired
flow conditions due to Del Valle Reservoir and other proposed water supply projects will
remain a future threat to hydrologic conditions within the northern watershed.
Channel modifications due to flood control concerns are primarily focused in the urbanized
areas of the watershed. The most highly developed residential areas occur within the
Livermore Valley and adjacent to the lower Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel. Future
flood control maintenance activities incorporating habitat complexity features and potential
levee breaches within the tidal areas of Alameda Creek will reduce the threat of channel
modification in the future.

Residential and commercial development is primarily concentrated in the lower areas of the
watershed. The construction of engineered flood control channels allowed for high densities of
residential and commercial development to occurs, and has ultimately resulted in the cost of
flooding to be extreme (Gunther et al. 2000). The high economic value of these urbanized areas
will limit the ability to completely restore natural stream geomorphic function, and thus poses a
long-term threat to habitat conditions within these areas. Additional concerns regarding
current and future residential and commercial development include water quality impacts due
to urban run-off and increased water demand.

Roads and Railroads
Urbanized areas of the Alameda Creek watershed contain high densities of impervious surfaces
and roads. Impervious areas have significantly contributed to the altered hydrologic conditions
within the northern and lower portions of the watershed, where flashier and more intense
streamflows follow storm events. In undeveloped areas, road networks near streams alter
coarse sediment transport downstream of some stream crossings, and are a source of fine
sediment in others. Additionally, roads have contributed significantly to impaired passage
conditions throughout the watershed, as many of the observed road crossing in Sinbad and
Stonybrook creeks have a bridge-over concrete box culvert design (Gunther 2000, Moir 2002,
Love 2010). Addressing fish passage impediments at stream crossings while incorporating
geomorphic elements to passage designs will greatly improve habitat condition and availability
within tributaries and main stem reaches throughout the watershed.

Cattle grazing is still the predominant land use on undeveloped land throughout the
watershed. Recent cattle management has improved as some grazing is strategically used to
manage vegetation and wildlife habitat for terrestrial species. However, cattle grazing near
streams of the upper Alameda Creek watershed are a concern for stream health and condition.
Cattle accessing some sections of streams have significantly degraded riparian conditions and
pose a threat to water quality. Cattle have been observed grazing along Arroyo Hondo and the
Calaveras Reservoir shoreline (Entrix 2002). Other evidence of habitat degradation associated
with cattle grazing has been observed in the upper Alameda Creek watershed within Sunol
Regional Park. Following the return of steelhead to the Alameda Creek watershed, efforts
should be made to exclude cattle from entering all potential O. mykiss spawning and rearing
reaches.
Mining
Gravel mining operations within the Sunol Valley Quarry Reach has significantly altered the
physical location, morphology, and hydrology of many reaches of Alameda Creek (URS/HDR
2010). Similar gravel mining operations are occurring around the Livermore Valley area near
the Chain-of-Lakes. Both operations are off-stream and pose the greatest threat to instream
hydrology. For instance, some degree of water infiltration is natural and expected within the
Sunol Valley Quarry Reach; however, the rate of infiltration due to the open gravel pits and
subsequent discharge from those pits back into Alameda Creek have raised concerns regarding
water quality impacts (temperature, turbidity, etc.). The SFPUC and other stakeholder groups
are involved in the development of a Sunol Valley Restoration Plan in an effort to reduce flow
loss from the creek and rehabilitate habitat conditions within this reach. Investigations
regarding the extent of streamflow impairment within the Livermore Valley may be needed.

The Alameda Creek watershed exhibits a mild marine climate with an average rainfall between
10 to 30 inches, with most areas averaging around the mid-teens (Gunther 2000). Like other
watersheds along the central and southern California coast, Alameda Creek is subject to
periodic droughts (Gunther 2000). Many streams within the watershed are historically
intermittent during the summer months with limited summer rearing opportunity. Subsequent
alterations to hydrology caused by development, channel modification, and water supply
facilities have further reduced the duration and extent of suitable habitat. Summer and fall can
be arid and dry with daytime temperatures exceeding 100F. Given the intense water demands
and limited water supply, severe dry years and drought patterns will pose a significant threat to
maintaining suitable streamflows throughout the watershed.

All lifestages are severely limited in the Alameda Creek watershed due to passage barriers.
Following the re-establishment of passage at the BART Weir, summer rearing and adult
abundance are projected to be the most limited lifestages primarily due to impaired hydrologic
conditions, habitat connectivity and accessibility (barriers), and spawner abundance.
Improve Fish Passage

Recovery of a viable steelhead run within the Alameda Creek watershed starts with re-
establishing fish passage at the BART Weir. Efforts to accomplish this high profile recovery
action are well on the way, as a passage facility is projected to be completed by 2015/16 at this
location. Following completion of a fish passage facility at the BART Weir, other passage
barriers will need to be addressed. Addressing the multiple barriers within the Stonybrook
watershed alone will greatly improve the quality and quantity of higher-value habitat for
steelhead. Passage at the three major dams will need to be considered in efforts to reach the
biological and ecological goals of recovery planning. Rigorous population dynamic and genetic
investigations will need to be conducted, as well as thorough habitat assessment above these
dams, to ensure successful fisheries management in the Alameda Creek watershed.
Develop Flow Schedules

Flow schedules for San Antonio and Del Valle reservoirs will need to be evaluated, developed,
implemented, and tested. Highly complex water operations need to be thoroughly assessed in
terms of their impacts on flow duration, magnitude, and timing in relevance to steelhead life

history requirements. Following successful implementation of the Calaveras/ACDD flow
schedule, extensive flow/habitat evaluations will need to be conducted to ensure targeted
steelhead lifestages are adequately protected.

Many areas of the northern watershed and lower Alameda Creek flood control channel have
been completely denuded of habitat complexity. Flood control maintenance activities will need
to incorporate habitat complexity features that aid steelhead migration and provide shelter in
priority reaches. Additionally, further habitat assessment below Turner and Del Valle dams
will need to occur. Designing and implementing optimal habitat conditions coupled with
developed flow schedules below these dams will significantly aid in the recovery of steelhead in
the Alameda Creek watershed. Installing cattle exclusion fencing will also help rehabilitate
important rearing and spawning reaches in Alameda Creek.

Rehabilitating and reclaiming historic tidal wetland/slough habitat will greatly improve
estuarine habitat for rearing steelhead. Levee breaching in strategic locations may increase the
amount of high value estuarine habitat for steelhead. Implementation of the SBSP restoration
project will restore tidal habitats at former salt ponds adjacent to the mouth of Alameda Creek.
Investigate Potential Population Augmentation for Steelhead

With very few or no anadromous steelhead returning annually to the Alameda Creek
watershed, it is imperative that a population enhancement plan be developed and implemented
in combination within an appropriate scientific-based framework.
Literature Cited
Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup. 2010. Stonybrook Creek watershed: A
strategic plan for eliminating barriers to steelhead migration. Prepared by Michael Love
& Associates.
Entrix. 2003. Aerial Survey of the Upper Alameda Creek Watershed to Assess Potential
Rearing Habitat for Steelhead. Fall 2002. Final Report. Prepared for the San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission. April 3, 2003.
Gunther, A.J., J.M. Hagar, and P. Salop. 2000. An Assessment of the Potential for Restoration a
Viable Steelhead Population in the Alameda Creek Watershed. Prepared for the Alameda
Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup. February 7, 2000.

Kondolf, G.M. 2004. A preliminary assessment of potential steelhead habitat in Sinbad Creek,
Alameda Creek. Paper submitted for LA222: Hydrology for planners. University of
Berkeley.
Moir, R. 2002. Migratory fish stream report for the Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin-Tri-
Valley.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2009a. Technical Memorandum: Feasibility of Fish
Passage at Alameda Creek Diversion Dam. Prepared by URS and HDR, June 2009.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2009b. San Antonio Creek, Indian Creek, and
Arroyo Honda Fish Trapping Data Summary 2005. Natural Resources and Lands
Management Division. Fisheries and Wildlife Section, Sunol, CA. June 2009.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission: Technical Memorandum: Assessment of Fish

Upstream Migration at Natural Barriers in the Upper Alameda Creek Sub-Watershed,
prepared by URS and HDR, January 2010.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission: Technical Memorandum: Feasibility of Fish Passage
at Calaveras Dam, prepared by URS and HDR, June 2009.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission: Technical Memorandum: Feasibility of Fish Passage
At the Alameda Creek Diversion Dam, prepared by URS and HDR, June 2009.

Migration at Riffles in Sunol Valley Quarry Reach of Alameda Creek, prepared by URS
and HDR, February 2010.

Upstream Migration at Natural Barriers in the Upper Alameda Creek Sub-Watershed,
prepared by URS and HDR, January 2010.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and EDAW Turnstone Joint Venture: Calaveras Dam
Replacement Project Fisheries Technical Report, prepared by Hagar Environmental
Science, August 2008.

Spence, B.C., E.P. Bjorkstedt, J.C. Garza, J.J. Smith, D.G. Hankin, D. Fuller, W.E. Jones, R.
Macedo, T.H. Williams, and E. Mora. 2008. A framework for assessing the viability of
threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead in the north-central California coast
recovery domain. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-423.

Alameda Creek CAP Viability Results

Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
Habitat IP-km (>6 Key
1 Adults Condition Frequency (BFW 0- (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Poor
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
Habitat IP-km (>1.3 Key
Frequency (BFW 10- (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Poor
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Habitat Pool/Riffle/Flatwater streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km
Not Specified
Complexity Ratio (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools;
Habitat streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-km
Shelter Rating Fair
Complexity (>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream (>80 stream
NMFS Flow
Factor Score >75
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
accessible* km km
<50% of IP-Km 50% of IP-Km 75% of IP-Km SEC 2.42% of
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km current IP-km Poor
accessible* km km available
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
Riparian Tree Diameter 39% Class 5 & >69% Class 5 &
5 & 6 across IP- 5 & 6 across IP- Not Specified
Vegetation (North of SF Bay) 6 across IP-km 6 across IP-km
km km
70-79%
Riparian Tree Diameter Density rating
rating "D" rating "D" Not Defined rating "D" across Fair
Vegetation (South of SF Bay) "D" across IP-
km

Quantity & <50% of IP-Km 50% of IP-Km 75% of IP-Km
50% of IP-km to
Sediment Distribution of or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km Fair
74% of IP-km
Spawning Gravels accessible* km km
50-80% >80%
No Evidence of
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
IP-km maintains
Water Quality Turbidity maintains maintains maintains maintains Poor
severity score of 3
or lower
per IP-km to < per IP-km to < low risk <1 spawner per
low risk low risk spawner IP-km to < low risk
Size Viability Density Poor
spawner spawner density per spawner density
density per density per Spence (2008) per Spence (2008)
2 Eggs Condition Hydrology (Instantaneous Protocol: Risk Poor
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% 15-17% (0.85mm)
Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) and >30% (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and and <30% Fair
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm)
Gravel Quality
(Embeddedness)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Juveniles Condition

Habitat
Frequency (Bankfull (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Fair
Complexity
Large Wood
Habitat Frequency (Bankfull
(>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Fair
Complexity Width 10-100
meters)
Habitat Percent Primary
(>40% average (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average Fair
Complexity Pools
Habitat Pool/Riffle/Flatwater streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-km
Fair
Complexity Ratio (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools;
Shelter Rating Fair
NMFS Flow
Factor Score >75
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
>5 Diversions/10
IP-km
accessible* km km

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
50% to 74% of
streams/ IP-km
Riparian (>70% average
Canopy Cover stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; Fair
Vegetation stream canopy;
>85% where coho
IP overlaps)
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
km km
70-79%
km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP 75 to 89% IP
<50% IP km >90% IP km
km (<20 C km (<20 C <50% IP-km (<20
Temperature MWMT; <16 C MWMT; <16 C C MWMT; <16 C
Water Quality <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT Poor
(MWMT) MWMT where MWMT where MWMT where
coho IP coho IP coho IP overlaps)
overlaps) overlaps)
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Contaminants
severity score severity score severity score severity score score of 3 or
of 3 or lower of 3 or lower of 3 or lower of 3 or lower lower
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5
Fish/m^2 Fish/m^2
<50% of 50-74% of 75-90% of >90% of
<50% of Historical
Range

Winter Rearing Habitat
4 Condition Frequency (Bankfull (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Fair
Juveniles Complexity
Large Wood
Habitat Frequency (Bankfull
(>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Fair
Complexity Width 10-100
meters)
Habitat Pool/Riffle/Flatwater streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-km
Fair
Complexity Ratio (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools;
Shelter Rating Fair
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km <16 IP-Km Poor
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
km km
70-79%
km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) 1 & 2)
50-80% >80%
No Evidence of
Contaminants

Properly
Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
average)
>5 Diversions/10
IP-km
NMFS Flow
Factor Score >75
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
Passage at Mouth or
Passage/Migration or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km Not Specified
Confluence
accessible* km km
<50% IP-Km (>6 50-74% IP-Km 75-90% IP-Km >90% IP-Km 50-74% IP-km (>6
and <14 C) (>6 and <14 C) (>6 and <14 C) (>6 and <14 C) and <14 C)
No Evidence of
Contaminants
Smolt
Smolt
abundance Smolt
abundance Smolt abundance
which abundance to
Size Viability Abundance high risk high risk spawner Poor
spawner density per
spawner density per
Spence (2008)
Spence (2008)
>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of
Watershed Landscape Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in
6 Hydrology Impervious Surfaces SEC - 5.65% Good
Processes Context Impervious Impervious Impervious Impervious
Surfaces Surfaces Surfaces Surfaces
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of
Landscape
Agriculture Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in SEC - 1.31% Very Good
Patterns
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of <15% of
Landscape
Timber Harvest Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Very Good
Patterns
11% of watershed
>1 unit/20 acres:
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of
Landscape Urbanization
Urbanization watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 Fair
Patterns clustered around
migration
cooridor
25-50% Intact
Riparian Historical Historical Historical Historical
Species Composition Historical Species Fair
Vegetation Species Species Species Species
Composition
>3 2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6
Transport Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile
>1 0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1
Mile Mile Mile Mile

Alameda Creek CAP Threat Results

1 Agriculture Low Low Medium Low High Medium Medium
2 Channel Modification Very High Medium High Very High Very High Very High Very High
3 Disease, Predation and Competition Low Low High Low Medium Low Medium
4 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Medium Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Low
5 Suppression Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium
6 Fishing and Collecting Medium Low Medium Not Specified Medium Not Specified Medium
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching High High Very High Medium High High Very High
9 Mining Medium Low Medium Medium High High High
10 Recreational Areas and Activities Low Low Low Low Medium Low Low
11 Development High Medium High High Very High Very High Very High
12 Roads and Railroads High Medium Medium High High High High
13 Severe Weather Patterns High Medium High High High High High
14 Water Diversion and Impoundments Very High High Very High High Very High Very High Very High

Alameda Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Interior San Francisco Bay) Recovery Actions
AlC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species
AlC-CCCS- Recovery
1.1.1 Action Estuary Rehabilitate natural river mouth dynamics
Alameda Flood
AlC-CCCS- Increase the current tidal extent of the Alameda Control, CDFW, Cost based on treating 19 acres (assume 10% of
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary Creek estuary 2 10 Corps 468 468 935 total estuarine acres) at a rate of $49,200/acre.
Alameda Flood
AlC-CCCS- Identify strategic locations to breach levees within the Control, CDFW, Cost based on artificial breaching of sandspit at a
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary tidal portion of Alameda Creek. 2 10 Corps 20 20 40 rate of $19,670/breaching.
Alameda Flood
AlC-CCCS- Identify and enhance key attributes necessary to Control, CDFW, Cost based on estuary use/residence time model
1.1.1.3 Action Step Estuary establish a functioning estuary ecosystem. 2 10 Corps, USFWS 170 170 339 at a rate of $338,679/project.
Develop an estuary rehabilitation and enhancement Alameda Flood

AlC-CCCS- plan in efforts to reclaim historically tidal influenced Control, CDFW,
1.1.1.4 Action Step Estuary areas of Alameda Creek. 2 10 Corps, USFWS 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
AC Alliance,
Alameda Flood
AlC-CCCS- Develop alternative recommendations for creating a Control, CDFW,
1.1.1.5 Action Step Estuary new estuary ecosystem. 2 10 Corps 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
AC Alliance,
AlC-CCCS- Implement rehabilitation and enhancement ACWD, CDFW,
1.1.1.6 Action Step Estuary recommendations. 2 10 Corps 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery
AC Alliance,
Alameda Flood
AlC-CCCS- Investigate tidal circulation within potential tidal Control, CDFW,
1.1.2.1 Action Step Estuary marsh restoration sites. 2 10 Corps, USFWS 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
AC Alliance,
Alameda Flood
AlC-CCCS- Identify salmonid migration routes within possible Control, CDFW,
1.1.2.2 Action Step Estuary tidal marsh restoration sites. 2 10 Corps, USFWS 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
AC Alliance,
Alameda Flood
AlC-CCCS- Investigate potential prey items for rearing salmonids Control, CDFW,
1.1.2.3 Action Step Estuary within current and potential estuary habitat zones. 2 10 Corps, USFWS 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
AC Alliance,
ACWD, Alameda
Flood Control,
AlC-CCCS- Improve the quality and extent of freshwater lagoon CDFW, Corps, Dependent upon implementation of other
1.1.2.4 Action Step Estuary habitat 2 10 USFWS 0 recovery action steps.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery
1.1.3 Action Estuary Improve estuarine water quality

Investigate water quality (D.O., temperature, salinity) AC Alliance, continuous water quality monitoring stations at a
AlC-CCCS- conditions for rearing steelhead in potential tidal ACWD, CDFW, rate of $5,000/station. Cost does not account for
1.1.3.1 Action Step Estuary marsh rehabilitation sites. 2 10 Corps, USFWS 7.50 7.50 15 data management or maintenance.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery
1.1.4 Action Estuary Rehabilitate inner estuarine hydrodynamics
AC Alliance,
Improve the inner estuary hydrodynamics that have Alameda Flood
AlC-CCCS- been altered by levees, dikes, culverts, and tide Control, CDFW,
1.1.4.1 Action Step Estuary gates. 2 10 Corps, USFWS TBD
AlC-CCCS- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain
AC Alliance,
ACWD, Alameda
Flood Control,
Corps, NRCS,
AlC-CCCS- Floodplain Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- RCD, SFPUC, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity established in low gradient response reaches. 2 10 Zone 7 127.50 127.50 255 rate of $137,833/project.
AC Alliance,
ACWD, Alameda
Flood Control,
Identify the floodplain activation flow - the smallest NRCS, RCD,
flood pulse event that initiates substantial beneficial SFPUC, Water
AlC-CCCS- Floodplain ecological processes when associated with Agencies, Zone Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity floodplain inundation (Williams et al. 2009). 2 10 7 39.50 39.50 79 a rate of $78,100/project.
AC Alliance,
ACWD, Alameda
Flood Control,
CDFW, RCD,
AlC-CCCS- Floodplain Identify locations where floodplain rehabilitation Water Agencies, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
2.1.1.3 Action Step Connectivity projects are appropriate. 2 25 Zone 7 138 138 rate of $137,833/project.
AC Alliance,
ACWD, Alameda
Flood Control,
Design and implement floodplain rehabilitation NRCS, RCD,
AlC-CCCS- Floodplain projects that target winter rearing habitat for juvenile Water Agencies,
2.1.1.4 Action Step Connectivity steelhead. 2 20 Zone 7 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Consider incorporating floodplain rehabilitation
projects into the Flood Protection and Drainage AC Alliance,
element of Zone 7's Stream Management Master ACWD, Alameda
Plan and include design features to prevent Flood Control,
entrapment of steelhead during capture of Arroyo Corps, SFPUC,
AlC-CCCS- Floodplain Mocho and Arroyo del Valle flood waters in off- Water Agencies,
2.1.1.5 Action Step Connectivity channel detention facilities. 2 10 Zone 7 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery
ACWD, DWR,
AlC-CCCS- Evaluate and develop spawning and rearing habitat EB Parks,
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology criteria below all major dam sites (Del Valle, Turner). 2 10 SFPUC, Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Continue to evaluate and, if warranted, develop flow
schedules that optimize steelhead spawning and
AlC-CCCS- rearing conditions below Del Valle and San Antonio Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology reservoirs. 1 10 SFPUC 39.50 39.50 79 a rate of $78,100/project.
Ensure that water imports do not impair seasonal
AlC-CCCS- and summer rearing conditions for juvenile ACWD, DWR,
3.1.1.3 Action Step Hydrology steelhead. 2 10 SFPUC, Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Consider mechanisms for water conveyance to

AlC-CCCS- Chain-of-Lakes detention ponds that maintain the NMFS, RWQCB, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
3.1.1.4 Action Step Hydrology natural hydrologic conditions in Arroyo Mocho. 2 10 USACE, Zone 7 39.50 39.50 79 a rate of $78,100/project.
AlC-CCCS- Develop ramping criteria below diversion sites that ACWD, DWR,
3.1.1.5 Action Step Hydrology prevent displacement and stranding of steelhead. 2 10 SFPUC, Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Develop flow requirements that mimic the natural

hydrograph in that suitable conditions for adult and
AlC-CCCS- juvenile steelhead migration to and from the South ACWD, DWR,
3.1.1.6 Action Step Hydrology Bay Aquaduct turnout are maintained. 2 TBD SFPUC, Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AlC-CCCS- Recovery
ACWD, Alameda
AlC-CCCS- Develop flow requirements that protect emigrating Flood Control, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
3.1.2.1 Action Step Hydrology juvenile and adults steelhead (kelts) to SF BAY. 1 10 SFPUC, Zone 7 157.00 79 a rate of $156,200/project.
Zone 7 collaboration with NMFS and other regulatory
agencies will ensure the Chain-of-Lakes proposed
project benefits hydrologic conditions necessary for
AlC-CCCS- juvenile and adult steelhead migrations (up and down
3.1.2.2 Action Step Hydrology stream). 1 10 Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AlC-CCCS- Recovery
AlC-CCCS- Develop ramping criteria for spawning and rearing ACWD, DWR,
3.1.3.1 Action Step Hydrology below diversion sites. 2 15 SFPUC, Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AlC-CCCS- modification or curtailment of the species habitat
5.1 Objective Passage or range
AlC-CCCS- Recovery
AlC-CCCS- Determine if there is an appreciable quantity of ACWD, NMFS, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage historic habitat partially or completely blocked. 2 10 SFPUC, Zone 7 69.00 69.00 138 rate of 137,800/project.
Evaluate and prescribe volitional and/or non-
volitional passage methods for all major dams in the Cost based on adult escapement and juvenile
AlC-CCCS- watershed (Del Valle, San Antonio, Calaveras - see ACWD, DWR, migration model at a rate of $36,379 and
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage actions 2-9). 1 15 SFPUC, Zone 7 75.00 75.00 75.00 225 $188,264/project.
AlC-CCCS- ACWD, DWR,
5.1.1.3 Action Step Passage Determine if fish passage is technologically feasible. 2 10 SFPUC, Zone 7 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
AC Alliance,
ACWD, Alameda
Flood Control,
Thoroughly develop potential translocation methods CDFW, EB
(transportation routes, trapping stations, etc.), Parks, NMFS,
AlC-CCCS- including fish trapping scenarios, that will aid in RCD, SFPUC,
5.1.1.5 Action Step Passage salmonid population planning and recovery. 2 10 Zone 7 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
AC Alliance,
ACWD, Alameda
Flood Control,
CDFW, EB
Thoroughly investigate all out-migrant capture Parks, NMFS,
AlC-CCCS- methodologies in efforts to translocate smolts/kelts RCD, SFPUC,
5.1.1.6 Action Step Passage downstream of impassable dams. 2 10 Zone 7 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
AC Alliance,
ACWD, Alameda
Flood Control,
CDFW, EB
Thoroughly investigate spillway designs or bypass Parks, NMFS,
AlC-CCCS- facilities that allow for volitional downstream RCD, SFPUC,
5.1.1.7 Action Step Passage migration. 2 10 Zone 7 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Modify or remove physical passage barriers within

5.1.2 Action Passage the Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel
AlC-CCCS- Design and install a fish passage facility at the BART ACWD, Alameda Cost based on providing passage at a rate of
5.1.2.1 Action Step Passage Weir. 1 5 Flood Control 1191.00 1,191 $1,190,974/project.
Evaluate and install features at the middle inflatable
dam that allow for dam inflation at higher flows
(example: Obermeyer gates) that reduce down Cost based on adult escapement and juvenile
AlC-CCCS- ramping effects during BART Weir ACWD, Alameda migration model at a rate of $36,379 and
5.1.2.2 Action Step Passage migration/passage windows (<1200 cfs). 2 15 Flood Control 75.00 75.00 75.00 225 $188,264/project.
Adaptively manage the BART Weir fish passage
facility so that fish passage can occur at the highest
AlC-CCCS- flows possible and maintenance concerns are ACWD, Alameda
5.1.2.3 Action Step Passage addressed. 2 15 Flood Control 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Modify or remove all nine passage impediments
identified by the Alameda County Flood Control
AlC-CCCS- District to the extent that 1ft of depth is achieved at ACWD, Alameda Cost based on providing passage at a rate of
5.1.2.4 Action Step Passage 25 cfs. 1 10 Flood Control 5,360 5,360 10,719 $1,190,974/project.
Utilize vegetation methods and bio-techniques to
establish a low flow channel throughout the flood
control channel. Incorporate features that create
AlC-CCCS- velocity refuge during high flow events for Alameda Flood
5.1.2.5 Action Step Passage immigrating adults. 2 10 Control 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AlC-CCCS- Develop and install a fishway at the upper most Cost based on installing a fishway at a rate of
5.1.2.6 Action Step Passage rubber dam facility (RD1). 1 10 ACWD 392.50 392.50 785 $784,087/project.
Continue the development and implementation of a
bypass flow schedule that protects migrating ACWD, Alameda
AlC-CCCS- steelhead through the Alameda County Flood Control Flood Control, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
5.1.2.7 Action Step Passage Channel. 1 5 SFPUC, Zone 7 78 78 a rate of $78,100/project.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Modify or remove physical passage barriers in Niles
5.1.3 Action Passage Canyon
AC Alliance,
AlC-CCCS- Evaluate, recommend, and implement a fish passage CalTrans, NMFS, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
5.1.3.1 Action Step Passage design for the USGS Niles Canyon gaging station. 2 10 SFPUC 39.50 39.50 79 a rate of $78,100/project.
AlC-CCCS- Develop and install a fish passage facility at the ACWD, Alameda
5.1.3.2 Action Step Passage BART Weir. 1 5 Flood Control 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
AlC-CCCS- Evaluate the potential of installing a fish capture
5.1.3.3 Action Step Passage facility at the Niles gage station weir. 2 10 ACWD, SFPUC 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Modify or remove physical passage barriers in the
5.1.4 Action Passage northern watershed
Evaluate, develop, and implement fish passage AC Alliance,

facilities and/or solutions for passage barriers ACWD, Alameda
identified in the: Migratory fish stream report for the County, Cities,
AlC-CCCS- Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin-Tri-Valley (Moir NRCS, RCD, Cost based on providing fish passage at a rate of
5.1.4.1 Action Step Passage 2002). 1 10 Zone 7 2,166 2,166 4,331 $1,443,585/project for 4 project sites.
AC Alliance,
ACWD, Alameda
County, NRCS,
Promote collaborative research by the various Private
AlC-CCCS- stream channel owners to properly identify passage Landowners,
5.1.4.2 Action Step Passage barriers and associated remedial activities. 3 20 RCD, Zone 7 TBD
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Modify or remove physical passage barriers in the
5.1.5 Action Passage southern watershed
Evaluate, develop, and implement fish passage Cost based on adult escapement and juvenile
AlC-CCCS- features to enhance passage conditions in the Sunol AC Alliance, migration monitoring at a rate of $36,379 and
5.1.5.1 Action Step Passage Valley. 1 10 SFPUC 112.50 112.50 225 $188,264/project.
AlC-CCCS- Remove or modify the PG&E gas line crossing in the Cost based on appropriate method to move or
5.1.5.2 Action Step Passage Sunol Valley. 1 5 PG&E, SFPUC TBD modify gas line.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Modify or remove physical passage barriers in
5.1.6 Action Passage Stonybrook Creek
Implement recommendations identified for fish AC Alliance,

passage in the Stonybrook Creek Watershed: A Alameda Flood
AlC-CCCS- Strategic Plan for Eliminating Barriers to Steelhead Control, NRCS, Cost based on providing passage at a rate of
5.1.6.1 Action Step Passage Migration (Michael Love & Associates 2010) 2 10 RCD 320.00 320.00 640 $639,247/project.
AlC-CCCS- Habitat modification, or curtailment of the species
AlC-CCCS- Recovery
Improve habitat complexity by increasing wood
frequency in spawning and rearing areas of Alameda CDFW, SFPUC, Cost based on treating 33 miles (assume 1
AlC-CCCS- Creek to the extent that a minimum of six key LWD Water Agencies, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity pieces exists every 100 meters. 2 20 Zone 7 101.25 101.25 101.25 101.25 405 $31,200/mile.
AC Alliance,
ACWD, Alameda
Flood Control,
Improve habitat complexity by increasing wood CDFW, Corps,
frequency in seasonal habitat and migratory reaches EB Parks, Water
AlC-CCCS- of Alameda Creek to the extent that a minimum of Agencies, Zone
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity 1.3 key LWD pieces exists every 100 meters. 2 20 7 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Evaluate and prescribe an appropriate number of key ACWD, DWR,

AlC-CCCS- LWD pieces below Del Valle Reservoir to enhance EB Parks, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
6.1.1.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity steelhead summer rearing conditions. 2 10 LARPD, Zone 7 69.00 69.00 138 rate of $137,800/project.
AC Alliance,
ACWD, CDFW,
EB Parks,
Evaluate and prescribe the appropriate number of LARPD, NRCS,
key LWD pieces in the following reaches: Niles RCD, SFPUC,
Canyon, Arroyo de la Laguna, Arroyo Del Valle, State Parks,
AlC-CCCS- Arroyo Mocho, Sunol Valley, and Upper Alameda Water Agencies, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
6.1.1.4 Action Step Habitat Complexity Creek above ACDD. 2 20 Zone 7 69.00 69.00 138 rate of $137,800/mile.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery
Evaluate and prescribe habitat features below the
confluence of Upper Alameda and Calaveras creeks Cost based on treating 13 miles (assume 1
AlC-CCCS- that enhances primary pool frequency for summer AC Alliance, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity rearing steelhead. 2 15 CDFW, SFPUC 135.00 135.00 135.00 405 $31,200/mile.
AC Alliance,
ACWD, CDFW,
Evaluate habitat conditions in Arroyo Mocho for EB Parks,
AlC-CCCS- summer rearing steelhead and prescribe habitat NMFS, NRCS,
6.1.2.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity features that increase primary pool. 2 10 RCD, Zone 7 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
AC Alliance,
ACWD,
Evaluate and prescribe habitat features within Niles CalTrans,
Canyon that will increase primary pool depth and CDFW, SFPUC,
AlC-CCCS- frequency for winter and summer rearing juveniles, Water Agencies,
6.1.2.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity and quality staging pools for migrating/staging adults. 2 10 Zone 7 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
Evaluate and prescribe habitat features below San
Antonio and Del Valle reservoirs that enhances AC Alliance,
AlC-CCCS- primary pool frequency for summer rearing ACWD, Corps,
6.1.2.4 Action Step Habitat Complexity steelhead. 2 10 DWR, Zone 7 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery
Identify and evaluate adult staging pool in Niles

Canyon, Arroyo de la Laguna, Arroyo Mocho, Sunol AC Alliance,
AlC-CCCS- Valley, and Upper Alameda Creek and ensure that all ACWD, CDFW, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity have an adequate shelter for migrating adults. 2 5 NRCS, Zone 7 13.80 14 rate of $137,833/project.

Increase shelter and habitat complexity features in
the Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel that AC Alliance,
AlC-CCCS- improve survival of emigrating juvenile and adult ACWD, CDFW, Cost based on treating 1 mile (assume 1
6.1.3.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity steelhead. 2 10 RWQCB 536 536 1,071 project/mile) at a rate of $1,070,400/mile.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery
Ensure that mature trees within the stream riparian
corridor are not disturbed or lost due to land
AlC-CCCS- management activities (roads, cattle, flood control,
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian etc.). 3 25 Cities, Counties 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Identify average percent canopy cover below major
AlC-CCCS- dams and provide recommendations for rehabilitating ACWD, SFPUC, Cost based on riparian restoration model at a rate
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian stream canopy cover. 3 15 Zone 7 29.67 29.67 29.67 89 of $88,551/project.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Improve instream gravel quality to reduce
quantity strategies to the extent that the maximum
AlC-CCCS- amount of spawning and incubation habitat is ACWD, SFPUC, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment achieved below all dams. 3 10 Zone 7 69.00 69.00 138 rate of $137,833/project.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Improve gravel quantity and distribution for macro-
Develop strategies to improve gravel quality
conditions within all current and potential summer
AlC-CCCS- rearing reaches below all dams with emphasis on ACWD, SFPUC,
8.1.2.1 Action Step Sediment macro-invertebrate production. 2 15 Zone 7 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Develop strategies to improve gravel quality
AlC-CCCS- conditions within Niles Canyon with emphasis on ACWD, SFPUC,
8.1.2.2 Action Step Sediment maco-invertebrate production. 2 25 Zone 7 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery
Investigate the potential to reduce water temperature
AlC-CCCS- within Niles Canyon by releasing water from San AC Alliance,
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality Antonio reservoir. 2 10 ACWD, SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Cost based on installing a minimum of 3 water
Investigate the effects to water temperature from temperature loggers at a rate of $500/logger.
AlC-CCCS- gravel mining pit discharge located within the Sunol Cost does not account for data management or
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality Valley. 2 10 ACWD, SFPUC 0.75 0.75 2 maintenance.
Investigate the groundwater dynamics within Niles AC Alliance,
AlC-CCCS- Canyon and its relationship with Sunol Valley and the ACWD, SFPUC, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
10.1.1.3 Action Step Water Quality Laguna. 2 10 Zone 7 39.50 39.50 79 a rate of $78,100
Ensure SBA releases do not exceed smolt
temperatures thresholds in flow conveyance streams
AlC-CCCS- or contribute to increased water temperatures within Cost based on implementation of other action
10.1.1.4 Action Step Water Quality Niles Canyon. 1 10 ACWD, Zone 7 0 steps.
Ensure that future or current SBA water imports do
not marginalize or impair stream temperature for
AlC-CCCS- summer rearing juveniles and migration smolt
10.1.1.5 Action Step Water Quality steelhead. 2 20 ACWD, Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Develop and implement strategies that prevent
AlC-CCCS- potential warm water discharge from gravel mining Cost based on the type of recommendations to
10.1.1.6 Action Step Water Quality operations. 1 10 ACWD TBD implement.

Develop and implement strategies that minimize

AlC-CCCS- water temperature impacts associated with ACWD, SFPUC,
10.1.1.7 Action Step Water Quality groundwater within the Niles Canyon reach. 1 15 Zone 7 TBD Cost based on type of strategies to implement.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery
Install continuous water quality monitoring stations Cost based on installing a minimum of 3
AlC-CCCS- within the Niles Canyon and the Alameda County ACWD, Alameda continuous water quality monitoring stations at a
10.1.2.1 Action Step Water Quality Flood Control Channel. 2 10 Flood Control 7.50 7.50 15 rate of $5,000/station.
AC Alliance,
ACWD, Alameda
Flood Control,
Identify and provide solutions for point and non-point Cities, EB Parks,
AlC-CCCS- sources contributing to poor water quality and RCD, RWQCB,
10.1.2.2 Action Step Water Quality pollution. 2 10 SFPUC, Zone 7 0 Cost accounted for in other actions steps.
Cost based on cause of fish kill and appropriate
AlC-CCCS- Evaluate and provided solutions for past fish kills recommendation to remedy conditions causing
10.1.2.3 Action Step Water Quality within the Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel. 2 20 ACWD TBD fish kills.
AlC-CCCS- Address other natural or manmade factors
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and

AC Alliance,
ACWD, CDFW,
NOAA SWFSC,
AlC-CCCS- Determine the need for a conservation NOAA/NMFS,
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability hatchery/supplementation/augmentation program. 1 10 SFPUC, Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NMFS, NOAA
If determined a viable option, develop guidance that SWFSC,
AlC-CCCS- best utilizes and incorporates adfluvial O.mykiss into NOAA/NMFS,
11.1.1.10 Action Step Viability a population enhancement program. 1 20 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NOAA
Determine the population dynamic and genetic SWFSC,
AlC-CCCS- implications of providing passage over Calaveras NOAA/NMFS,
11.1.1.11 Action Step Viability and Turner dams. 1 10 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Investigate the potential implications/benefits/ NMFS, NOAA
consequences of future interactions between SWFSC,
AlC-CCCS- anadromous and resident forms of O. mykiss (life NOAA/NMFS,
11.1.1.12 Action Step Viability history, genetics, etc.). 1 10 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NMFS, NOAA
Investigate and address concerns associated with SWFSC,
AlC-CCCS- the fate of reservoir O.mykiss if passage is re- NOAA/NMFS,
11.1.1.13 Action Step Viability established above Calaveras and Turner dams. 1 10 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NOAA
Develop a population supplementation/augmentation SWFSC,
AlC-CCCS- plan to complement recovery goals of the Alameda NOAA/NMFS,
11.1.1.14 Action Step Viability Creek watershed. 1 15 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NOAA
SWFSC,
AlC-CCCS- Develop and implement an effective population NOAA/NMFS, Costs accounted for under the Coastal Monitoring
11.1.1.15 Action Step Viability based monitoring program. 2 15 SFPUC 0 Plan - see Monitoring Chapter in Volume 1.
AlC-CCCS- Identify if the population is at short-term or immediate NOAA SWFSC,

11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability risk of extinction. 1 10 NOAA/NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Identify how a conservation

AlC-CCCS- hatchery/supplementation/ augmentation program will NOAA SWFSC,
11.1.1.3 Action Step Viability complement the overall recovery effort. 1 10 NOAA/NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind

AlC-CCCS- Identify the biological or DPS significance of the NOAA SWFSC,

11.1.1.4 Action Step Viability subject population. 1 10 NOAA/NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Identify population viability goals and the

AlC-CCCS- expectations of a conservation NOAA SWFSC,
11.1.1.5 Action Step Viability hatchery/supplementation/augmentation program. 1 10 NOAA/NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NOAA SWFSC,
AlC-CCCS- Investigate the current status genetic diversity within NOAA/NMFS,
11.1.1.6 Action Step Viability the O.mykiss population in Alameda Creek. 1 10 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NOAA SWFSC,
AlC-CCCS- Investigate the current population dynamics and NOAA/NMFS,
11.1.1.7 Action Step Viability viability status.. 1 10 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Determine the suitability of the Calaveras and San
Antonio reservoir adfluvial stocks as source NOAA SWFSC,
AlC-CCCS- populations for a supplementation/augmentation NOAA/NMFS,
11.1.1.8 Action Step Viability program. 1 10 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Conduct research that addresses biological and

AlC-CCCS- genetic concerns associated with population NMFS, NOAA Cost likely part of collaboration between NMFS,
11.1.1.9 Action Step Viability supplementation. See NMFS CDRP BO (2011). 1 20 SWFSC 0 CDFW, and others to absorb the costs.
AlC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
AC Alliance,
ACWD, Alameda
Minimize, or prevent, channelization in areas that County, Alameda
AlC-CCCS- Channel provide winter refuge and seasonal habitat for Flood Control,
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification juvenile steelhead 3 25 CDFW, Corps 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Ensure future channel modification activities prevent AC Alliance,

or minimize impediments to the creation of, or ACWD, Alameda
blocking access to, off channel habitat used by County, Alameda
AlC-CCCS- Channel salmonids as refuge and winter rearing habitat during Flood Control,
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification high stream flows. 3 50 Corps, Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AC Alliance,
ACWD, Alameda
Ensure that all existing channel designed for flood County, Alameda
conveyance incorporate features that enhance Flood Control,
AlC-CCCS- Channel steelhead migration under high and low flow Cities, Corps,
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification conditions. 3 25 Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AC Alliance,
ACWD, Alameda
County, Alameda
Flood Control,
AlC-CCCS- Channel Develop Bank Stabilization and Floodplain Corps, RCD,
13.1.1.4 Action Step Modification Guidelines for use by private and public entities. 3 50 Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AC Alliance,
ACWD, Alameda
County, Alameda
AlC-CCCS- Channel Evaluate design alternatives to rip-rap bank repairs Flood Control,
13.1.1.5 Action Step Modification and incorporate fish habitat features. 3 100 Corps, Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind

AlC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
Cost based on optimum flow level for multiple life

AlC-CCCS- Channel Develop and implement strategies to reduce flow stages. Cost for stream flow/precipitation
13.1.2.1 Action Step Modification loss in the Sunol Valley Reach. 3 10 TBD monitoring estimated at $78,100/project.
AlC-CCCS- Channel floodplains and meadows to extend the duration
13.1.2.2 Action Step Modification spring and summer stream flows. 2 5 0 Cost captured in other recovery actions.
Cost based on amount of impervious soils
contributing to increased runoff and methods to
Develop and implement strategies that slow urban treat. Flood retention basins, engineered
AlC-CCCS- Channel runoff in the northern watershed during the spawning wetlands, and bypass channels are potential
13.1.2.3 Action Step Modification and migration season (slow it, spread it, sink it). 3 25 TBD possibilities.
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and
channels incorporate features that enhance
AlC-CCCS- Channel steelhead migration under high and low flow
13.1.3.1 Action Step Modification conditions. 3 20 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AlC-CCCS- Channel Incorporate velocity refuge features in all existing
13.1.3.2 Action Step Modification engineered and modified channels. 3 10 0 Cost captured in other recovery actions.
Install features that provides shelter for emigrating

AlC-CCCS- Channel juvenile salmonids - particularly through the Alameda Cost accounted for in above action steps under
13.1.3.3 Action Step Modification Creek Flood Control Channel. 2 20 0 Habitat Complexity.
Minimize or prevent future channel modifications in
AlC-CCCS- Channel potentially high value seasonal habitat and migration
13.1.3.4 Action Step Modification (staging) areas. 3 20 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to instream habitat
Prevent the removal of habitat forming structures
AlC-CCCS- Channel (LWD, boulders, vegetation, etc.) in all natural
13.1.4.1 Action Step Modification waterways. 3 30 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Disease/
AlC-CCCS- Predation
Disease/
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Predation Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
AC Alliance, Action is considered In-Kind. Existing and future

Disease/ Investigate impacts and distribution of black spot ACWD, Alameda fisheries monitoring programs carried out by the
AlC-CCCS- Predation disease on O. mykiss throughout the Alameda Creek Flood Control, SFPUC, CMP, and others will document the
14.1.1.1 Action Step /Competition watershed. 2 10 SFPUC, Zone 7 0 presence and distribution of black spot disease.
Disease/ AC Alliance,
AlC-CCCS- Predation If possible, provide and implement recommendations ACWD, CDFW,
14.1.1.2 Action Step /Competition in efforts to reduce BSD. 2 15 SFPUC, Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AlC-CCCS- Fishing/Collectin Address the overutilization for commercial,

16.1 Objective g recreational, scientific or educational purposes
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
16.1.1 Action Fishing/Collecting and diversity
AC Alliance,
AlC-CCCS- Investigate the potential impacts to steelhead from CDFW, EB Collaboration between agencies and staff is
16.1.1.1 Action Step Fishing/Collecting recreational fishing in the Shadow Cliffs area. 2 15 Parks, Zone 7 0 required. Action is considered In-Kind
Work with CDFW to modify existing fishing AC Alliance,
AlC-CCCS- regulations to protect adfluvial O.mykiss above CDFW, EB
16.1.1.2 Action Step Fishing/Collecting Calaveras, Del Valle, and Turner dams. 2 10 Parks 0 Action is considered In-Kind

AlC-CCCS- Recovery (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Cost based on amount of off-stream water
sources needed and landowner participation.
AlC-CCCS- NRCS, RCD, Estimate for off-stream water source is
18.1.1.1 Action Step Livestock Develop off-stream waters sources for livestock. 2 10 SFPUC TBD $5,000/system.
AlC-CCCS- NRCS, RCD, Cost based on treating 3.3 miles (assume 1

18.1.1.2 Action Step Livestock Exclude cattle from entering stream riparian areas. 2 10 SFPUC 15.00 15.00 30 project/mile in 5% high IP) at a rate of $4.36/ft.
AlC-CCCS- Establish a monitoring protocol to determine the level NRCS, RCD,

18.1.1.3 Action Step Livestock of nutrient loading associated with livestock. 2 10 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AlC-CCCS- Exclude cattle from entering streams and tributaries NRCS, RCD,
18.1.1.4 Action Step Livestock of Alameda Creek to prevent nutrient loading issues. 2 10 SFPUC 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
AlC-CCCS- Minimize gully initiation by preventing livestock from NRCS, RCD,
18.1.1.5 Action Step Livestock over utilizing steeper sloped areas. 2 10 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AlC-CCCS- Recovery (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
20.1.1 Action Mining toxicity)
Cost based on type of water quality parameters to

Evaluate and provide solutions to address water AC Alliance, monitor. Estimate for water quality testing range
AlC-CCCS- quality concerns associated with gravel mining Alameda County, from $20 - $2,000/sample (Center for Watershed
20.1.1.1 Action Step Mining discharge operations within the Sunol Valley. 2 10 SFPUC TBD Science and Education, CCRWQCB).
Active and future mining should avoid and minimize
any changes to downstream water quality, including
AlC-CCCS- changes in turbidity, pH, temperature, and rate of AC Alliance,
20.1.1.2 Action Step Mining sedimentation. 2 10 SFPUC, Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
ACWD, Alameda
Flood Control,
Tailings, settling ponds, and other mining County SMARA,
infrastructure should ensure sediment, toxins, and NRCS, RCD,
AlC-CCCS- other deleterious substances do not enter streams RWQCB,
20.1.1.3 Action Step Mining through either direct runoff or subsurface flow. 2 15 SFPUC 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AlC-CCCS- Commercial modification, or curtailment of the species
Residential/
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
Residential/ zones and their floodplains or channel migration
AlC-CCCS- Commercial zones averts the need for bank erosion control in
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development most situations. 3 25 Cities, Counties 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/
AlC-CCCS- Commercial Minimize or avoid new development within riparian
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development zones and the 100 year floodprone zones. 3 25 City, Counties 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/ Develop policy and guidelines that address land
AlC-CCCS- Commercial conversion and attempt to minimize conversion-
22.1.1.3 Action Step Development related impacts within the aquatic environment. 3 25 Cities, Counties 0 Action is considered In-Kind


Residential/ flood control districts, and planning departments, etc.,
AlC-CCCS- Commercial on the critical importance of maintaining a mature
22.1.1.4 Action Step Development riparian and healthy riparian zone. 3 20 Cities, Counties 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/
AlC-CCCS- Commercial Minimize or prevent future development in remaining
22.1.1.5 Action Step Development undeveloped floodplains or off channel habitats. 3 20 Cities, Counties 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/ Minimize or prevent impairment to water quality
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Commercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Implement education programs and install signs to
Residential/ promote public awareness of salmon and steelhead
AlC-CCCS- Commercial and their habitats within the Alameda Creek Cities, Counties, Cost based on installing a minimum of 5 signs at
22.1.2.1 Action Step Development watershed. 3 5 County Planning 5.00 5 a rate of $1,000/sign.
Residential/ Develop filter or buffer systems that reduce pollutants Cost based on amount and type of filter or buffer
AlC-CCCS- Commercial from entering streams and waterways of Alameda strip needed. Estimate for filter strip is $9,00 to
22.1.2.2 Action Step Development Creek. 3 25 Cities, Counties TBD $24,000 for a 25ft wide filter strip.
AlC-CCCS- Address the present or threatened destruction,

23.1 Objective Roads/Railroads modification, or curtailment of habitat or range
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Minimize or prevent impairment to stream hydrology
Cost based on type and amount of actions to

AlC-CCCS- Cities, Counties, disconnect roads identified in road assessment.
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads Conduct actions that hydrologically disconnect roads. 3 25 NRCS TBD Estimate for road inventory is $1,148/mile.
Minimize or prevent the construction of new roads
AlC-CCCS- near high valve habitat areas or sensitive habitat Cities, Counties,
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads areas. 3 25 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Minimize or prevent impairment to passage and
or replacement bridges should be free span or
AlC-CCCS- constructed with the minimal amount of impairment to Cities, Counties,
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads the stream channel. 2 50 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AlC-CCCS- Ensure that all future road/stream crossing provide Cities, Counties,
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads passage for all steelhead life stages. 3 25 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport
High and medium priority roads should be
identified from road assessment.
AlC-CCCS- Address high and medium priority sediment delivery Cities, Counties, Recommendations to treat will depend on extent
23.1.3.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads sites associated with roads and railroads. 3 25 NRCS, RCD TBD and type of sediment being delivered.
Assess road runoff conditions and where necessary Cost based on road inventory of 3,934 mile of
address sediment and runoff sources from road road network at a rate of $1,148/mile and erosion
AlC-CCCS- networks and other actions that deliver sediment and assessment of 25% of total watershed acres at a
23.1.3.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads runoff to stream channels. 3 25 NRCS, RCD TBD rate of $15.14/acre.
timeline of necessary actions. Begin with a road
AlC-CCCS- survey focused on inner gorge roads followed by Cities, Counties,
23.1.3.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads roads in other settings. 3 25 NRCS, RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
AlC-CCCS- Severe Weather Address other natural or manmade factors

24.1 Objective Patterns affecting the species' continued existence
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

AlC-CCCS- Severe Weather Develop and implement severe drought measures ACWD, SFPUC,
24.1.1.1 Action Step Patterns that protect adult and juvenile migrating steelhead. 2 15 Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Develop severe drought measures that protect all
AlC-CCCS- Severe Weather steelhead spawning and rearing tributaries within the ACWD, SFPUC,
24.1.1.2 Action Step Patterns Alameda Creek watershed. 2 15 Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AlC-CCCS- Water Diversion modification, or curtailment of the species
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology
Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at

Develop a watershed wide hydrology model ACWD, Alameda a rate of $78,100/project. Anticipate this cost is
AlC-CCCS- Water Diversion incorporating operational schedules for all dams and Flood Control, underestimated for the level of results needed for
25.1.1.1 Action Step /Impoundment diversions. 2 10 SFPUC, Zone 7 39.50 39.50 79 watershed wide hydrology model.
flow program to improve survival at all life stages by ACWD, Alameda
improving the spatial and temporal pattern of surface Flood Control,
AlC-CCCS- Water Diversion flows throughout spawning, rearing, and migration DWR, SFPUC,
25.1.1.2 Action Step /Impoundment areas. 1 10 Zone 7 0 Action is considered In-Kind
AlC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion complexity (altered pool complexity and/or pool: riffle
25.1.2 Action /Impoundment ratio)
Evaluate and develop flow schedules below San

AlC-CCCS- Water Diversion Antonio and Del Valle reservoirs that maximize ACWD, DWR, Cost accounted for in above action steps under
25.1.2.1 Action Step /Impoundment current and potential habitat conditions. 1 10 SFPUC, Zone 7 0 Hydrology.
AC Alliance,
Design and install instream habitat enhancement ACWD, Alameda
projects to optimize habitat attributes for spawning Flood Control,
AlC-CCCS- Water Diversion and rearing associated with developed flow EB Parks, RCD,
25.1.2.2 Action Step /Impoundment schedules. 2 10 SFPUC, Zone 7 0 Costs accounted for in other recovey actions.

Coyote Creek Population
CCC Steelhead Winter Run


Sporadic surveys conducted between 1898 and the present indicate that steelhead were once
abundant in the Coyote Creek system, occurring within the Coyote Creek mainstem as well as 13
tributary streams (Leidy et al. 2005). However, anthropogenic development within the watershed
has since altered streamflow and degraded instream spawning and rearing habitat, significantly
disrupting salmonid migration pathways (Leidy et al. 2005). Steelhead presently persist in the
Coyote Creek system; however present conditions limit the ability of this system to support a
viable steelhead population.
Complete passage barriers at Coyote and Anderson reservoirs block passage to approximately 56
percent of the watershed (collectively), and all but one of the below-dam subbasins (Upper
Penitencia Creek) has been eliminated from anadromy by watershed development. Numerous
partial (some near-complete) barriers affect migration throughout the portion of the watershed
that remains accessible. The absence of regularly performed, standardized steelhead surveys in
this watershed precludes precise determination of steelhead abundance. However, available
survey information (Li 2001; Porcella 2002; Leicester 2008; Moore et al. 2008; Leicester 2009; Moore
et al. 2009; Smith 2009; Leicester & Smith 2014a, 2014b) indicate that steelhead persist in the
system, and that abundance is likely very low throughout the accessible reaches of Coyote Creek
mainstem downstream of Anderson Dam and the Upper Penitencia Creek subbasin (containing
Upper Penitencia Creek and its tributary Arroyo Aguague).
Surveys summarized in Leidy et al. (2005) indicate that O. mykiss have persisted in tributary
reaches upstream of Anderson and Coyote reservoirs, suggesting the watershed upstream of
these reservoirs was important steelhead habitat that supported moderate densities of
anadromous steelhead prior to habitat blockage. Anthropogenic habitat alteration within these
reaches remains limited, so they could again potentially provide important habitat for an
anadromous steelhead population if passage past Anderson and Coyote dams is restored.
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Coyote Creek 776

History of Land Use
Detailed discussion of the historical land uses within the Coyote Creek watershed is available in
Grossinger (2006). In general, light agricultural and ranching development began during the
Spanish Mission System of the late 1700s and gradually transitioned to more intensive
agricultural and urban development as the primary land uses within the watershed. Extensive
groundwater pumping, channelization of discontinuous and tributary channels, gravel mining,
road construction, and flood levee construction are among the land uses that affect the watershed
and stream functions within the Coyote Creek system. Watershed processes and hydrology are
affected by Coyote and Anderson reservoirs, which were constructed in 1936 and 1950,
respectively, to provide water for groundwater aquifer recharge, and urban and agricultural uses.
Currently, the primary land use types within the Coyote Creek watershed, accounting for
approximately 27- and 4-percent of the total watershed area, respectively (NMFS GIS 2009), are
urban, and to a lesser extent, agricultural development. The majority of this development is
concentrated within the watershed area below Anderson Reservoir where steelhead presently
have access, effectively concentrating the associated effects on the steelhead population.

The 322 square-mile Coyote Creek watershed (Santa Clara Valley Water District 2010) includes
the cities of Morgan Hill, Milpitas, and San Jose. 83 percent of the watershed is privately held, 14
percent is a combination of local and state parks and recreational holdings, and the remaining 3
percent is in Federal holdings (NMFS GIS 2009).
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) operates an extensive network of water
conveyance infrastructure (including Coyote and Anderson reservoirs), maintains responsibility
for flood control within Coyote Creek and neighboring watersheds, and performs stewardship
duties for its watersheds. Additionally, SCVWD is in the process of drafting a Habitat
Conservation Plan, the Three Creeks Habitat Conservation Plan (TC-HCP), to address current
and future operations throughout its coverage area that limit conditions for steelhead, as well as
a host of Federal and state-listed and special-concern species. Schedule for finalizing and
implementing the TC-HCP is uncertain at the time of this assessment; however, NMFS and
SCVWD are involved in ongoing discussions towards the goal of finalizing and implementing a
plan that will improve instream conditions for steelhead.
Resource management within the basin, including survey efforts and instream restoration efforts,
is largely carried out by SCVWD. However, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) has been active in performing stream surveys, and a host of public interest groups,
including Friends of Coyote Creek, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, CLEAN South Bay,

Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition, and the California Nature Conservancy, are active in the
watershed. For more information on the organizations active in Coyote Creek see SCBWMI 2001,
SCBWMI 2003, and SCBWMI 2011.

The following habitat indicators were rated Poor through the CAP process: physical barriers,
riparian tree diameter, spawning gravel quantity and distribution, toxicity, turbidity,
pool/riffle/flatwater ratio, gravel quality (bulk), gravel embeddedness, baseflow and
instantaneous flow condition (summer), estuary quality and extent, percent primary pools,
juvenile density and spatial structure, smolt and adult abundance, urbanization, road density,
and streamside road density. Recovery strategies will typically focus on ameliorating these
habitat indicators, although strategies that address other indicators may also be developed where
their implementation is critical for restoring properly functioning habitat conditions within the
watershed.
Current Conditions
our CAP viability analysis. The Coyote Creek CAP Viability Table results are provided below.

Water Quality: Turbidity and toxicity conditions have an overall rating of Poor due to the high
density of urbanization within the watershed below Anderson Dam, where water quality within
much of Coyote Creek is degraded and likely limiting steelhead survival within Coyote Creek.
Entrix (2000) notes that instream turbidity conditions likely limit adult migration, and limit
juvenile survival to the next lifestage at all but the upstream-most reaches below Anderson Dam.
The US Environmental Protection Agencys (US EPA) list of assessed waters includes Coyote
Creek as a threatened waterbody, signifying that although water quality conditions currently
support all uses, they appear to be declining (US EPA 2010A). Data for the most recent year for
which an EPA assessment are posted (2004) indicate that Coyote Creek water quality is impaired
due to debris, pesticides, and urban runoff, and threatens support of several water quality
attainment measures (US EPA 2010B). Threats contributing significantly to this condition include
channel modification, water diversion and impoundments, and residential development.

Sediment transport, and thereby instream substrate and its ability to support spawning and
invertebrate food resources, are highly affected by development and management of the Coyote
Creek system. Sediment conditions have an overall Poor ratting. Generally, overall distribution
of high quality substrate in the Coyote Creek system is likely highly affected by Anderson and
Coyote reservoirs, which block access to above-reservoir habitat, block downstream transport of
sediment, and affect sediment transport within downstream reaches due to hydrograph
alterations. Additionally, the lower gradient conditions, urbanization, and flood control projects
within the reaches downstream of Anderson Dam, to which steelhead are currently confined,
likely result in accumulation of fines that can also impair substrate quality. Downstream of
Anderson Dam, spawning gravels are limiting in Coyote Creek mainstem (Entrix 2000), but
appear to be available in adequate quantities in the Upper Penitencia Creek subbasin (Entrix 2000,
Stillwater Sciences 2006). Additionally, Entrix (2000) notes that food transport was the most
limiting factor in 3 of 7 reaches habitat typed (all below Anderson Dam). Threats contributing
significantly to this stress include channel modification, water diversion and impoundments, and
residential development.

Various reports document recent efforts between 1998 and 2008 to assess the density and
abundance of steelhead within the Coyote Creek system. As discussed above, the absence of
regularly performed, standardized surveys precludes precise determination of steelhead
abundance in this watershed. However, available survey information (Li 2001; Porcella 2002;
Leicester 2008; Moore et al. 2008; Leicester 2009; Moore et al. 2009; Smith 2009; Leicester & Smith
2014a, 2014b) suggests that steelhead abundance is likely very low. Viability conditions have a
rating of Poor. Highest steelhead densities occur within Upper Penitencia Creek and the
upstream reaches of Coyote Creek mainstem (downstream of Anderson Dam) where habitat is
generally better than habitat found within the other reaches. The Upper Penitencia Creek
tributary is relatively low in the system, and contains instream habitat that is generally suitable
for steelhead (primarily within upper reaches), although a partial barrier at SCVWDs Noble
Diversion may limit access to this habitat (see Stillwater Sciences 2006 for more on Upper
Penitencia Creek). Similarly, the upstream-most reaches of Coyote Creek mainstem downstream
of Anderson Dam contain habitat features that are, in general, suitable for steelhead. Reservoir
operations likely limit juvenile lifestages in Coyote Creek, and the presence of several significant
barriers may limit anadromy within much of the mainstem reach. Further discussion on
migratory barriers is provided below in Passage/Migration: Mouth or Confluence and Physical
Barriers. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include water diversion and
impoundments.

There are limited data available regarding the distribution of pool/riffle/flatwater ratios and pool
complexity within the Coyote Creek system. Quantitative surveys conducted by Entrix (2000)
calculated pool/run/flatwater/riffle ratios for Coyote Creek mainstem downstream of Anderson
Dam, and rapid, qualitative, assessments were performed by NMFS during site visits to several
reaches on Coyote Creek in 2009 (Howe and Stern 2009). Habitat complexity within the Coyote
Creek mainstem downstream of Anderson Dam is limiting, with many reaches dominated by
long flat-water sections and runs. This stress was rated as High for summer and winter rearing.
Above-reservoir data are limited, but considering the fact that many of these reaches continue to
support O. mykiss (Leidy et al. 2005), NMFS expects they contain high quality habitat suitable for
the support of steelhead.
Data on habitat complexity within the Upper Penitencia Creek subbasin are similarly limited.
However, Stillwater Sciences (2006) performed a limiting factors analysis for Upper Penitencia
Creek and identified reduced instream habitat (compared to likely historical conditions) as likely
limiting steelhead production (specifically the juvenile lifestages). Threats contributing
significantly to this condition include channel modification, water diversion and impoundments,
and residential development.

This stress was rated as Very High for summer rearing juveniles. Threats contributing
significantly to this condition include water diversion and impoundments.
Before European settlement, much of the reach of Coyote Creek mainstem downstream of
Anderson Reservoir was likely an intermittently wetted channel. Steelhead distribution is
currently limited to this section. SCVWD manages groundwater levels via instream percolation
in summer. Current reservoir operations manage the flows to such an extent that a significant
muting of the natural hydrograph occurs downstream of Anderson Dam. Additionally, current
reservoir operations result in much higher summer-time flows, and lower winter-time flows
within this reach than occurred historically, resulting in higher flows during summer rather than
during winter. These flows may provide suitable steelhead habitat within the reach below the
Anderson Dam (Spencer et al. 2006), but there is concern that current operations may
inadvertently adversely affect newly emerged fry and rearing young-of-the year by creating high
water velocities through homogeneous channel conditions. Additionally, reservoir releases may
not be ramped up and down (increased/decreased, respectively) in such a way as to prevent
stranding of juveniles. Further, these hydrograph alterations likely affect adult passage during
winter by muting attractant flows and curtailing passage opportunities at some partial, but
significant, migratory barriers (i.e., Singleton Rd Crossing, and Ogier Pond Complex). Further
refinement of discharge operations from Anderson Reservoir is warranted.

Although Upper Penitencia Creek is relatively less managed than Coyote Creek, the City of San
Jose operates a small reservoir (Cherry Flat) in the upper watershed, and SCVWD owns a
diversion facility on the creek (Noble Diversion) and operates off channel storage ponds and
discharge facilities along the creek. These facilities modify storm discharges, potentially
impacting adult and smolt passage, and juvenile rearing.

Numerous impairments to passage and migration exist within the Coyote Creek system, so
Passage/Migration conditions have an overall rating of Poor. Anderson and Coyote Reservoirs
block access to approximately 56 percent of the watershed, eliminating access to historically
important spawning and rearing reaches. CDFW identified 28 man-made barriers on Coyote
Creek downstream of Anderson Dam, and 14 man-made barriers on Upper Penitencia Creek
(Cleugh and Mcknight 2002). Of these, the ones at the Singleton Road low-flow crossing and the
Ogier Pond complex on Coyote Creek, are considered to be the most significant barriers to
upstream passage. While these barriers are considered partial barriers, their configurations,
coupled with the severely altered hydrology associated with water infrastructure management,
result in their functioning as near complete barriers. Additionally, outmigration of smolts within
Upper Penitencia Creek may be limited by flow availability in some years (Smith 2009). Threats
contributing significantly to this condition include channel modification, residential
development, and water diversion and impoundments.

The results of Buchan and Randall (2003) pertaining to the Condition of Flood Prone Area in
Coyote Creek and Upper Penitencia Creek were used to inform the CAP workbook. The
floodplain limitations present today in the Coyote Creek system downstream of Anderson Dam
are primarily due to urbanization and the associated effects of channel confinement and altered
hydrology, all of which have resulted in riparian encroachment, channel degradation, and
floodplain/stream channel disconnection. Connectivity between stream channel and floodplain
habitat may be improved in some locations within the Coyote Creek system through future
restoration efforts, and the installation of flood control projects that remediate out-dated flood
control methods and incorporate methods that allow for steam functions. Velocity Refuge
Conditions have a rating of Poor since floodplain connectivity has in many cases been
irretrievably lost due to urbanization; the overall degraded condition is expected to persist
throughout much of the system. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include
channel modification, residential development, and water diversion and impoundments.

The Coyote Creek watershed is more heavily developed than the Upper Penitencia Creek
watershed, and sediment transport is likely affected to a greater degree within Coyote Creek than
Upper Penitencia Creek (see discussions of sediment transport within Mining, and Sediment:
Gravel Quality and Distribution of Spawning Gravels). Within the CAP workbook, road density is
used to indicate the degree of sediment transport alteration within the watershed. Per watershed
characterization, the Coyote Creek system has high road densities concentrated within urbanized
area downstream of Anderson Dam (NMFS GIS 2009), indicating alterations to drainage
networks, streamflow and sediment transport and storage regimes, and accelerated erosion
processes. As a result, sediment transport from road density conditions have a rating of Poor.
Altered flow patterns within the Coyote Creek system, together with channel alterations such as
the Ogier Pond complex and instream diversion dams and percolation ponds (e.g., Metcalf
Percolation Pond, and the remnants of the Ford Road pond complex), may affect the flows
necessary to transport sediment and may effectively act as bed-load barriers (see discussions of
hydrology alterations within Mining, and Hydrology: Baseflow and Passage Flows). Collectively,
impaired sediment transport within the Coyote Creek system (downstream of Anderson Dam)
likely reduces instream gravel quantity and quality, increases fine sediment deposition, elevates
turbidity, and limits survival at all lifestages. Upstream of Anderson and Coyote Creek
Reservoirs, alterations to sediment transport processes are likely minimal. Threats contributing
significantly to this condition include roads and railroads, and water diversion and
impoundment.

Major landscape disturbance within the Coyote Creek system is associated with urban
development; 27 percent of the entire Coyote Creek watershed is developed as urban land uses
(NMFS GIS 2009). Urbanization is concentrated in the watershed area downstream of Anderson
Dam; 51 percent of the watershed area downstream of Anderson Dam is urbanized (NMFS GIS
2009). Due to blockage by Anderson and Coyote reservoirs, the current spatial extent of
urbanization traces the current steelhead distribution within the Coyote Creek watershed,
suggesting that steelhead are likely affected to a High degree by altered watershed processes
resulting from these landscaped disturbances. Threats contributing significantly to this condition
include channel modification, residential development, and water diversion and impoundments.

Buchan and Randall (2003) indicate that large wood is somewhat limiting within the Coyote
Creek mainstem, whereas large wood may not be limiting on Upper Penitencia Creek. However,
although large wood may not be particularly limiting in all reaches, shelter is generally known to
be limiting. Habitat Complexity: large wood and shelter conditions have an overall rating of Fair
for summer and winter rearing. Efforts are currently being made to increase large wood

frequency and instream shelter within the Coyote Creek system by SCVWD through its ongoing
Stream Maintenance Program (Moore 2010). Threats contributing significantly to this condition
include channel modification, residential development, and water diversion and impoundments.

High water temperatures throughout much of the Coyote Creek watershed downstream of
Anderson Dam likely limit juvenile steelhead survival during summer months. These elevated
temperatures, coupled with habitat limitations, likely preclude steelhead from rearing within
these reaches. Warm water inputs from off-channel pond complexes and in-stream groundwater
recharge facilities on both Coyote Creek (Spencer et al 2006) and Upper Penitencia Creek likely
exacerbate the effects of poor instream habitat conditions. SCVWD discharges water imported
from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to Coyote Creek near the base of Anderson Dam and to
Upper Penitencia Creek at the Robert Gross Percolation Ponds for groundwater recharge. In
Upper Penitencia Creek, the discharge of imported water from the Robert Gross Percolation
Ponds warms stream temperatures by several degrees during the smolt outmigration season (Will
and Stern 2012), a potentially significant effect. In addition to temperature limitations within
Upper Penitencia Creek and Coyote Creek downstream of Anderson Dam, the presence of the
complete passage barriers at Coyote and Anderson reservoirs block access passage to headwater
reaches within upper Coyote Creek that, prior to the construction of the dams, likely provided
important thermal refugia during summer. The lack of thermal refugia throughout the watershed
downstream of Anderson Dam could be modified to some degree by establishing a cold water
management zone on Coyote Creek (Santa Clara Valley Water District, United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, et al. 2003). Above-reservoir habitat and thermal refugia would remain
inaccessible unless above-reservoir passage is implemented (see Passage Above Reservoirs).
Threats contributing significantly to this condition include channel modification, residential

development, and water diversion and impoundments.

The habitat above Anderson and Coyote Creek reservoirs is presumably intact and in good
condition. However, the above-reservoir habitats are inaccessible to steelhead, and much of the
below-dam habitat has been degraded through urban development (including the Upper
Penitencia Creek subbasin) (NMFS GIS 2009), suggesting steelhead are likely confined to an area
characterized by generally poor riparian function and diversity. Within the below-reservoir
reaches, the reaches within the County Linear Park system are probably in the best condition, as
the riparian corridors within these reaches are relatively intact and in good condition. However,
even within these reaches species composition has been altered from historic conditions.
Alteration of the natural hydrologic regime has likely decreased sycamore and oak recruitment

and increased willow density and the introduction of Arundo donax and other exotics (e.g., acacia,
eucalyptus, and understory species such as German ivy, vinca, Himalayan blackberry, etc.).
Primary concerns associated with these alterations to the riparian species composition within the
Coyote Creek system include decreased large wood loading, increased riparian encroachment of
the channel, and migratory blockage by A. donax. Threats contributing significantly to this
condition include channel modification, residential development, and water diversion and
impoundments.
Threats
and tables that display data used in this analysis are provided in Coyote Creek CAP Results.
Much of Coyote Creek, especially within the downstream most reaches has been channelized; as
a result, this threat was rated as High for eggs, and Very High for all other targets. Steelhead are
presently absent from all tributaries to Coyote Creek downstream of Anderson Dam except for
the Upper Penitencia Creek subbasin, but historically likely occurred within three additional
tributaries (Lower Penitencia Creek, Lower Silver Creek, and Upper Silver Creek) (Leidy et al.
2005). Each of these three tributaries has experienced significant channel modification that has
resulted in habitat loss, channel filling, or channel realignment, eliminating their accessibility for
migratory steelhead, and resulting in habitat conditions unsuitable for salmonids.

The 2000 census estimated the population within the Coyote Creek area at over 614,698
individuals; 23% of the watershed has a housing density higher than 1 unit per 20 acres, and 27%
of the watershed area is developed as urban land uses (NMFS GIS 2008). This threat was rated
as High or Very High across all targets. Development is concentrated within the watershed area
downstream of the reservoir (51% of watershed area downstream of Anderson Reservoir is
developed as urban, NMFS GIS 2011). The high level of urban development increases impervious
areas and pollutant input levels and alters hydrology impairing instream conditions (passage,
instream habitat, hydrology, and floodplain connection) necessary for the support of a steelhead
population. Due to blockage by Anderson and Coyote Creek reservoirs, the current spatial extent
of this urbanization traces the current steelhead distribution in the Coyote Creek system,
suggesting that steelhead are likely affected to a high degree. Effects to instream conditions
related to existing residential and commercial developments may continue into the future. Future

development within riparian and near stream areas is expected to be limited, and future
restoration efforts may help to ameliorate some development-related effects. However, once
established, urban/suburban development is rarely removed, making its impacts irreversible.
Therefore, any increase in residential and commercial development would likely exacerbate
existing limiting conditions for steelhead.
Roads and Railroads

Like residential and commercial development, roads are associated with high density
urbanization within the Coyote Creek watershed. This threat was rated as Medium for eggs,
High for adults, winter rearing juveniles, and smolts, and Very High for summer rearing juveniles
and watershed processes. More roads may be built to serve added development, and once
established, these roads are unlikely to be removed. Additionally, the Coyote Creek system has
a relatively high concentration of roads within riparian zones (3.3 miles of roads per square mile
of 100 meter riparian buffer) (NMFS GIS 2009). Although new roads would likely be built to
current standards (e.g., NMFS fish passage guidelines) and future repairs of existing roadways
and crossings may result in improvements to the current condition for steelhead, the ongoing
baseline for urban development, including roads, is so Poor that any increase in road density
would will be considered a problematic effect.

The Coyote Creek watershed is highly affected by water development. SCVWD operates a
complex system of dams, canals, diversions, pipelines, and associated facilities within the Coyote
Creek system to manage water supplies from both imported and local sources (SCVWD TC-HCP
Draft April 2009). SCVWD facilities within the Coyote Creek system include two major reservoirs
(Coyote and Anderson), several diversion facilities and instream groundwater aquifer recharge
facilities, and multiple pipeline discharge points. Water imported from neighboring watersheds
as well as the Sacramento River Delta is discharged into the Coyote Creek system. These
diversion and discharge facilities and operations affect all lifestages within the Coyote Creek
system, altering instream habitat, hydrology, and water temperature, limiting migration period,
blocking passage, and perhaps limiting migratory cues dependent upon flows.
Mining
Primary effects from previous gravel mining within the Coyote Creek watershed are associated
with the Ogier Ponds complex, the location of former off-channel gravel quarry pits that
captured Coyote Creek in 1997 when the levee separating the natural channel from the quarry
pits was breached by high flows. This threat was rated as High for winter rearing juveniles, and
Very High for adults, summer rearing juveniles, smolts and watershed processes. The resulting
reorientation of the stream at this location has altered flood plain connectivity and sediment

transport, and created passage problems for migrating steelhead. During site visits in September
2009, NMFS noted the different substrate between reaches upstream and downstream of the
Ogier Pond complex (Howe and Stern 2009). Fines dominated the substrate downstream of the
Ogier Pond complex, while gravels dominated the substrate in upstream reaches, suggesting
historic gravel mining operations adversely affect substrate distribution and quality.
Disease, Predation, and Competition

The Coyote Creek system contains exotic predatory fish species, so this threat was rated High for
the smolt lifestage. Predation of juvenile steelhead is a concern within certain portions of the
watershed, primarily in those areas dominated by warm water and perennial flow that support
predatory exotic species (e.g., largemouth bass). These areas are typically located low in the
Coyote Creek watershed. Additionally, discharges from the Robert Gross percolation ponds on
Upper Penitencia Creek are of concern, as these ponds support a suite of exotic fish species.
SCVWD is making efforts in select reaches to screen these discharges to preclude the introduction
of exotic fish into the natural channel. Recent SCVWD screening efforts include a portion of the
Robert Gross Pond complex on Upper Penitencia Creek (Nguyen 2010).

Effects of recreational areas and activities are limited, and in general, recreational areas within
the Coyote Creek watershed provide protections for the creek and its associated habitats that
contribute to the support of steelhead within the system. However, structures within both county
and city parks affect passage, e.g., the Singleton Road crossing within the Coyote Creek County
Linear Park system (discussed above), and paved bike paths, levees and road and path crossings
may affect bank maintenance, and limit opportunities to expand channel width, reconnect the
floodplain, and/or remedy barriers to passage. This threat was rated as High for adults, summer
and winter rearing juveniles, and smolts.
Limiting Stresses, Life Stages, and Habitats

Threat and stress analysis within the CAP workbook suggests that extensive watershed
development for urban, suburban, and commercial land uses are likely limiting factors affecting
steelhead abundance within the Coyote Creek watershed. Numerous partial (some near-
complete) barriers exist, and extensive channelization has eliminated access and functionality of
all but one subbasin (Upper Penitencia Creek). Additionally, a complex system of water storage,
conveyance, and instream and off-channel groundwater recharge operations significantly alter
the hydrology of Coyote Creek. These effects affect stream functions and habitat, and limit all
lifestages of steelhead within the Coyote Creek system. Restoration actions should target these

issues within high potential stream reaches and consider passage above Anderson Dam and
Coyote Dam in order to provide access to important above-reservoir reaches.

Barriers to passage downstream of Anderson Dam should be systematically remediated.
Priorities should focus on those that occur low in the system. Those of primary concern include,
but are not limited to, Singleton Road Low Flow Crossing and Ogier Ponds on Coyote Creek.
Passage Above Reservoirs

The IP model predicts that above reservoir reaches are important for the support of a robust
steelhead population within the Coyote Creek system (Spence et al. 2008; Spence et al. 2012), and
the habitat and function of these above reservoir reaches cannot be effectively replaced through
enhancement of downstream reaches due to natural differences in gradient and hydrology
between the below- and above-reservoir reaches, and the effects of anthropogenic landscape
alteration (e.g., urbanization and floodplain development) within the below-reservoir reaches.
Thus, Anderson Dam and Coyote Dam, in that order (downstream-most reservoir first), should
be assessed for passage options, and biologically sound passage programs or volitional passage
facilities that coordinate with and allow for ongoing reservoir operations should be implemented.
Reservoir Operation to Benefit All Lifestages of Steelhead

Anderson and Coyote Reservoirs should be operated in such a manner as to benefit all lifestages
of steelhead within Coyote Creek. Considerations should include, but not be limited to, water
temperature, flow velocity, ramping rates (as necessary to prevent scour of eggs, or displacement
or stranding of juveniles), sediment transport, channel maintenance, instream habitat, adult and
smolt migratory cues, and reflecting a natural, unimpaired hydrograph.
Reduce Imported Water Uses

A detailed study assessing the effects of imported water uses on the steelhead population within
Coyote Creek should be conducted. The degree to which this practice affects the steelhead
population within Coyote Creek watershed is not well known. Alternative methods in off-
channel locations should be pursued to meet the SCVWDs goals for groundwater recharge with
imported water.


stream channel. When possible, existing development should be retrofitted to restore access to
floodplain and flood bench habitat, and to allow for natural channel functions.

Restoration efforts should focus on providing channel maintenance/forming flows throughout
Coyote Creek downstream of Anderson Dam to mobilize bedload material, provide suitable
gravel material from upstream sources, and remove/remediate structures and areas of the stream
that impair sediment transport processes (e.g., the Ogier Pond complex, Coyote Percolation Pond
complex).
Increase Instream Habitat and Cover and Increase Instream Channel Complexity
Instream habitat and cover should be improved within the Coyote Creek system downstream of
Anderson Dam. Methods may include increasing sinuosity, creating side channels and gravel
bars, and placing large woody debris, rock weirs, and boulders within affected reaches. All
structures should be designed to function within an established range of flows to optimize habitat
conditions for all steelhead lifestages.

Shelter ratings are Low within much of Coyote Creek downstream of Anderson Dam due largely
to an absence of LWD and reservoir operations quality. Where applicable, restoration efforts
should incorporate instream wood/boulder structures into degraded reaches to improve habitat
complexity and shelter availability.

Efforts should be made to improve water quality throughout the urbanized reaches of Coyote
Creek system. In particular, efforts should focus on limiting or treating urban runoff, as necessary,
to decrease turbidity, address pH fluctuations, limit toxicity concerns, and reduce concentrations
of pathogens, pesticides, and metals.
Improve Riparian Composition

Much of the Coyote Creek watershed downstream of Anderson Dam would benefit from
improved riparian composition and structure, which would decrease riparian encroachment of
the channel, improve LWD recruitment, and increase instream shelter for juvenile fish. General
practices to improve riparian condition include removing exotic vegetation and implementing
channel maintenance flows necessary to support a riparian corridor that is diverse in species and
age structure.

Literature Cited
Buchan, L. A. J. and P. J. Randall (2003). Assessment of Stream Ecosystem Functions for the
Coyote Creek Watershed.

Grossinger, R. M., R. Askevold, et al. (2006). Coyote Creek Watershed Historical Ecology Study:
Historical Conditions and Landscape Change in the Eastern Santa Clara Valley,
California, San Francisco Estuary Institute.
Howe, D. and G. Stern (2009). Reconnaissance Assessment of Coyote Creek Instream Flow
Conditions from "Old Golf Course Road Crossing" to Gauge Station SF 82 located
downstream of Anderson Dam, National Marine Fisheries Service: 27.
Leicester, M. (2008). Upper Penitencia Creek 2008 Fish Sampling Results, California Department
of Fish and Game.
Leicester, M. (2009). Upper Penitencia Creek Fish Sampling, California Department of Fish and
Game.
Leicester, M. and Smith, J. (2014a). Fish Population Sampling in Fall 2014 on Coyote Creek.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife: 21.
Leicester, M. and Smith, J. (2014b). Upper Penitencia Creek Fish Resources in 2014. California
Department of Fish and Wildlife: 17.

Moore, M. (2010). Personal Communication. Biologist. Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Moore, M., L. Porcella, D. Salsbery, V. Stephens. (2009). Mid-Coyote Creek Flood Protection
Project: Baseline Fisheries Monitoring Report Year 2. Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD): 54.
Moore, M., L. Porcella, D. Salsbery, K. Sibley. (2008). Mid-Coyote Creek Flood Protection
Project: Baseline Fisheries Monitoring Report Year 1 (2007), Santa Clara Valley Water
District (SCVWD): 49.
Nguyen, N. (2010). Personal Communication. Santa Clara Valley Water District
Porcella, L. (2002). Memo - Fish Trapping, Summary 1998-2001 upmigrant trapping and 1998-
2000 outmigrant trapping, Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek, Santa Clara Valley
Water District (SCVWD): 26.
Santa Clara Valley Water District (2010). web page

http://www.valleywater.org/Services/CoyoteFastFacts.aspx. Retrieved October 16, 2010,
2010.
Santa Clara Valley Water District, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al. 2003.
Settlement Agreement Regarding Water Rights of the Santa Clara Valley Water District
on Coyote, Guadalupe, and Stevens Creeks.
SCBWMI (Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative). 2001. Volume One, Watershed


Smith, J. (2009). Upper Penitencia Creek Steelhead, San Jose State University: 4.
Spencer, W. D., S. J. Barry, et al. (2006). Report of Independent Science Advisors for Santa Clara
Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Community Conservation Plan
(HCP/NCCP).
Stillwater Sciences (2006). Upper Penitencia Creek Limiting Factors Analysis Final Technical
Report.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2010 A). "Assessment Data for
California, Coyote Watershed (8 Digit USGS Cataloging Unit), Year 2004." Retrieved
October 15, 2010, 2010.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2010 B). "305(b) Lists/Assessment
Unit Information Year 2004." Retrieved October 15, 2010, 2010, from
http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/enviro_all.wcontrol?p_au_id=CAR20530021199902
18112824_00&p_cycle=2004.

Coyote Creek CAP Viability Results

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
IP-km (>1.3 Key
Habitat Complexity Frequency (BFW 10- (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key (>1.3 Key Poor
Pieces/100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of streams/
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 100
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
Tree Diameter 39% Class 5 & >69% Class 5 &
Riparian Vegetation & 6 across IP- & 6 across IP- Not Specified
(North of SF Bay) 6 across IP-km 6 across IP-km
km km
Tree Diameter
Riparian Vegetation rating "D" rating "D" rating "D" Not Defined rating "D" across Poor
(South of SF Bay)
across IP-km across IP-km across IP-km IP-km

Quantity & <50% of IP-Km <50% of IP-km or
Sediment Distribution of or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km <16 IP-km Poor
50-80%
<50% Response >80% Response 50-80% Response
Floodplain Response
Velocity Refuge Reach Reach Not Defined Reach Fair
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
IP-km maintains
severity score of
3 or lower
<1 spawner per >1 spawner per >1 spawner per
low risk
IP-km to < low IP-km to < low IP-km to < low
spawner
Size Viability Density risk spawner risk spawner risk spawner Fair
density per
density per density per density per
Spence (2008)
Spence (2008) Spence (2008) Spence (2008)
Flow Conditions
Condition)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 50
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% (0.85mm)
Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) and >30% (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and and <30% Not Specified
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
Gravel Quality IP-km (>50%
Sediment (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream Poor
(Embeddedness) stream average
scores of 1 & 2)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Juveniles Condition

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
meters) meters)
<50% of 51% to 74% of 75% to 89% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
Habitat Complexity (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average Poor
pool frequency)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of streams/
NMFS Flow
Factor Score >75
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
Hydrology and/or Magnitude of Diversions/10 IP Diversions/10 Diversions/10 0 Diversions Diversions/10 IP- Poor
Diversions km IP km IP km km
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
50% to 74% of
streams/ IP-km
(>70% average
stream canopy;
>85% where coho
IP overlaps)
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
Tree Diameter
(South of SF Bay)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
(>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream Poor
scores of 1 & 2)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
<50% IP km 50 to 74% IP km 75 to 89% IP km >90% IP km 50 to 74% IP-km
(<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT;
Temperature
Water Quality <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT Fair
(MWMT)
where coho IP where coho IP where coho IP where coho IP where coho IP
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
IP-km maintains
severity score of
3 or lower
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5
Fish/m^2 Fish/m^2
<50% of 50-74% of 75-90% of >90% of <50% of Historical
Viability Spatial Structure Poor
Historical Range Historical Range Historical Range Historical Range Range
Winter Large Wood streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-km
4 Rearing Condition Habitat Complexity Frequency (Bankfull (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key (>6 Key Fair
Juveniles Width 0-10 meters) Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100 Pieces/100

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
meters) meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Pool/Riffle/Flatwater streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km
Habitat Complexity Not Specified
Ratio (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools; (>40% Pools;
<50% of IP-Km
Passage/Migration Physical Barriers or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km Not Specified
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
Tree Diameter
(South of SF Bay)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
(>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream (>50% stream Not Specified
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
IP-km maintains
severity score of
3 or lower

Properly
Condition
>5 Diversions/10
Hydrology and/or Magnitude of Diversions/10 IP Diversions/10 Diversions/10 0 Diversions Poor
IP km
Diversions km IP km IP km
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 100
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% IP-Km (>6 50-74% IP-Km 75-90% IP-Km >90% IP-Km (>6 50-74% IP-km (>6
No Evidence of
Chronic Chronic
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of streams/
IP-km maintains
severity score of
3 or lower
Smolt Smolt
Smolt
abundance to
produce low
Size Viability Abundance high risk moderate risk high risk spawner Poor
risk spawner
spawner density spawner density per
density per
per Spence density per Spence (2008)
Spence (2008)
(2008) Spence (2008)
>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of >10% of

>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of
4% of Watershed
Landscape Patterns Agriculture Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Very Good
in Agriculture
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of
0% of Watershed
Landscape Patterns Timber Harvest Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Watershed in Very Good
in Timber Harvest
Timber Harvest Timber Harvest Timber Harvest Timber Harvest
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of
27% of watershed
Landscape Patterns Urbanization watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 watershed >1 Poor
>1 unit/20 acres
25-50% Intact
Historical Historical Historical Historical
Riparian Vegetation Species Composition Historical Species Fair
Species Species Species Species
Composition
2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6
>3 Miles/Square 4.5 Miles/Square
Sediment Transport Road Density Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Poor
Mile Mile
Mile Mile Mile
0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1
Streamside Road >1 Miles/Square 3.3 Miles/Square
Sediment Transport Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Poor
Density (100 m) Mile Mile
Mile Mile Mile

Coyote Creek CAP Threat Results

2 Channel Modification Very High High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High
3 Disease, Predation and Competition Medium Low Medium Low High Low Medium
4 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Medium Not Specified Medium Not Specified Medium Not Specified Medium
5 Suppression Not Specified Not Specified Low Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Low
6 Fishing and Collecting Medium Not Specified Medium Not Specified Medium Not Specified Medium
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Not Specified Low Low Low Not Specified Low
9 Mining Very High Medium Very High High Very High Very High Very High
10 Recreational Areas and Activities High Not Specified High High High Medium High
11 Residential and Commercial Development Very High High Very High Very High High Very High Very High
12 Roads and Railroads High Medium Very High High High Very High Very High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Medium Low Medium Low Medium Medium Medium
14 Water Diversion and Impoundments Very High Medium Very High High Very High Very High Very High

Coyote Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Interior San Francisco Bay) Recovery Actions
CoC-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species
CoC-CCCS- Recovery
CoC-CCCS- Assess tidally influenced habitat and develop plan to Cost based on estuary use/residence model at a
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary restore tidal channels. 2 10 CDFW, USFWS 169.50 169.50 339 rate of $338,679/project.
Develop Estuary Protection and Enhancement
CoC-CCCS- Guidelines to maintain estuary function and provide
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary information for estuary restoration. 2 20 CDFW, USFWS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CoC-CCCS- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species
CoC-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain

Assess floodplain conditions within Coyote Creek City of San Jose,

(see Buchan and Randall 2003). Develop and County of Santa
implement plans to maintain and create floodplain Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- Floodplain areas. Reconnect disconnected floodplain habitat Clara Valley Cost based on wetland restoration model at a rate
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity where feasible. 2 10 Water District 128.00 128.00 256 of $255,968/project.
Develop and implement plans to provide seasonally Santa Clara
CoC-CCCS- Floodplain appropriate flows from Anderson Dam necessary to Valley Water
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity activate the floodplain. 1 5 District TBD
Anderson Dam outlet works to provide stream
channel maintenance flows. When possible, time
these flows so that they coincide with natural rainfall Santa Clara
CoC-CCCS- Floodplain events. Valley Water
2.1.1.3 Action Step Connectivity 1 5 District TBD
CoC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
CoC-CCCS- Recovery

Restoration- Floodplain Connectivity, Restoration- Santa Clara
CoC-CCCS- Habitat Complexity, Threat- Channel Modification, Valley Water Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology and Threat- Residential/Commercial Development). 1 5 District 79.00 79 $78,100/project.
CoC-CCCS- Recovery
Improve and maintain exiting fish passage structures
below reservoir facilities (i.e., fish ladders); identify
and remedy problem culverts, crossings, grade City of San Jose,
control structures, diversions, etc. in the Coyote County of Santa Cost of replacing culvert at Singleton Road at a
Creek watershed. Focus on Singleton road and Clara, Santa rate of $1,148,899 for a large waterway. Cost for
CoC-CCCS- Ogier Ponds. Clara Valley Ogier Ponds will be determined on a site-specific
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage 1 5 Water District 1,149 1,149 basis.

Evaluate the feasibility and benefit of providing

passage (both adult immigration and adult/smolt
emigration) to the stream reaches located upstream
of Anderson and Coyote dams. Consider passage
specifics at each dam separately; include a suite of
options in this assessment, including volitional (fish Santa Clara
CoC-CCCS- ladder) and non-volitional (trap and haul) passage Valley Water Cost for producing and assessment and
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage facilities. 1 5 District 113.00 113 evaluation of alternatives for fish passage.
If found feasible and beneficial, acquire funding Santa Clara

CoC-CCCS- necessary to ensure the long-term operations, and Valley Water
5.1.1.3 Action Step Passage future improvement of this passage program. 1 5 District TBD
program(s) that are coupled with the reservoir flow Santa Clara
CoC-CCCS- plans and operations necessary to facilitate long- Valley Water
5.1.1.4 Action Step Passage term implementation. 1 10 District TBD
CoC-CCCS- Habitat modification, or curtailment of the species
CoC-CCCS- Recovery
6.1.1 Action Habitat Complexity Improve frequency of primary pools and shelters
Identify locations where pool frequency and habitat City of San Jose, Cost based on treating 14 miles (assume 1
complexity are limiting, and develop and implement County of Santa project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
site specific plans to improve these conditions. Clara, Santa $31,200/mile. Cost may increase with use of
CoC-CCCS- Consider flow rates and discharges when designing Clara Valley engineered structures such as log jams, boulder
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity habitat enhancement features. 2 10 Water District 225.00 225.00 450 clusters, etc.
CoC-CCCS- Recovery

resulted in decreased shelter, LWD frequency, and City of San Jose,
specific plans to improve these conditions. Consider Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- flow rates and discharges when designing LWD and Clara Valley Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity shelter enhancement features. 2 10 Water District 69.00 69.00 138 rate of $137,833/project.
City of San Jose,

County of Santa
Focus initial efforts to restore instream habitat within Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- the Cold Water Management Zone downstream of Clara Valley
6.1.2.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity Anderson Dam 2 10 Water District 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
City of San Jose,

County of Santa Cost for fish/habitat restoration monitoring at a
Clara, Santa rate of $137,833/project. These costs could be
CoC-CCCS- Perform pre- and post-project monitoring to assess Clara Valley higher if greater level of monitoring is required in
6.1.2.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity steelhead use within improved reaches. 2 10 Water District 69.00 69.00 138 the future.
CoC-CCCS- Recovery
Identify reaches dominated by exotic vegetation, and City of San Jose, Cost based on treating 1.4 miles (assume 1
CoC-CCCS- develop and implement site specific plans to restore County of Santa project/mile in 5% high IP with 80 acres/mile) at a
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian these reaches with native vegetation. 3 10 Clara 58.50 58.50 117 rate of $1036/acre.

City of San Jose,

Continue, and expand upon current efforts, including County of Santa
those of Santa Clara Valley Water District's Stream Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- Maintenance Program, to remove exotic vegetation Clara Valley
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian (including Arundo donax), and restore these reaches. 3 10 Water District 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Identify reaches suffering from riparian
encroachment, and develop and implement site City of San Jose,
Consider thinning of dense native riparian vegetation Clara, Santa Cost based on treating 4.2 miles (assume 1
CoC-CCCS- as necessary to better allow healthy species- and Clara Valley project/mile in 15% high IP with 80 acres/mile) at
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian age- composition. 3 5 Water District 592 592 a rate of $1,761/acre.
Develop and implement flow schedules from
reservoirs necessary to maintain healthy riparian Santa Clara
CoC-CCCS- conditions (see Objective, Actions, and Action Steps Valley Water
7.1.1.4 Action Step Riparian within: Restoration- Hydrology). 2 5 District 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
CoC-CCCS- Recovery
Identify sources of fine sediment, and develop and

implement a plan to address these sources; include
the effects of the Ogier Ponds complex, on-channel City of San Jose,
percolation ponds (including Metcalf Pond, and the County of Santa
remnants of the Ford Road Pond complex), water Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- system operations (hydrograph alterations), and Clara Valley Cost based on erosion assessment of 10% of
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment urban development in this assessment. 2 5 Water District 395.00 395 total watershed acres at a rate of $15.14/acre
Santa Clara
CoC-CCCS- Provide flows and instream conditions necessary to Valley Water Cost accounted for in above action step. See
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment provide mobilization and maintenance of gravels. 1 5 District 0 Floodplain Connectivity
Perform reach restoration to facilitate gravel

maintenance. Include methods such as instream
restoration (e.g. Ogier Ponds complex, and the
remnants of the Ford Road Pond complex), isolation
of current on-stream percolation ponds (Metcalf City of San Jose,
Pond), and a gravel placement program. Include County of Santa Estimate is for one mile of large scale reach
flow schedules necessary for mobilization and Clara, Santa restoration (NMFS 2008, pg 27) - cost will vary
CoC-CCCS- "maintenance" of gravel quantity and quality suitable Clara Valley depending on extent of restoration efforts, and
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment for steelhead. 1 5 Water District 4,218 4,218 methodologies employed.
CoC-CCCS- Recovery
Evaluate the effects of on-channel ponds, and
groundwater recharge facilities, on stream City of San Jose,
temperature. Develop and implement a plan to County of Santa
address any effects. Include methods to address Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- warming of stream water within restoration plans for Clara Valley Cost based on installing a minimum of 3 stream
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality these reaches. 2 5 Water District 1.50 2 temperature gauges at a rate of $500/gauge.
City of San Jose,

During the smoltification and smolt out-migration County of Santa
period, do not discharge water into the channel that Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- will deleteriously warm the receiving waters beyond Clara Valley
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality the background instream water temperature. 2 5 Water District TBD

Santa Clara
CoC-CCCS- Maintain suitable temperatures downstream of Valley Water
10.1.1.3 Action Step Water Quality Anderson Dam. 2 5 District TBD
CoC-CCCS- Recovery
Evaluate point and non-point sources contributing to Cost for a minimum of 3 continuous water quality
poor water quality, including sources contributing City of San Jose, gauges at a rate of $5,000/gauge. This action
CoC-CCCS- debris, pesticides, and sediment (turbidity); develop County of Santa should be coordinated with other water quality
10.1.2.1 Action Step Water Quality and implement a plan to address these sources. 2 5 Clara 15.00 15 monitoring actions.
City of San Jose,

County of Santa
Encourage the use of native vegetation in new Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- landscaping to reduce the need for watering and Clara Valley
CoC-CCCS- Address other natural or manmade factors

CoC-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and

City of San Jose,

County of Santa
Implement standardized assessment protocols (i.e., Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- CDFW habitat assessment protocols) to ensure ESU- Clara Valley
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability wide consistency. 2 5 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Santa Clara
CoC-CCCS- Valley Water Costs accounted for under the Coastal
11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability Perform standardized adult spawning (redd) surveys. 2 10 District 0 Monitoroing Plan - see Monitoring Chapter
Santa Clara
11.1.1.3 Action Step Viability Perform standardized smolt outmigration surveys. 2 District 0 Monitoroing Plan - see Monitoring Chapter
Santa Clara
11.1.1.4 Action Step Viability Perform standardized juvenile rearing surveys. 2 District 0 Monitoroing Plan - see Monitoring Chapter
Monitor population status for response to recovery

actions, habitat improvements, and recovery action City of San Jose,
monitoring efforts to reflect new habitat Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- improvements and accessible habitat expansions; Clara Valley Costs accounted for under the Coastal
11.1.1.5 Action Step Viability use this information to adapt recovery strategies. 2 5 Water District 0 Monitoroing Plan - see Monitoring Chapter
CoC-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

11.2 Objective Viability mechanisms
CoC-CCCS- Recovery Increase density, abundance, spatial structure, and

CDFW, CDFW
Law
Enforcement,
City of San Jose,
County of Santa
environmental law enforcement personnel (i.e., OLE, Santa
CoC-CCCS- CDFW wardens; park rangers, federal service Clara Valley Cost estimate for Fish and Wildlife Warden from
11.2.1.1 Action Step Viability enforcement agents, etc.). 3 30 Water District 9.34 9.34 9.34 9.34 9.34 56 Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009.

CoC-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species
CoC-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

CDFW, City of
Design channel modifying projects to fully minimize Milpitas, Santa
CoC-CCCS- Channel and mitigate effects and, where possible, implement Clara Valley Cost based on treating 3.8 miles (assume 25% of
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification and remedy existing poor conditions. 2 10 Water District 2,033 2,033 4,066 total flood channel) at a rate of $1,070,400/mile.
City of Milpitas,
City of San Jose,
County of Santa
Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- Channel Where feasible, implement alternatives to bank Clara Valley
13.1.1.2 Action Step Modification hardening; utilize bioengineering. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Milpitas,
City of San Jose,
County of Santa
All proposed levees should be designed to account Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- Channel for minimal maintenance associated with an intact Clara Valley
13.1.1.3 Action Step Modification and functioning riparian zone. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of Milpitas,
City of San Jose,
County of Santa
When levees are utilized, design to allow Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- Channel maintenance of an intact and functioning riparian Clara Valley
City of Milpitas,
City of San Jose,
integrate other habitat-forming features including Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- Channel large woody debris and riparian plantings and other Clara Valley
City of Milpitas,
Thoroughly investigate the ultimate cause of channel City of San Jose,
modifications and maintenance. Identify and target Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- Channel remediation of watershed process disruption as an Clara Valley
City of Milpitas,
City of San Jose,
County of Santa
Promote streamside conservation measures, Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- Channel including conservation easements, setbacks, and Clara Valley Cost based on amount of conservation measures
13.1.1.7 Action Step Modification riparian buffers (CDFG 2004). 2 10 Water District TBD needed and landowner participation.
City of Milpitas,
Evaluate existing and future stream crossings to City of San Jose,
identify threats to natural hydrologic processes. County of Santa Cost based on treating 11 road crossing (1
Replace or retrofit crossings to achieve more natural Clara, Santa impassable, 10 partially impassable) at a rate of
CoC-CCCS- Channel conditions, and improved passage and stream Clara Valley $1,07,400/total barrier and $$639,247/partial
13.1.1.9 Action Step Modification function. 2 10 Water District 3,412 3,412 6,824 barrier.


managed retreat (removal of problematic City of Milpitas,
infrastructure and replacement with native vegetation City of San Jose,
CoC-CCCS- Channel or flood tolerant land uses) for areas highly County of Santa
Disease/
CoC-CCCS- Predation
Disease/
CoC-CCCS- Recovery Predation Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
Identify locations within the watershed that support

exotic piscivorous fish species, and develop and CDFW, City of
implement a plan to decrease the effects of predation San Jose,
Disease/ habitat and cover that provides refuge for salmonids, Clara, Santa Cost based on amount of exotic piscivorous fish
CoC-CCCS- Predation and/or the elimination of instream conditions that Clara Valley species to be removed. Cost for pikeminnow
Disease/
CoC-CCCS- Predation Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
14.2 Objective /Competition mechanisms
Disease/
CoC-CCCS- Recovery Predation Prevent or minimize reduced density, abundance,
Continue programs to screen off channel percolation City of San Jose,

ponds to prevent the introduction of exotic, predatory, County of Santa
Disease/ warm water fishes into the channel from these Clara, Santa Cost based on amount of fish screens needed.
CoC-CCCS- Predation sources. Develop and implement these programs Clara Valley Cost for fish screens estimated to range between
14.2.1.1 Action Step /Competition where not in place. 2 50 Water District TBD $16,040 to $64,158/screen
CoC-CCCS- Address the present or threatened destruction,

20.1 Objective Mining modification, or curtailment of habitat or range
CoC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed

20.1.1 Action Mining processes
Evaluate limiting factors affecting steelhead within
the Ogier Ponds complex, including: adult, smolt,
and juvenile passage; juvenile rearing; stream
functions (sediment transport, hydrology, etc.); County of Santa Cost based on fish/habitat restoration monitoring
stream temperatures; and support of exotic Clara, Santa at a rate of $137,833/project. Cost is likely
CoC-CCCS- piscivorous fish species. Clara Valley conservative and could be higher depending on
20.1.1.1 Action Step Mining 1 5 Water District 138.00 138 additional parameters to be evaluated.
Develop and implement a plan to remediate the
Ogier Ponds reach; coordinate with NMFS during
plan development (see: Restoration- Floodplain
Connectivity, Restoration- Passage, Restoration- City of San Jose,
CoC-CCCS- Habitat Complexity, Restoration- Sediment, County of Santa Cost based on amount and method of ponds to
20.1.1.2 Action Step Mining Restoration- Temperature). 1 5 Clara TBD be restored/enhanced.
21.1 Objective Recreation habitat or range
CoC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain

City of San Jose,

Evaluate the effects of recreational facilities such as County of Santa
bike/pedestrian trails, and road crossings that may Clara, Santa Cost based on miles of recreational facilities.
CoC-CCCS- constrain opportunities to expand channel width Clara Valley Cost expected to be less than road inventory
21.1.1.1 Action Step Recreation and/or reconnect floodplain. 3 5 Water District TBD methods estimated at $1,148/mile.

Develop and implement a plan that remediates
existing recreational facilities to allow for stream City of San Jose,
functions, and locates new facilities in such a way County of Santa
they do not constrain channel width or floodplain Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- connection (see Restoration- Floodplain Clara Valley
21.1.1.2 Action Step Recreation Connectivity). 1 5 Water District TBD Cost accounted for.
CoC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian

City of San Jose,

County of Santa
Encourage acquisition and protection of riparian Clara, Private
CoC-CCCS- corridors and stream areas, and incorporate these Landowners, Action is considered In-Kind. Costs associated
21.1.2.1 Action Step Recreation areas into existing or new protected areas. 2 10 State Parks 0 with encouraging are considered In-kind.
Residential
CoC-CCCS- /Commercial Address the present or threatened destruction,
22.1 Objective Development modification, or curtailment of habitat or range
Residential
CoC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
22.1.1 Action Development processes
Improve conditions for steelhead by reducing the City of San Jose,

density of existing residential and commercial County of Santa
Residential development where feasible, and remediating Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- /Commercial existing development contributing to poor stream Clara Valley Cost based on opportunities to reduce residential
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development conditions. 1 10 Water District TBD and commercial development.
Residential Upgrade existing stormwater systems into a spatially City of San Jose,
CoC-CCCS- /Commercial distributed discharge network (rather than a few point County of Santa Cost based on amount of stormwater system
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development discharges). 2 10 Clara TBD needing upgrading.
City of San Jose,

Restore areas where existing infrastructure exists County of Santa
Residential within streams, historical floodplains or off channel Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- /Commercial habitats in any steelhead watersheds. Proactively Clara Valley Cost likely accounted for in FLOODPLAIN
22.1.1.3 Action Step Development work with landowners. 2 10 Water District TBD CONNECTIVITY and HABITAT COMPLEXITY.
City of San Jose,

County of Santa
Residential Maintain intact and properly functioning riparian Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- /Commercial buffers to filter and prevent fine sediment input from Clara Valley
Cost based to install a minimum of 3 continuous

Residential Improve steelhead survival by minimizing the input of City of San Jose, water quality monitoring gauges at a rate of
CoC-CCCS- /Commercial sediment or toxic compounds originating from County of Santa $5,000/station. Cost does not account for data
22.1.1.5 Action Step Development commercial or residential development. 2 10 Clara 7.50 7.50 15 management or maintenance.
City of San Jose,

Residential commercial and residential areas into a spatially Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- /Commercial distributed network rather than a few point Clara Valley
22.1.1.6 Action Step Development discharges. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential
CoC-CCCS- /Commercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
Residential
CoC-CCCS- Recovery /Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to watershed
22.2.1 Action Development processes

City of San Jose,

County of Santa
Residential New development should minimize storm-water Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- /Commercial runoff, changes in duration, or magnitude of peak Clara Valley
Residential zones and their floodplains or channel migration City of San Jose,
CoC-CCCS- /Commercial zones avoids the need for bank erosion control in County of Santa
22.2.1.2 Action Step Development most situations. 2 10 Clara 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of San Jose,

Design new developments to avoid unstable slopes, County of Santa
Residential wetlands, areas of high habitat value, and similarly Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- /Commercial constrained sites that occur adjacent to a steelhead Clara Valley
22.2.1.3 Action Step Development watercourse. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of San Jose,

County of Santa
CoC-CCCS- /Commercial Minimize or avoid new development within riparian Clara Valley
22.2.1.4 Action Step Development zones and the 100 year floodprone zones. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Institutionalize programs to purchase
land/conservation easements to encourage the re- City of San Jose,
establishment and/or enhancement of natural riparian County of Santa
Residential communities. Restore uplands for watershed Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- /Commercial processes; restore stream channel and floodplain for Clara Valley
22.2.1.5 Action Step Development steelhead use. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of San Jose,

County of Santa
CoC-CCCS- /Commercial Minimize or prevent future development in Clara Valley
22.2.1.6 Action Step Development floodplains or off channel habitats. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of San Jose,

County of Santa
Residential Encourage infill and high density developments over Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- /Commercial dispersal of low density rural residential Clara Valley
CoC-CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
City of San Jose,

County of Santa
Evaluate existing roadways within 200 meters of the Clara, Santa Cost based on amount of road network in riparian
CoC-CCCS- riparian corridor, and develop plans to decrease the Clara Valley corridor. Cost estimated for 548 miles of road at
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads ongoing impacts associated with these roads. 2 5 Water District 630 630 a rate of $1,148/mile.
City of San Jose,

County of Santa
Design new roads that minimize or prevent Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- encroachment into riparian areas and that are Clara Valley
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads hydrologically disconnected from the stream network. 2 10 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind

City of San Jose,

County of Santa
Address sediment and runoff sources from road Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- networks and other actions that deliver sediment and Clara Valley Cost based on amount of road network
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads runoff to stream channels. 2 10 Water District TBD contributing sediment to stream channels.
CoC-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

CalTrans, City of
Bridges associated with new roads or replacement San Jose,
span or constructed with the minimum number of Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- bents feasible in order to minimize drift accumulation Clara Valley
Cost based on feasible passage alternatives for

Ogier Ponds complex. Cost for adult escapement
CoC-CCCS- Develop and implement a plan to remedy the road County of Santa estimated at $43,654 and juvenile migration
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads crossings within the Ogier Ponds complex. 1 5 Clara TBD estimated at $225,916/project.
City of San Jose,

County of Santa
Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- Develop and implement a plan to remedy the Clara Valley Cost accounted for in other action step. See
23.1.2.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads Singleton Road crossing. 1 5 Water District 0 Passage.
CoC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ modification, or curtailment of the species
CoC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology


baseflows to provide adequate water depths
necessary for upstream and downstream migration
between Anderson Dam and the San Francisco Bay
CoC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort Draft Settlement Valley Water
25.1.1.1 Action Step Impoundment Agreement). 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
During winter and spring implement periodic migrant

attractant flows necessary to attract adult fish
upstream, and encourage outmigration of smolts
CoC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort Draft Settlement Valley Water
25.1.1.2 Action Step Impoundment Agreement). 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Anderson Dam outlet works to provide stream
channel maintenance flows. When possible, time Santa Clara
CoC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ these flows so that they are coincident with natural Valley Water
25.1.1.3 Action Step Impoundment rainfall events. 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
During summer and fall, maintain cool water
temperatures (18 degrees C or less) throughout as
much of the "cold water management zone" Santa Clara
CoC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ (between Anderson Dam and "Old Golf course Valley Water
25.1.1.4 Action Step Impoundment Drive") as possible. 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
During summer and fall, manage release rates so Santa Clara
CoC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ that depths and velocities favoring fry and juvenile Valley Water
25.1.1.5 Action Step Impoundment steelhead are provided. 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Implement ramp of all reservoir releases (flood

maintenance releases, fisheries passage releases,
summer baseflow, and other planned releases) from Santa Clara
CoC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Anderson Dam as necessary to minimize deleterious Valley Water
25.1.1.6 Action Step Impoundment effects of flow increases/decreases. 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
During summer and fall, operate facilities to ensure
flow increases and decreases in Coyote Creek
downstream of the Coyote Canal intake do not Santa Clara
CoC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ exceed a rate of change greater than 15 percent Valley Water
25.1.1.7 Action Step Impoundment within a 24 hour period. 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, City of
Design all habitat enhancements to function within San Jose, Santa
CoC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ the anticipated range of flows designed for steelhead Clara Valley
25.1.1.8 Action Step Impoundment enhancement. 1 5 Water District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
designed to increase the quantity and quality of fry Cost based to treat 14 miles (assume 1
and juvenile steelhead habitat by creating habitats Santa Clara project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
CoC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ with depth, velocity, and cover components that favor Valley Water $31,200/mile. Cost likely to be higher for greater
25.1.1.9 Action Step Impoundment these life stages. 1 5 District 450.00 450 level of engineering and oversight.
CoC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

CoC-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

Allow all "fisheries flows" (baseflows, and passage, Santa Clara
CoC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ attractant, and channel maintenance flows) to bypass Valley Water
25.2.1.1 Action Step Impoundment diversion facilities. 1 5 District 0 Action is considered In-Kind
City of San Jose,

County of Santa
Maintain and operate fish ladders on laddered Clara, Santa
CoC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ diversion facilities and bypass flows necessary for Clara Valley
25.2.1.2 Action Step Impoundment passage over critical riffles. 1 5 Water District 0 Cost accounted for in other action steps.
Assess operations at the City of San Joses Cherry
Flat Reservoir for potential effects to steelhead; Cost based on adult escapement monitoring at a
CoC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ develop and implement a plan formalizing operations rate of $43,564/project and production, run timing,
25.2.1.3 Action Step Impoundment benefiting steelhead. 1 5 City of San Jose 102.00 102 and size monitoring at a rate of $57,434/project.
Santa Clara Cost likely accounted as part of other action
CoC-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Manage streamfllow and temperature to improve Valley Water steps. Data monitoring component should be
25.2.1.4 Action Step Impoundment habitat conditions, and mimic seasonal variability. 1 5 District TBD coordinated.

Green Valley/Suisun Creek Population


Suisun Creek and Green Valley Creek are adjacent watersheds draining into San Francisco Bay
via Cordelia Slough in Solano County, California. Suisun Creek, the larger of the two watersheds,
drains an area of approximately 52 square miles and generally flows year-round within the
mainstem and larger tributary reaches.
Anecdotal reports suggest Suisun Creek supported a healthy steelhead run prior to construction
of Gordon Valley Dam (which impounds Lake Curry) in 1926. Steelhead abundance declined
steadily in the decades following dam construction; CDFW estimated in 1969 that the Suisun
Creek steelhead population was likely smaller than 50 adult fish (Leidy et al. 2005). Small
numbers of juvenile steelhead have been sampled within the watershed during recent years
(Hanson 2002; Leidy et al. 2005).
Free-flowing Wooden Valley Creek, the largest tributary to Suisun Creek, generally contains the
highest quality steelhead habitat within the watershed. As a result, steelhead production appears
to be higher in Wooden Valley Creek than Suisun Creek, a premise supported by the frequent
and numerous steelhead observations within Wooden Valley Creek during recent surveys (Leidy
et al. 2002). Steelhead abundance within Green Valley Creek is also likely significantly depressed
as compared to historical conditions, although juvenile fish continue to occupy accessible areas
of the watershed containing suitable habitat. CDFW sampled four sites on Green Valley Creek
during 1975, estimating juvenile steelhead density at 68 fish per 30 meters of stream length (Leidy
et al. 2002).
Steelhead are likely distributed throughout most low gradient reaches of both watersheds.
Gordon Valley Dam on the Suisun Creek mainstem and Lake Frey Dam on Wild Horse Valley
Creek preclude upstream and downstream steelhead passage at those locations.
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Green Valley / 811

Vol. IV, Central California Coast Steelhead Suisun Creek
History of Land Use
Few historic records exist documenting the early history of settlement within Green Valley and
Suisun creeks. The watershed is now largely rural in nature, dominated by wild land and
agricultural uses, and likely differs little from how the watershed appeared a century ago. One
large change was the construction of Gordon Valley Dam on the upper mainstem Suisun Creek,
which was completed in 1940 to supply drinking water for the City of Vallejo.

Much of the Suisun Creek and Green Valley Creek watersheds has remained in a rural state, and
is currently utilized mainly for agricultural production and cattle grazing. Urban development
is relatively low the watersheds have no incorporated cities, and only 11 percent of the
combined area has a housing density greater than 1 unit/20 acres (NMFS GIS data). The vast
majority of land is privately owned.

riparian vegetation, hydrology, estuary/lagoon, velocity refuge, water quality, viability, and
sediment. Recovery strategies will typically focus on ameliorating these habitat attributes,
although strategies that address other attributes may also be developed where their
implementation is critical to restoring properly functioning habitat conditions within the
watershed.
Current Conditions
our CAP viability analysis. The Suisun Creek Viability Table results are provided below.

Viability conditions have a rating of Poor for adults, smolts, and summer rearing juveniles in part
due to Water Diversions and Impoundments. The current size and spatial distribution of both
the Suisun Creek and Green Valley Creek steelhead populations are likely not viable. As noted
above, only a small number of adult steelhead have been observed within either watershed
during past steelhead surveys (e.g., Hanson 2002), and aside from Wooden Valley Creek, juvenile
steelhead abundance is low within most accessible stream reaches. Spatial diversity is also likely
lacking within the Suisun/Green Valley steelhead population, considering the lack of strong

representation of multiple distinct steelhead age-classes (i.e., fry, parr, smolt, adult) within
spatially diverse areas of the watershed (e.g., headwater streams, low gradient slough habitat in
lower watershed, etc.). Multiple age-classes of juvenile steelhead were observed within Wooden
Valley Creek during a 2002 survey (Marcus 2004). The threat of Water Diversions and
Impoundments contributes significantly to this condition.

Habitat Complexity: large wood and shelter conditions have a rating of Poor for adults, summer
rearing juveniles, winter rearing juveniles, and smolts. Marcus (2003) noted that most stream
reaches within Suisun Creek lack LWD in available pool habitat, and suggests restoring LWD
levels as a high restoration priority. Existing cover within Wooden Valley Creek is similarly
deficient (NCRCD 2002). During a separate habitat assessment, Hanson (2002) found that 34
percent of sampled habitat units had cover elements present, which is higher than general
guidelines that suggest suitable steelhead conditions exist when more than 14 percent of habitat
units exhibit adequate cover. However, the high number of log jams caused by beaver activity
may have biased the results of the cover investigation. Adequate cover and shelter components
within the stream channel is a critical component influencing juvenile steelhead growth and
survival. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include Agriculture, and Disease,
Predation and Competition.

Sediment conditions have a Poor rating for adults, eggs, summer rearing juveniles, and winter
rearing juveniles. High instream sediment levels likely limit the production and distribution of
steelhead within Green Valley and Suisun creeks. High fine sediment levels were noted during
habitat surveys by Marcus (2003), indicating the need for erosion control measures within both
Suisun Creek and Wooden Valley Creek. Land management activities associated with
agriculture/cattle grazing and road development are likely a large contributor of fine sediment
into both Green Valley and Suisun Creek watersheds. High levels of fine sediment can simplify
instream habitat and lower benthic invertebrate abundance, a preferred prey item of juvenile
steelhead. Available spawning gravel is limited within most reaches of the Suisun Creek
watershed, possibly affecting adult steelhead spawning success (Marcus 2004). The threat of
Water Diversions and Impoundments contributes significantly to this condition.

Hydrology conditions have a rating of Poor for adults, summer rearing juveniles, and smolts. A
constant 2-3 cfs is released from Gordon Valley Dam into Suisun Creek, a volume of flow that
may be inadequate during summer months to attenuate high water temperatures (Marcus 2004).
However, the topic of increasing dam releases during summer months to increase juvenile

steelhead survival is complex, since an increase in habitat conditions favored by warm water fish
species may transpire within sections of lower Suisun Creek (Jackson and Marcus 2007).
Streamflows during winter months are likely high enough to support the upstream migration of
adult steelhead (Hanson 2002). The threat of Water Diversions and Impoundments contributes
significantly to this condition.

Habitat Complexity: percent primary pools and pool/riffle/flatwater ratios conditions have a
rating of Poor for adults, summer rearing juveniles, and winter rearing juveniles. The pool/riffle
ratio within Suisun Creek is presently not indicative of high quality juvenile steelhead habitat,
with an overabundance of pools while lacking riffle and run habitat. The high pool frequency
within Suisun Creek is largely a function of the numerous small beaver dams. Pool/riffle ratios
within Wooden Valley Creek were more consistent with ratios associated with high quality
habitat. Pool complexity is likely poor within both Suisun and Green Valley Creek. Improving
cover elements in pool habitat is a high priority restoration action in Suisun Creek (Marcus 2004).
The threat of Agriculture contributes significantly to this condition.

Riparian Vegetation conditions have a rating of Poor for summer rearing juveniles and watershed
processes. Suisun Creek suffers from numerous invasive plant species that are impairing riparian
function and structure. Giant Reed (Arundo donax), blue periwinkle (Vinca major), Harding grass
(Phalaris aquatica) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) have covered over native understory
and streambank areas throughout most sections of mainstem Suisun Creek (Marcus 2004).
Invasive, non-native plants can impair the regeneration of native riparian species, reducing native
riparian density and diversity once existing trees and shrubs naturally die. Dysfunctional
riparian habitat can limit juvenile salmonid survival by limiting LWD recruitment into the stream
environment and lowering canopy cover, a critical component in moderating summer water
temperatures. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include Agriculture, and
Disease, Predation, and Competition.

Velocity Refuge conditions have a rating of Poor for adults and winter rearing juveniles. In most
locations along Suisun Creek, the riparian corridor is relatively narrow due to encroachment by
agricultural and rural development (Marcus 2004). Furthermore, channel incision and bank
sloughing within the middle sections of Suisun Creek are effectively isolating available floodplain
habitat from the active stream channel. Poor floodplain connectivity can limit the survival of
winter-rearing juvenile steelhead, which often seek refuge from high instream flows within newly

inundated floodplain habitat. The threat of Disease, Predation and competition contributes
significantly to this condition.

Water Quality, temperature conditions have a rating of Poor for summer rearing juveniles. High
summer water temperatures are likely limiting juvenile steelhead survival within portions of
Suisun and Green Valley creeks. Water temperature monitoring in Suisun Creek found cooler
water temperatures were common within the mile or two directly below Gordon Valley Dam, but
temperatures were commonly too warm to support productive steelhead rearing in areas further
downstream (Marcus 2004). Water temperatures were coolest within Wooden Valley Creek and
tributary White Creek. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include Agriculture;
Disease, Predation, and Competition; and Livestock Farming and Ranching.
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that rate as High or Very High (See Green
Valley/Suisun Creek CAP Results). Recovery strategies will likely focus on ameliorating High
rated threats; however, some strategies may address Medium and Low threats when the strategy
is essential to recovery efforts.

This threat was rated Very High overall. Reservoirs in both Suisun Creek and Green Valley Creek
watersheds limit steelhead habitat availability, while also altering downstream natural flow
patterns and sediment transport mechanisms. On Suisun Creek, Lake Curry provides little flood
storage capacity during winter months, and thus has a minimal impact on winter flood flow
intensity and duration. However, the reservoir does alter downstream flow patterns during
summer and early fall, when a constant 2-3 cfs of water is released from the dam. Lakes Frey and
Madigan within the Green Valley watershed likely have similar impacts on downstream flow
and sediment conveyance.
Agriculture
The majority of the Suisun and Green Valley Creek watersheds are privately owned agricultural
land used primarily for livestock grazing, vineyards, orchards, and row crops (Marcus 2004). The
high volume of fine sediment found within the stream channels of both watersheds are largely a
byproduct of agricultural land-practices and private/county road development. Engaging
landowners in improving agriculture and road building practices is a high priority recovery
strategy for Suisun Creek (Marcus 2004).

Disease, Predation and Competition
Non-native bass and sunfish, as well as other native species such as California Roach, likely
compete with steelhead for habitat and food resources throughout much of the Suisun Creek
watershed. Furthermore, invasive plant species are impacting riparian function and composition
throughout much of mainstem Suisun Creek.

Portions of Suisun Creek and Green Valley Creek are used for livestock grazing, which can
increase erosion and impair riparian habitat quality when proper management techniques are not
used.
Other Threats
No fish hatcheries operate within the Suisun or Green Valley creek watersheds, so hatchery-
related effects are unlikely within the steelhead population. Little logging or mining occur within
the area. Recreational activity is generally uncommon within the Suisun and Green Valley
watersheds due to the high level of private land ownership, although Green Valley Creek flows
through a large public golf course within its middle reaches.

Threat and stress analysis within the CAP workbook suggests most steelhead lifestages are
limited within the Suisun and Green Valley creek watersheds. However, restoration actions that
increase adult and summer juvenile survival are perhaps most important, since bolstering these
two lifestages appear to be the most critical to re-establishing steelhead within these watersheds.

the watershed.
Restore Riparian Corridors

The poor condition of riparian habitat within both watersheds is likely impairing steelhead
production by increasing stream water temperatures and facilitating sediment delivery into the
aquatic environment. Removing non-native invasive species followed by re-vegetating with
native riparian trees, such as willow, white alder and oak, should be a high priority restoration
action.

Address Upslope and Streamside Sediment Sources
Elevated fine sediment concentrations are a problem within many tributaries of Green Valley and
Suisun creeks. High embeddedness ratings and poor benthic macroinvertebrate production
likely limit steelhead spawning and rearing success. Potential sediment sources should be
investigated through a comprehensive watershed-wide assessment, and high priority sources
should be remedied.

Shelter and cover ratings were generally Poor within both watersheds. Restoration actions
should target actions that improve habitat complexity, and by extension cover and shelter values,
within pool and flatwater reaches by improving LWD abundance within the active channel.
Modify Reservoir Releases to Improve Water Quality

The current release of 2-3 cfs from Lake Curry may be impairing water quality and other fluvial
processes within downstream sections of Suisun Creek. Reservoir operations at facilities within
the Green Valley Creek watershed are likely causing similar impacts. Potentially altering
reservoir operations to improve downstream habitat conditions and improve migration
conditions should be investigated, and implemented where appropriate.
Literature Cited
Laurel Marcus and Associates. 2003. Final Suisun Creek Watershed Assessment and
Enhancement Plan. Prepared for the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance,
Woodland CA. February 2004. 168 pp.
Hanson Environmental. 2002. Final Suisun Creek Fishery Habitat Reconnaissance Surveys.
April 2002.
Napa County Resource Conservation District. 2002. Habitat Inventory Report: Wooden Valley
Creek and White Creek. November 2002. 34 pp.
Leidy, R. A., G. S. Becker, and B. N. Harvey. 2005. Historical Distribution and current status of
California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA.

Green Valley/Suisun Creek CAP Viability Results
Current
Target Rating
Measurement
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
Passage/Migration or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km Good
accessible* km km
75% of IP-km to
90% of IP-km
accessible* km km
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
Tree Diameter 39% Class 5 & >69% Class 5 & ?39% Class 5 & 6
km km
70-79%
km

Quantity & <50% of IP-Km 50% of IP-Km 75% of IP-Km <50% of IP-km or
Sediment Distribution of or <16 IP-Km to 74% of IP- to 90% of IP- >90% of IP-km <16 IP-Km Poor
50-80% >80%
No Evidence of
Contaminants
<1 spawner per
IP-km to < low
low risk low risk spawner
spawner spawner density per
density per
Spence (2008)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 58
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% >17% (0.85mm)
Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) and >30% (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and (0.85mm) and and >30% Poor
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Gravel Quality
(Embeddedness)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Juveniles Condition

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
Percent Primary
Habitat Complexity (>49% of pools (>49% of pools (>49% of pools (>49% of pools (>49% of pools Good
Pools
are primary are primary are primary are primary are primary
pools) pools) pools) pools) pools)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
NMFS Flow
Factor Score 75
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
>75 51-75 35-50 <35
accessible* km km
75% of IP-km to
90% of IP-km
accessible* km km

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Riparian Vegetation Canopy Cover stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; Poor
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
km km
70-79%
km
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP 75 to 89% IP
<50% IP km >90% IP km <50% IP-km (<20
km (<20 C km (<20 C
(<20 C MWMT; (<20 C MWMT; C MWMT; <16 C
Water Quality <16 C MWMT <16 C MWMT MWMT where Poor
where coho IP where coho IP coho IP
coho IP coho IP
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Contaminants
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5
Fish/m^2 Fish/m^2
<50% of 50-74% of 75-90% of >90% of
75-90% of
Viability Spatial Structure Historical Historical Historical Historical Good
Historical Range

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Winter Rearing
Juveniles
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
75% of IP-km to
90% of IP-km
accessible* km km
40 - 54% Class 55 - 69% Class
km km
70-79%
km
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50-80% >80%
No Evidence of
Contaminants

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Not
Specified
Properly
Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
accessible* km km
No Evidence of
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Smolt
Smolt Smolt
abundance Smolt
abundance abundance
which abundance to
spawner density per
Spence (2008) (2008)
Spence (2008)
>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of 2.63% of
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of 9.57 of
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of <15% of
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of 11% of
>3 2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6
Road Density Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Miles/Square Good
Transport Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile
>1 0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1
Mile Mile Mile Mile

Green Valley/Suisun Creek CAP Threat Results

1 Agriculture High Medium Very High High Medium High Very High
2 Channel Modification Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
3 Disease, Predation and Competition High Not Specified Very High High Medium High Very High
4 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Low Not Specified Low Low Medium Not Specified Low
6 Fishing and Collecting Low Not Specified Low Not Specified Medium Not Specified Low
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium High
8 Logging and Wood Harvesting Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low
9 Mining Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low
10 Recreational Areas and Activities Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low
11 Residential and Commercial Development Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
12 Roads and Railroads Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
13 Severe Weather Patterns Medium Low Medium Low Low Low Medium
14 Water Diversion and Impoundments High High Very High Medium High High Very High
Threat Status for Targets and Project High Medium Very High High High High Very High

Green Valley/Suisun Creek, Central California Coast Steelhead (Interior San Francisco Bay) Recovery Actions
GVSC- modification, or curtailment of the species
CCCS-1.1 Objective Estuary habitat or range
GVSC- Recovery
CDFW, NMFS,
GVSC- Develop and implement Estuary Protection and Private
CCCS- Enhancement Guidelines to maintain estuary function Consultants,
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary and provide information for estuary restoration. 2 50 Public TBD Cost is TBD.
GVSC- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species
CCCS-2.1 Objective Connectivity habitat or range
GVSC- Recovery Floodplain

Maintain and improve instream conditions for

steelhead by maintaining access to floodplain habitat
GVSC- where channel connection remains, and improve Napa County, Cost based on treating 0.2 miles (assume 1
CCCS- Floodplain conditions by reconnecting disconnected floodplain NRCS, Solano project/mile in 25% high IP with 40 acres per mile
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity habitat where feasible. 2 10 County 179.00 179.00 357 treated) at a rate of $44,640/acre.
CDFW, NMFS,
GVSC- Encourage willing landowners to restore historical NRCS, Private
CCCS- Floodplain floodplains or off-channel habitats through Landowners,
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity conservation easements, etc. 2 25 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Farm Bureau,
Napa County,
NRCS, Private
GVSC- Landowners,
CCCS- Floodplain Minimize or avoid future development in floodplains RCD, Solano Cost expected to be small. Action is considered
2.1.1.3 Action Step Connectivity or off channel habitats. 2 100 County 0 In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
Private
Consultants,
GVSC- Private
CCCS- Floodplain Investigate areas where floodplain connectivity can Landowners,
2.1.1.4 Action Step Connectivity be re-established in modified channel areas. 2 5 USACE 100.00 100 Estimated cost of investigation.
GVSC- Promote restoration projects designed to create or CDFW, NMFS,

CCCS- Floodplain restore alcove, backchannel, ephemeral tributary, or NOAA RC, Costs accounted for in above recovery action
2.1.1.5 Action Step Connectivity seasonal pond habitats. 2 25 NRCS, RCD 0 step.
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, Napa
County, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
Landowners,
RCD, Solano
GVSC- Set-back existing levees in strategic areas to County, Solano
CCCS- Floodplain increase flood-flow detention and promote flood- County Water Costs accounted for in above recovery action
2.1.1.6 Action Step Connectivity tolerant land uses. 2 5 Agency 0 step.
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
NRCS, Private
Consultants,
GVSC- Incorporate structure (LWD, boulders) in floodplain Private
CCCS- Floodplain project designs to increase velocity refuge for Landowners, Costs accounted for in above recovery action
2.1.1.7 Action Step Connectivity salmonids. 2 100 RCD 0 step.

Improve over-winter survival by increasing the CDFW, NMFS,

GVSC- frequency and functionality of floodplain habitats by NRCS, Private
CCCS- Floodplain delineating reaches possessing both potential winter Landowners,
2.1.1.8 Action Step Connectivity rearing habitat and floodplain areas. 2 5 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above recovery action step.
CCCS-3.1 Objective Hydrology habitat or range
GVSC- Recovery
CDFW, NOAA
RC, Private
Landowners,
GVSC- Improve connectivity of surface flows with Solano County,
CCCS- groundwater, reduce aggradation, and lower the Solano County
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology overall sediment load at the watershed scale. 2 100 Water Agency TBD Costs depend on extent of treatments.
Work with water managers on regulated streams to Napa County,

assure adequate and proper consideration is given to NRCS, Solano
GVSC- fish needs. Develop agreements that will minimize County, Solano
CCCS- water-use conflicts and impacts on fish and wildlife County Water
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology resources during drought conditions. 2 10 Agency 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVSC- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
GVSC- Recovery
Napa County,
Solano County,
Solano County
Water Agency,
GVSC- State Water
CCCS- Encourage improved compliance with existing water Resources
3.2.1.1 Action Step Hydrology resource regulations via monitoring and enforcement. 3 5 Control Board 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
NMFS OLE,
GVSC- Solano County
CCCS- Support SWRCB in regulating the use of streamside Water Agency,
3.2.1.2 Action Step Hydrology wells and groundwater. 2 60 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Napa
County, NMFS,
Private
Landowners,
Solano County,
GVSC- Work with SWRCB and landowners to improve flow Solano County
CCCS- regimes for adult migration to spawning habitats and Water Agency,
3.2.1.3 Action Step Hydrology smolt outmigration. 2 10 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Napa
County, NMFS,
Work with SWRCB and landowners to improve over Private
summer survival of juveniles by re-establishing Landowners,
summer baseflows (from July 1 to October 1) in Public, Solano
GVSC- rearing reaches that are currently impacted by water County, Solano
CCCS- use. Wooden Valley Creek is a high priority County Water
3.2.1.4 Action Step Hydrology watershed for this action. 2 10 Agency, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

CDFW, City of
Vallejo, Napa
County, NMFS,
Manage reservoirs (e.g. Lake Curry) and dam Solano County,
releases to maintain suitable rearing temperatures Solano County
GVSC- and migratory flows in downstream habitats (e.g., Water Agency, Changes in flow management may incur costs to
CCCS- pulse flow programs for adult upstream migration and SWRCB, diverters and water delivery systems, but costs
3.2.1.5 Action Step Hydrology smolt outmigration). 1 100 USACE TBD are unknown.
CDFW, Napa
County, NMFS,
Private
Landowners,
RCD, Solano
GVSC- Establish a comprehensive stream flow evaluation County, Solano
CCCS- program to determine instream flow needs for County Water
3.2.1.6 Action Step Hydrology steelhead. 2 20 Agency, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, NMFS,
GVSC- Private
CCCS- Identify and eliminate depletion of summer base Landowners,
3.2.1.7 Action Step Hydrology flows from unauthorized water uses. 1 5 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVSC- modification or curtailment of the species habitat
CCCS-5.1 Objective Passage or range
GVSC- Recovery
CCCS-5.1.1 Action Passage Assess and restore passage at barriers.
CDFW, NMFS, LSA did an assessment as part of a Salmonid

GVSC- Solano County, Habitat Assessment Report for Solano County in
CCCS- Assess and restore passage at barriers in Green Solano County 2008. Passage treatment would depend on the
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage Valley Creek. 2 5 Water Agency TBD site characteristics and feasibility studies.
GVSC- Habitat modification, or curtailment of the species
CCCS-6.1 Objective Complexity habitat or range
GVSC- Recovery Improve frequency of primary pools, LWD, and

CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
Landowners,
Public, RCD, Maintenance responsibilities and costs are usually
GVSC- Maintain current LWD, boulders, and other structure- Solano County, incorporated into the restoration project
CCCS- providing features to maintain current stream Solano County agreement, and are not likely to have a separate
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity complexity, pool frequency, and depth (CDFG 2004). 2 100 Water Agency 0 cost.
GVSC- CDFW, City of
CCCS- Conduct a full habitat assessment to include Vallejo, RCD, Cost will be driven by extent and type of sampling
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity substrate/pool riffle mapping. 2 10 Solano County TBD conducted.
Improve instream conditions for steelhead by CDFW, NMFS,
GVSC- increasing LWD frequency and shelter within high NRCS, Private
CCCS- priority areas, such as reaches 2-5 of Wooden Valley Landowners, Cost based on treating 0.2 miles at a rate of
6.1.1.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity Creek. 2 20 RCD 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 32 $31,200/mile.
CDFW, NMFS,
Increase habitat complexity and improve pool NOAA RC,
GVSC- frequency and depth within high priority areas, such NRCS, Private
CCCS- as CDFW reaches 1,2,3, and 6 within Wooden Landowners,
6.1.1.4 Action Step Habitat Complexity Valley Creek. 2 20 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
CDFW, NMFS,
GVSC- restoration projects as part of their ongoing NRCS, Private
CCCS- operations in stream reaches where large woody Landowners, Cost of incorporating LWD into ongoing
6.1.1.5 Action Step Habitat Complexity debris is lacking. 2 100 RCD 0 operations is expected to be low.

CCCS-7.1 Objective Riparian habitat or range
GVSC- Recovery
CCCS-7.1.1 Action Riparian Improve riparian condition
CDFW, NMFS,
GVSC- NRCS, Private
CCCS- Manage riparian areas for their site potential Landowners,
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian composition and structure. 2 100 RCD TBD Cost of future management unknown at this time.
GVSC- Restore and protect riparian vegetation to improve Napa County,
CCCS- migration and summer/overwintering habitat for NRCS, Solano Cost based on treating 1 mile (assume 20
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian steelhead. 3 10 County 166.00 166.00 166.00 498 acres/mile treated) at a rate of $24,862/acre.
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
GVSC- Promote streamside conservation measures, NRCS, Private
CCCS- including conservation easements, setbacks, and Landowners,
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian riparian buffers (CDFG 2004). 2 100 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Work with landowners to evaluate any existing CDFW, NMFS,
conservation easements that exist within the NOAA RC,
GVSC- Suisun/Green Valley watersheds. Changes in these NRCS, Private
CCCS- easements to better protect riparian habitat should be Landowners,
7.1.1.4 Action Step Riparian investigated. 2 5 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind

GVSC- responsive to wood recruitment or placement, and
CCCS- develop a riparian strategy to ensure long term Napa County, cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
7.1.1.5 Action Step Riparian natural recruitment of wood via large tree retention. 2 5 Solano County 138.00 138 rate of $137,833/project.
CDFW, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
NRCS, Private
Assess riparian canopy and impacts of exotic Consultants,
GVSC- vegetation (e.g., Arundo, blue periwinkle, etc.), Private Cost to treat 0.3 miles (assume 1 project/mile in
CCCS- prioritize and develop riparian habitat reclamation Landowners, 5% high IP with 10 acres/mile treated) at a rate of
7.1.1.7 Action Step Riparian and enhancement programs. 1 20 RCD 3.00 3 $1,036/acre.
CCCS-8.1 Objective Sediment habitat or range
GVSC- Recovery
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
Consultants,
Private
Landowners,
RCD, Solano
GVSC- Complete a comprehensive sediment source County, Solano
CCCS- inventory and assessment for the Suisun Creek and County Water
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment Green Valley Creek watersheds. 2 2 Agency, USEPA 50.00 50 Estimated cost of preparing the plan.
GVSC- Provide incentives to restore high priority sites as CalFire, CDFW,
CCCS- determined by watershed analysis, CDFW or NMFS, NRCS, The cost of incentives is difficult to determine at
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment CalFire. 2 20 RCD TBD this time.
Napa County,
RCD, Solano Cost for fish/habitat restoration monitoring at a
GVSC- Implement adequate monitoring to assess and track County, Solano rate of $137,833/project. This action step should
CCCS- changes in bed profile and instream sediment levels County Water be coordinated with similar action steps to reduce
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment in the watershed. 3 10 Agency 69.00 69.00 138 cost and redundancy.

CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
Consultants,
GVSC- Use the v-star protocol over a broad area of each Private V-Star is a rather inexpensive monitoring
CCCS- sub-basin on a regular basis to evaluate pool Landowners, technique, and cost is not expected to be
8.1.1.4 Action Step Sediment siltation. 2 10 RCD TBD substantial.
CCCS-10.1 Objective Water Quality habitat or range
GVSC-
CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
Investigate potential impacts to water temperatures NRCS, Private
associated with riparian vegetation clearing and/or Consultants,
GVSC- alterations. Provide recommendations for re- Private
CCCS- establishing a native riparian corridor that Landowners,
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality rehabilitates water temperature conditions. 2 5 RCD 100.00 100 Cost estimate for investigation.
Conduct basic water quality studies (pH, dissolved
GVSC- oxygen, and conductivity). Consider additional CDFW, City of
CCCS- assessments (e.g. sediment, pesticides, heavy Vallejo, NMFS,
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality metals, etc.) 3 10 RCD TBD
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
Consultants,
GVSC- Private
CCCS- Develop a riparian corridor plan that promotes Landowners, Cost accounted for in other recovery action steps -
10.1.1.3 Action Step Water Quality increases in canopy cover. 2 5 RCD 0 see Riparian.
CDFW, City of
Vallejo, Napa
County, NMFS,
Private
Identify factors limiting summer rearing water Consultants,
GVSC- temperature conditions and develop water Private Cost based on analysis of summer rearing water
CCCS- temperature reduction recommendations if Landowners, temperature. Cost to reduce water temperature
10.1.1.4 Action Step Water Quality appropriate. 1 20 Solano County TBD likely accounted for in other action steps.
Install water and air temperature data loggers to Cost based on installing a minimum of 3
GVSC- obtain annual or seasonal temperature data, capture CDFW, City of continuous water/air temperature gauges at a rate
CCCS- diurnal variation in temperature, and obtain Vallejo, RCD, of $500/station. Cost does not account for data
10.1.1.5 Action Step Water Quality temperature data on a reach scale. 2 10 Solano County 1.5 1.5 management or maintenance.
CCCS-11.1 Objective Viability habitat or range
GVSC-
CDFW, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
Develop standardized watershed assessments within Consultants,
GVSC- sub-watersheds to define limiting factors specific to Private
CCCS- those areas. Encourage all major landowners to Landowners,
11.1.1.1 Action Step Viability develop similar assessment methods. 3 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVSC- Evaluate feasibility of installing a lifecycle station in

CCCS- an appropriate location within the watershed. Costs for monitoring population status and trends
11.1.1.2 Action Step Viability Implement action if found feasible. 1 10 CDFW, NMFS 0 are accounted for in the Monitoring Chapter.
GVSC- Napa County,
CCCS- Monitor population status for response to recovery NRCS, Solano Costs for monitoring population status and trends
11.1.1.3 Action Step Viability actions. 3 5 County 0 are accounted for in the Monitoring Chapter.

CDFW, NOAA
RC, NRCS,
Private
Consultants, This will depend on the scope and frequency of
GVSC- Utilize CDFW approved implementation, Private restoration projects implemented. Monitoring
CCCS- effectiveness, and validation monitoring protocols Landowners, costs may be considered In-Kind and a
11.1.1.4 Action Step Viability when assessing efficacy of restoration efforts. 1 100 RCD TBD requirement of the restoration/permitting process.
GVSC- Investigate reintroducing steelhead into newly
CCCS- accessible habitat following projects that address CDFW, NMFS,
11.1.1.5 Action Step Viability passage barriers. 1 50 NOAA SWFSC 0 Action is considered In-Kind

CCCS-11.2 Objective Viability mechanisms
GVSC-
GVSC- CDFW Law
CCCS- Protect adult steelhead from illegal take (e.g., Enforcement,
11.2.1.1 Action Step Viability poaching). 3 100 NMFS OLE 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CCCS-12.1 Objective Agriculture habitat or range
GVSC-
Incentive programs and incentive-based approaches Cost based on amount of landowner participation
GVSC- should be explored for landowners who conduct and appropriate incentives for management
CCCS- operations in a manner compatible with steelhead NRCS, Solano operations. Incentive programs currently exist
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture recovery requirements. 3 25 County TBD and should be explored and expanded.
GVSC- Prevent or minimize impairment to instream
CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
GVSC- Minimize future sediment and runoff sources from
CCCS- agricultural land by modifying actions that deliver NRCS, Solano
12.1.2.1 Action Step Agriculture sediment and runoff to stream channels. 2 100 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Napa
County, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
GVSC- Maintain intact and properly functioning riparian Landowners,
CCCS- buffers to filter and prevent fine sediment input from RCD, Solano
12.1.2.2 Action Step Agriculture entering streams. 2 100 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVSC-
GVSC-
CCCS- Limit salmonid habitat degradation resulting from
12.1.3.1 Action Step Agriculture conversion of forestland/open space to agriculture. 3 100 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, Napa
County, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
GVSC- Work within the agricultural community to educate Landowners,
CCCS- landowners and enhance practices that provide for RCD, Solano
12.1.3.2 Action Step Agriculture functional watershed processes. 3 25 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, Napa
County, NMFS,
GVSC- Landowners, dependent on the linear distance of setbacks and
CCCS- Increase setbacks of existing agricultural activities RCD, Solano the cost to landowners of lost production from

GVSC- Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
CDFW, Napa
County, NMFS,
Private
Consultants,
Private
GVSC- Landowners,
CCCS- Reduce discharge of chemical effluent and fertilizer RCD, RWQCB,
12.1.4.1 Action Step Agriculture related to agricultural practices. 3 25 Solano County 0 Action is considered In-Kind

GVSC-
State Water
Resources
Control Board,
GVSC- Minimize impacts to instream flows and aquatic Napa County,
CCCS- habitat arising from agricultural water diversions or NRCS, Solano
12.2.1.1 Action Step Agriculture pumping. 2 10 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Solano and Napa counties should restrict and or

minimize conversion of open space, rangeland, or
GVSC- TPZ to vineyards or other agricultural uses that CDFW, Napa
CCCS- impact salmonids until a grading ordinance and land County, NMFS,
12.2.1.2 Action Step Agriculture conversion ordinance are in place. 2 10 Solano County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Napa
GVSC- Develop legislation that will fund county planning for County, NMFS,
CCCS- environmentally sound agricultural growth and water RCD, Solano
12.2.1.3 Action Step Agriculture supply 2 10 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, Napa
Complete Farm Conservation Plans (through the County, NMFS,
GVSC- other cooperative conservation programs) to reduce Landowners,
CCCS- sediment sources and improve riparian habitat within RCD, Solano Cost is TBD, since the total number and scope of
12.2.1.4 Action Step Agriculture the watershed. 2 10 County TBD the future plans is unknown at this time.
CCCS-18.1 Objective Livestock habitat or range
GVSC- Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality
Farm Bureau,
GVSC- NRCS, Private
CCCS- Where necessary, establish predetermined stream Landowners, Cost based on the number of stream crossing to
18.1.1.1 Action Step Livestock crossings when herding cattle between pastures. 2 100 RCD TBD establish.
Farm Bureau,
GVSC- NRCS, Private
CCCS- Landowners, Cost based on amount of off-stream water
18.1.1.2 Action Step Livestock Develop off-stream waters sources for livestock. 2 25 RCD TBD sources needed. Cost estimated at $5,000/site.

CDFW, Farm
Bureau, Napa
County, NMFS,
NRCS, Private
GVSC- Implement water quality standards as outlined in the Landowners,
CCCS- University of California guidelines for water quality RCD, RWQCB,
18.1.1.3 Action Step Livestock protection (Ristow 2006). 3 10 Solano County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Farm Bureau,
GVSC- NRCS, Private
CCCS- Implement the recommendations of the California Landowners,
18.1.1.4 Action Step Livestock Rangeland Water Quality Management Program. 2 100 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Address water quality and nutrient loading issues by

encouraging sustainable land management practices,
GVSC- controlling sediment sources, protecting riparian Napa County,
CCCS- zones and employing BMPs that encourage NRCS, Solano
18.1.1.5 Action Step Livestock permeability and infiltration (CDFG 2004). 3 10 County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVSC-
Farm Bureau,
GVSC- Support grazing practices that minimize impacts to NRCS, Private
CCCS- riparian and instream habitat: livestock exclusion, Landowners,
18.1.2.1 Action Step Livestock rotational grazing, etc. 2 100 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Exclude cattle from entering and trampling riparian Farm Bureau,
GVSC- and instream habitat. High priority reaches to NRCS, Private
CCCS- address include survey reaches 2-5 of Wooden Landowners, Cost based on riparian exclusion fencing at a rate
18.1.2.2 Action Step Livestock Valley Creek (see NCRCD survey). 2 100 RCD 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 46 of $4.36/ft.

GVSC- with 1000 lbs RDM (residual dry matter)/acre left at
CCCS- end of grazing season. Remove cattle from pasture Farm Bureau,
18.1.2.3 Action Step Livestock before soils dry out. 2 10 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVSC-
CCCS- Establish a monitoring protocol to determine if RDM Farm Bureau,
18.1.2.4 Action Step Livestock levels exceed targets. 3 10 NRCS, RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVSC- Water Diversion/ modification, or curtailment of the species
CCCS-25.1 Objective Impoundment habitat or range
GVSC-
CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/
25.1.1 Action Impoundment Improve flow conditions
Through outreach and education, reduce or minimize
GVSC- diversions and water use in tributary reaches in order
CCCS- Water Diversion/ to maintain surface flows, or restore flows where Napa County,
25.1.1.1 Action Step Impoundment needed. 2 5 Solano County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
to address season of diversion, off-stream CDFW, NMFS,
GVSC- reservoirs, bypass flows protective of steelhead and Private
CCCS- Water Diversion/ their habitats, and avoidance of adverse impacts Landowners,
25.1.1.2 Action Step Impoundment caused by water diversion. 1 5 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Provide incentives to water rights holders within CDFW, Napa
Suisun Creek and Green Valley Creek tributaries County, NMFS,
GVSC- willing to convert some or all of their water right to Solano County, Potential incentives unknown at this time.
CCCS- Water Diversion/ instream use via petition change of use and Solano County Currently, incentive programs exist and should be
25.1.1.3 Action Step Impoundment California Water Code 1707. 2 10 Water Agency TBD explored and expanded upon.

CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
NRCS, Private
Landowners,
GVSC- Public, RCD,
CCCS- Water Diversion/ Promote water conservation best practices such as Solano County Promotion largely done through federal, state and
25.1.1.4 Action Step Impoundment drip irrigation for vineyards. 2 5 Water Agency 0 local partnerships with interested NGO's.
CDFW, Farm
Bureau, NMFS,
NOAA RC,
GVSC- NRCS, Private
CCCS- Water Diversion/ Promote the use of reclaimed water for agricultural or Landowners, Promotion likely done largely by agency and NGO
25.1.1.5 Action Step Impoundment other uses. 2 5 Public, RCD 0 partnerships.
GVSC- Water Diversion/ Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

CCCS-25.2 Objective Impoundment mechanisms
GVSC-
CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/
25.2.1 Action Impoundment Improve flow conditions
Avoid and/or minimize the adverse effects of water State Water

diversion on salmonid habitat by establishing a more Resources
natural hydrograph, by-passing adequate Control Board,
GVSC- downstream flows, regulating season of diversion, CDFW, Napa
CCCS- Water Diversion/ and promoting and implementing off-stream storage County, NMFS,
25.2.1.1 Action Step Impoundment solutions. 1 25 Solano County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Encourage the SWRCB to adjudicate watersheds

within Suisun Creek and Green Valley Creek
GVSC- watersheds to resolve over-allocation of water No cost expected to encourage the SWRCB.
CCCS- Water Diversion/ resources, and provide adequate funding to water CDFW, NMFS, Encouragement would largely arise through
25.2.1.2 Action Step Impoundment masters to enforce allocations. 2 10 SWRCB 0 already employed CDFW and NMFS staff.
Encourage the SWRCB to conduct interagency

GVSC- consultation with the California Department of Fish
CCCS- Water Diversion/ and Wildlife and seek technical assistance from CDFW, NMFS,
25.2.1.3 Action Step Impoundment NMFS on the issuance of water rights permits. 1 100 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
GVSC- Upgrade the existing water rights information system
CCCS- Water Diversion/ so that water allocations can be readily quantified by CDFW, NMFS, This action is largely part of Water Control Board
25.2.1.4 Action Step Impoundment watershed. 2 5 SWRCB 0 operations and information database.
GVSC-
CCCS- Water Diversion/ Support the Development and implementation of CDFW, NMFS,
25.2.1.5 Action Step Impoundment groundwater use regulations. 1 10 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, CDFW
Law
GVSC- Enforcement,
CCCS- Water Diversion/ Improve compliance with existing water resource NMFS, NMFS Cost expected to be largely absorbed through
25.2.1.6 Action Step Impoundment regulations via monitoring and enforcement. 1 100 OLE 0 already employed agency enforcement personnel.

Napa River Population


Leidy et al. (2005) concluded that the Napa River historically supported the largest steelhead run
of all San Francisco Bay tributaries (excluding the Sacramento San Joaquin basin). In 1969,
Fiends of the Napa River (FONR) sponsored possibly the most thorough fish survey conducted
within any tributary to San Francisco Bay. The 1969 fish survey identified Dry, Redwood,
Sulphur, and Soda creeks as important contributors to the Napa River steelhead fishery with a
standing crop of juvenile steelhead estimated at 87,300 to 144, 600, resulting in a range of 580 to
1,930 returning adults steelhead (Anderson 1969f, as cited by Leidy et al. 2005 and Becker et al.
2007). Other historical estimates of steelhead escapement to the Napa River range from 6,000 to
8,000 individuals (Anderson 1972; USFWS and CDFG 1968, as cited by Leidy et al. 2005). More
recent surveys carried out by the Friends of the Napa River, Ecotrust, and the Napa County
Resource Conservation District (RCD) indicate that O. mykiss are currently present in many
tributaries within the Napa River watershed; however, juvenile densities are substantially lower
from reported historical levels (Ecotrust and FONR 2001, as cited by Leidy et al. 2005; NRCD
2009). There are no current estimates of the annual number of adult steelhead that return to the
Napa River watershed.
History of Land Use

In the mid-1800s, the primary land uses in the Napa River watershed were agriculture, timber
production, grazing, and field crops (Stillwater 2002). Prior to the 1960s, the Napa River Valley
was used primarily for a combination of orchards, field crops, and vineyards, with localized
urban development in the cities of Napa, Yountville, St. Helena, and Calistoga. Vineyards were
first developed in the 1860s, but rapidly increased in areal extent from approximately 15 mi2 in
1970 to 49 mi2 in 1996 (Napa County RCD 1997, as cited by Stillwater 2002). Intense timber harvest
occurred in portions of the watershed until around the 1950s. Groundwater pumping has
occurred since 1910, but has increased in recent years as farmers increasingly rely on overhead
sprinklers to protect vineyards from frost damage (Stillwater 2002). Other water use activities
include construction of major dams in the watershed (Conn, Bell, Rector, Milliken, York, and
Kimball), all built between 1924 and 1959 (Stillwater 2002). Direct in-channel alternations to river
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Napa River 836

geomorphology include river bottom dredging in the mainstem Napa River from the mouth to
approximately 15 river miles upstream. Widespread removal of large woody debris, channel
clearing, and levee building occurred in the 1960s and again in the 1990s for flood control
purposes.

The Napa River currently has a relatively low proportion of protected open space compared to
the high proportion of open space within the watershed (Becker et al. 2007). The majority of
unprotected open space that encompasses a significant portion of the Napa River watershed is
due to extensive vineyard land use and management (Becker et al. 2007). Approximately 30 mi2
of the basin are currently used and managed for urban uses, including water supply, resorts (spas
and golf courses), rural residential housing and rangeland (Stillwater 2002). The Napa River
watershed is on the Regional Water Quality Control Boards Impaired Water Bodies List under
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
Major stakeholders in the watershed include Napa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, Friends of the Napa River, Napa County Restoration and Conservation
District, the Rutherford Reach DUST Society, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California
Land Stewardship Institute, and other agricultural interests. The following documents are
available for the Napa River watershed:
Napa River Fish Barrier Plan (NCRCD 2011)
Napa River Steelhead and Salmon Smolt Annual Monitoring Program (NCRCD 2005
present)
The Napa River Fisheries Study: The Rutherford Dust Society Restoration Reach (NCRCD
2005)
Napa River Basin Limiting Factors Analysis (SFBWQCB & CSCC 2002)
Napa River Sediment TMDL Baseline Study (SFEI 2002)

The following indicators were rated Poor through the CAP process for steelhead: floodplain
connectivity, flow conditions (summer baseflow), LWD frequency, pool shelter, primary pools,
water temperature, canopy cover, passage/migration, gravel quality, and estuary quality and
extent, riparian (species composition and diameter), streamside road density, and turbidity.
Recovery strategies will focus on improving these poor conditions as well as those needed to

Current Conditions
our CAP viability analysis. The Napa River CAP Viability Table results are provided below.

The Napa River watershed is impacted by many in-channel structures, such as bridge aprons,
flow diversions, culverts, road crossings, and dams that are complete or partial barriers to
juvenile and adult steelhead migration (Stillwater 2002). Historically, about 300 stream miles (480
km) were likely accessible and suitable for steelhead spawning and rearing in most years (USFWS
1968, as cited by Stillwater 2002). Following the construction of Conn, Bell, and Rector dams, the
amount of Napa River habitat lost to these dams alone was estimated at 17 percent. Other large
dams (York, Milliken, and Kimball) and many smaller dams have resulted in significant loss of
high quality habitat within the Napa River basin. Important high-quality habitat has also been
lost in Carneros Creek, Mill Creek, Ritchey Creek, Napa River mainstem, Campbell Creek, Pickle
Creek, Huichica Creek, Selby Creek, Milliken Creek, and others due to passage impairments
(Koehler 2011, pers. comm.). The total amount of lost or available suitable steelhead habitat is
unavailable; however, 69 in-channel structures known to block or impede steelhead migration
were identified by Stillwater (2002). Moreover, USGS maps indicate over 220 lakes, ponds, and
reservoirs within or near many tributaries channels and over 400 road crossing sites that may also
disrupt habitat connectivity (Stillwater 2002) suggesting that the number of passage impediments
might be far greater than the 69 in-channel structures identified by Stillwater (2002).

Extensive water diversions, large and small dams, groundwater pumping, channel alterations,
and agriculture water use have together greatly impaired Napa River hydrology. Extensive
water diversions, groundwater pumping, and increased agriculture (vineyards) water use during
the dry season have reduced the extent of suitable summer rearing habitat and quality riffle
habitat essential for macro-invertebrate production throughout much of the Napa River
watershed. Additionally, reduced surface and ground water interaction has most likely increased
water temperatures in many summer rearing tributaries. Large and small dams have also
significantly impaired hydrologic conditions for seasonal and summer rearing and juvenile and
adult steelhead migration (flow-related barriers) during critical periods of the year.

Sediment: Gravel Quality and Distribution of Spawning Gravels, and Water Quality:
The Napa Valley is heavily developed for both agricultural and residential land uses that have
led to widespread hill slope erosion. Stream bank erosion has been identified as a clear concern
for many stakeholders in the watershed (Napa River Watershed Task Force, as cited by Stillwater
2002). Previous studies indicate that land use activities have increased fine sediment transport
into stream channels in the Napa River watershed (WET, Inc 1990; USDA-SCS 1994, as cited by
Stillwater 2002). However, Stillwater Sciences (2002) suggested that there is not a chronic source
of sediment causing deleterious turbidity levels within sampled stream of the Napa River
watershed. Although prolonged chronic levels were not documented during the 2-year study
conducted by Stillwater Sciences (2002), the effect of minimally increased turbidity levels due to
upslope and bank erosion sources can significantly impair feeding opportunities for winter
rearing juvenile steelhead and subsequently reduce their fitness and survival.
Stillwater Science (2002) concluded that fine sediment loading is most likely a widespread
problem within the Napa River watershed. Excessive fine sediment delivery from upslope and
bank erosion sources has also decreased spawning gravel permeability and impaired successful
egg incubation (SFEI Watershed Program 2002). Some localized patches of quality coarse
streambed material exist within the mainstem Napa River and selected tributaries; however, the
extent and recruitment of coarse material into historically productive rearing and spawning
reaches has been reduced. The mainstem Napa River, the Bear Canyon Creek subwatershed, and
Milliken Creek have been identified as having inadequate gravel quality and high embeddedness
levels.

Tributary channels have fewer pools and reduced shelter due to reduced LWD frequency
(Stillwater 2002). The loss of channel forming LWD features that historically created habitat
complexity and desirable pool/riffle/flatwater ratios has reduced the carrying capacity of rearing
juvenile steelhead and spawning gravel abundance in many tributaries. A significant reduction
in LWD has also occurred in the mainstem Napa River due to past flood control activities. The
reduced LWD volume coupled with channelization has substantially degraded mainstem habitat
quality. Moreover, the loss of sloughs, side channels, floodplain, riffle habitat, and hydraulic
diversity has increased the frequency of long, straight, deep pool/flatwater habitat favoring exotic
predators, and severely limits fall, spring, and winter rearing potential for juvenile steelhead in
the mainstem Napa River. In addition, low LWD volume has limited the ability of the mainstem
river to trap and sort coarse material desirable for main steelhead spawning and macro-
invertebrate production. The following creeks have been identified as having poor shelter,
primary pool, and/or pool/riffle/flatwater ratios, and would benefit from restoration work that
incorporates LWD: Bear Canyon, Bell, Browns, Canon, Carneros, Conn, Dry, Heath, Milliken,

Montgomery, Napa, Pickle, Redwood, Sulpher, Soda, Wing, York, Ritchie, Salvador, Tulucay,
and Hopper creeks.
Riparian Vegetation: Composition, Cover & Tree Diameter and Water Quality: Temperature
Warm water temperatures and low food supply appear to severely limit growth of summer
rearing juvenile steelhead in the Napa River watershed (Stillwater 2002). Riparian clearing,
resulting in narrow riparian widths and poor species diversity, has mostly likely increased
summer water temperatures when compared to pre-development conditions. Instream water
temperatures have also likely increased due to reduced gravel permeability and impaired
ground-to-surface water interaction. Ground-to-surface water interaction has also been
disrupted by the loss of channel forming features that encourage scouring of deep pools and
groundwater pumping that significantly lowers the groundwater table. Historically, west side
tributaries with mature forest would have provided LWD to stream channels that would have
scoured deep pools that remained hydrologically connected to cooler groundwater seeps.
Altered species diversity within existing riparian corridors has also occurred throughout the
mainstem Napa River, where floodplain clearing and levee building have reduced riparian width
and introduced non-native plant species with reduced shading potential.

Increased channel connectivity and channelization due to agriculture, urbanization, and flood
control activities have increased the magnitude and intensity of flow following winter storm
events within the Napa River basin. These conditions, coupled with reduced habitat complexity
(e.g., loss of off-channel habitat, shelter, channel forming features, etc.), have accelerated water
velocities during winter storm events that can impair adult upstream migration and significantly
reduce the value of winter juvenile rearing habitat within the mainstem.

The Napa River estuary has been dramatically altered by dredging, diking, and the introduction
of exotic species (Stillwater 2002), all of which have greatly reduced the quality and extent of
estuarine habitat for smolt and summer rearing juveniles. More information is needed to
determine the current quality and temporal availability of the Napa River estuary and the
rehabilitation work needed to improve its health and condition.
Threats
The following discussion focuses on those threats that were rated as High or Very High (See Napa
River CAP Results). Recovery strategies will likely focus on ameliorating High rated threats;

recovery efforts.

Several large dams were built between 1924 and 1959 on major eastside tributaries (Conn, Rector,
Milliken, York, and Bell dams) and Kimball Dam on the northern headwaters of the Napa River
(Stillwater 2002). York Dam is currently inoperable and has been proposed for removal for years
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. York Dam currently does not store water, but the physical
dam still prevents quality coarse material from recruiting to downstream reaches and precludes
steelhead access into quality habitat in upper York Creek. Currently, there is no planned date for
removing York Dam. Conn, Rector, Milliken, Kimball, and Bell dams are all in operation for
water supply purposes. Impacts associated with each of these dams include: storing quality
coarse material (e.g., spawning gravel) and preventing recruitment to downstream reaches,
completely blocking steelhead access to high value habitat, and significantly impairing
downstream flows. None of these dams have developed flow schedules that adequately address
steelhead life history requirements. Therefore, each of these dams individually and collectively
threatens the future recovery of steelhead in the Napa River watershed. Additionally, many
smaller dams, stream diversion facilities, and groundwater pumps will also continue to threaten
streamflow and the quality of steelhead habitat conditions.
Agriculture
The conversion of grazing and open space lands to vineyard production has been the most
significant change to the Napa River landscape in recent years (SFEI 2002). This change has
increased the pressure on water resources, threatening the ability of the Napa River watershed to
support a viable steelhead run in the future. Poor vineyard management has caused severe
stream bank erosion along the mainstem river corridor, and has also been a source of excessive
fine sediment input to tributary networks. Lost floodplain connectivity, diminished habitat
complexity, altered seasonal flow patterns, and increased water temperature can all be attributed
to vineyard development within the Napa River Valley. Recent efforts by the Rutherford Reach
DUST Society, with assistance from the Napa River Flood Control District and the Napa County
RCD, have made significant gains to habitat rehabilitation along the mainstem Napa River;
however, more rehabilitation work will be required, and water use efficiency measures during
the summer months will need to be implemented, to significantly improve conditions for
steelhead to the extent that a viable steelhead run can be restored in the Napa River watershed.
Channel modification remains one of the most significant threats to habitat complexity within the
Napa River watershed. Past LWD removal, levee building, and channel straightening activities

for flood control and agriculture have significantly degraded steelhead habitat condition within
many Napa River tributaries and mainstem. Constraining the Napa River mainstem through
past channel modification activities has increased in-channel bank erosion and fine sediment
input, accelerated channel incision rates, and limited coarse sediment depositional areas.
Channel modification techniques that have disconnected stream channels from floodplain habitat
also alter natural hydrologic patterns since stream connectivity efficiently drains the landscape
during the wet months and reduces the duration of potential groundwater recharge. The Napa
River Flood and Conservation District, the Napa County RCD, and the Rutherford Reach DUST
Society are in the process of implementing the 4.5 mile Rutherford Reach Restoration Project and
have already successfully improved floodplain connectivity and habitat complexity, and
designed bank protection features that enhance winter steelhead habitat during the wet season.
Once completed, the Rutherford Reach Restoration Project should be an excellent example of a
successful large scale rehabilitation project carried out within a highly modified, incised, and
channelized stretches of stream. Similar rehabilitation efforts are underway as the California
Land Stewardship Institute has recently completed the Oakville to Oak Knoll Napa River
Restoration Concept Plan 2011, and the Army Corps of Engineers is in the process of installing
habitat enhancement features within Napa Creek as part of the Napa River Flood Protection
Project. Implementing these efforts will reduce both the current and future threat of channel
modification to Napa River steelhead and their habitat.

Summer and winter juvenile steelhead lifestages are the most limited in the Napa River
watershed. The summer juvenile lifestage is limited the most by reduced habitat complexity, poor
gravel quality/food production, elevated summer water temperatures, and low summer stream
flows. The winter rearing juvenile lifestage is most limited by reduced habitat connectivity
(impaired passage), reduced habitat complexity, altered hydrologic stream patterns, and poor
floodplain connectivity. Steelhead production in the Napa River watershed is also severely
limited by fish passage barriers that limit access to areas of high quality habitat.

the watershed.

All partial and complete barriers to adult and steelhead migration should be identified and
assessed. Passage assessments should prioritize streams based upon their existing habitat value,
potential increase in habitat availability, and their potential to aid steelhead recovery in the Napa
River watershed.
Improve Habitat Complexity and Gravel Quality

Mainstem habitat enhancement projects incorporating LWD, boulders, and other habitat
complexity and channel forming features will greatly improve juvenile steelhead winter survival
and adult steelhead upstream migration. Tributary habitat enhancement projects should give the
highest priority to those streams with high productivity potential (i.e., suitable water
temperatures and quality spawning gravel).
Improve Canopy Cover and Reduce Stream Water Temperature

Many tributaries of the Napa River watershed would benefit from riparian restoration projects
that improve stream shading, reduce stream temperatures, and encourage natural LWD
recruitment. Priority tributaries should be carefully selected to ensure that restoration efforts
have a high probability of success in reducing water temperatures for summer rearing juvenile
steelhead.
Protect Seasonal and Summer Hydrologic Conditions

Implementing flow releases out of reservoirs that meet steelhead life history requirements would
greatly improve steelhead productivity within the Napa River watershed. Summer streamflow
guidelines should be developed and groundwater pumping monitored to ensure the protection
of streamflows in productive summer rearing tributaries.

Literature Cited
Becker. G.S., I.J. Reining, D.A. Asbury, A. Gunther. 2007. San Francisco Estuary Watershed
Evaluation: Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Tributaries of
the San Francisco Estuary. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration,
Oakland, CA.
Pearce, S., OConnor, M., Grossinger, R., and McKee, L., 2002. Napa River TMDL
Baseline Study: Geomorphic Processes and Habitat Form and Function in Soda
Creek. A Technical Report of the Regional Watershed Program, SFEI Contribution
63. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA.
Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of
California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA.
Stillwater Sciences. 2002. Napa River Basin Limiting Factors Analysis.
Jonathan Koehler, pers. comm. Napa RCD 2011.

Napa River CAP Viability Results
Current
Target Rating
Measurement
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
4% streams/ 0
Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating % IP-km (>80 Poor
stream average)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
Riparian Tree Diameter 39% Class 5 & >69% Class 5 & ?39% Class 5 &
Vegetation (North of SF Bay) 6 across IP-km 6 across IP-km 6 across IP-km
km km
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
>1 spawner
low risk spawner
spawner density per
Spence (2008)
Flow Conditions
Condition)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% (0.85mm) 15-17%
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm)
Gravel Quality
(Embeddedness)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Juveniles Condition

Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 89% of >90% of
8% streams/ 1%
Habitat Complexity (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average (>40% average Poor
pool frequency)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
4% streams/ 0
stream average)
Hydrology Poor
(Baseflow) Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 >75
Flow Conditions
Condition)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*

Riparian
Vegetation
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP 75 to 89% IP
<50% IP km >90% IP km <50% IP-km
km (<20 C km (<20 C
coho IP coho IP
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Contaminants
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5 0.2 - 0.6
50-74% of 75-90% of
<50% of >90% of 50-74% of
Viability Spatial Structure Historical Historical Fair
Range Range

Winter Rearing
Juveniles
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Not
Specified
Properly
Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
4% streams/ 0
stream average)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
No Evidence of
Contaminants
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Smolt Smolt Smolt
Smolt
abundance to
produce low
risk spawner
density per
Spence (2008)
(2008) Spence (2008) (2008)

>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of 6.038% of
6 Hydrology Impervious Surfaces Good
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of 19.08% of
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of 0.4% of
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of 22% of
2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6 3.2
Transport Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile
0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1 2.5
Mile Mile Mile Mile

Napa River CAP Threat Results

1 Agriculture High High Very High Very High High Very High Very High
2 Channel Modification High High Very High Very High High Very High Very High
3 Disease, Predation and Competition Medium Not Specified Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
5 Suppression Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
8 Logging and Wood Harvesting Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
9 Mining Low Low Medium Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Low
10 Recreational Areas and Activities Low Low Low Medium Low Medium Medium
11 Development Medium Low Medium High High High High
12 Roads and Railroads High Medium Medium High High High High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Medium Medium High High High Medium High
14 Water Diversion and Impoundments High High Very High High High Very High Very High
Threat Status for Targets and Project High High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High

Napa River, Central California Coast Steelhead (Interior San Francisco Bay) Recovery Actions
NpR-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species
NpR-CCCS- Recovery
Napa CFCWCD,
Develop an estuary rehabilitation and enhancement Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- plan in efforts to reclaim historically tidal influenced Napa County Cost based on estuary use/residence time model
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary areas of Napa River. 2 10 RCD 169.50 169.50 339 at a rate of $338,679/project.
Napa CFCWCD, Cost base on installing a minimum of 3 continuous

Evaluate water quality conditions (salinity, dissolved Napa County, water quality stations at a rate of $5,000/station.
NpR-CCCS- oxygen, temperature) in potential steelhead estuary Napa County Cost does not account for data management or
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary rearing areas. 2 10 RCD 7.50 7.50 15 maintenance.
Napa CFCWCD,
Identify and provide recommendations for potential Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- rehabilitation sites that have been altered by Napa County
1.1.1.3 Action Step Estuary dredging and diking. 2 10 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Napa CFCWCD,
Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- Identify locations to install habitat complexity features Napa County Cost based on treating 95 acres (assume 2.5% of
1.1.1.4 Action Step Estuary to enhance steelhead estuary rearing conditions. 2 10 RCD 2,337 2,337 4,674 total estuarine acres) at a rate of $49,200/acre.
NpR-CCCS- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain

Cost based on treating 19 miles (assume 1

Napa CFCWCD, project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
Napa County, $31,200/mile. Cost can be significantly higher if
NpR-CCCS- Floodplain Increase off-channel and velocity refuge in the main Napa County greater oversight and engineering is needed such
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity stem Napa River. 1 10 RCD 296.50 296.50 593 as installing ELJ estimated at $124,800/ELJ.
Napa CFCWCD,
Napa County, Cost based on riparian and wetland restoration
NpR-CCCS- Floodplain Design and implement floodplain rehabilitation Napa County model at a rate of $88,551 and $255,968/project,
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity projects within the main stem Napa River. 2 10 RCD 157.50 157.50 315 respectively.
Napa CFCWCD,
Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- Floodplain Complete the implementation of the Rutherford Napa County
2.1.1.3 Action Step Connectivity Reach Restoration Project (NMFS BO 2009). 1 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Complete implementation of the Napa River Flood Napa CFCWCD,

Reduction Project; specifically the Napa Creek Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- Floodplain improvement plan. Reviewed and approved by Napa County
2.1.1.4 Action Step Connectivity NMFS, CDFW, RWQCB (2010). 2 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Incorporate and design floodplain connectivity Napa CFCWCD,

features during the development of the Oakville to Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- Floodplain Oak Knoll Napa Habitat Enhancement and Sediment Napa County Cost based 5 projects with 10 acres/project at a
2.1.1.5 Action Step Connectivity Reduction Project. 2 10 RCD 1,116 1,116 2,232 rate of $44,640/acre.
Napa CFCWCD,
Incorporate obstructions (LWD, boulders) in Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- Floodplain floodplain project designs to increase velocity refuge Napa County
2.1.1.6 Action Step Connectivity for salmonids. 2 10 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.

Rehabilitate conditions to re-create, and restore Napa CFCWCD,

alcove, backwater, or seasonal off-channel habitats Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- Floodplain in low gradient floodplain reaches of the main stem Napa County
2.1.1.7 Action Step Connectivity Napa River. 2 10 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
NpR-CCCS- Recovery
3.1.1 Action Hydrology Improve flow conditions (baseflow condition)
Napa County,
Napa County
RCD, Napa
Valley Flood
Control District, This action step relies on participation of water
NpR-CCCS- Minimize groundwater pumping in or around alluvial Private users reducing groundwater pumping or locating
3.1.1.1 Action Step Hydrology fan reaches. 1 15 Landowners 0 groundwater wells away from alluvial fan reaches.
CDFW, Napa
County, Napa
County RCD,
Napa Valley
NpR-CCCS- Flood Control Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology Monitor groundwater levels in alluvial fan reaches. 2 25 District 15.80 15.80 15.80 15.80 15.80 79 a rate of $78,100/project.
CDFW,
CWQCB, Napa
County, Napa
County RCD,
Minimize or prevent frost protection Napa Valley
NpR-CCCS- pumping/irrigation in spawning and rearing tributaries Flood Control
3.1.1.3 Action Step Hydrology of the Napa River. 1 25 District, SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Napa
County RCD,
Napa Valley
Flood Control
District, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
NOAA/NMFS, a rate of $78,100/project. This action step should
NpR-CCCS- Monitor hydrology conditions in all spawning and Private be done in conjunction with similar action steps to
3.1.1.4 Action Step Hydrology rearing tributaries of the Napa River. 2 15 Landowners 26.33 26.33 26.33 79 reduce cost and redundancy.
Napa County,
Napa County
RCD, Napa
Valley Flood
Control District,
Discontinue surface and groundwater extraction NOAA/NMFS,
adjacent to high value habitat sub-basins and Private Cost based on modifying or removing water
NpR-CCCS- tributaries ( Redwood Creek, Dry Creek, Ritchie Landowners, diversions in high value habitat. Estimate for off-
3.1.1.5 Action Step Hydrology Creek , Sulphur Creek, and York Creek). 1 25 RWQCB TBD channel storage is $5,000/station.
CWQCB, Napa
County RCD,
Napa Valley
Flood Control
Minimize or discontinue surface or groundwater District, Private Cost based on modifying or removing water
NpR-CCCS- extraction in Salvador Creek, Browns Valley, Napa Landowners, diversions in high value habitat. Estimate for off-
3.1.1.6 Action Step Hydrology Creek, Tulucay Creek, and Hooper Creek. 2 25 SWRCB TBD channel storage is $5,000/station.
CDFW, Napa
(City) Water
Develop habitat/spawning/flow criteria that maximize District, Napa
NpR-CCCS- habitat conditions in Milliken Creek below Milliken Valley Flood Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
3.1.1.7 Action Step Hydrology Reservoir. 2 10 Control District 39.50 39.50 79 a rate of $78,100/project.

CDFW, Napa
(City) Water
District, Napa
Develop habitat/spawning/flow criteria that maximize Valley Flood
NpR-CCCS- habitat conditions in Conn Creek below Lake Control District, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
3.1.1.8 Action Step Hydrology Hennessey. 1 10 NOAA/NMFS 39.50 39.50 79 a rate of $78,100/project.
CDFW, Napa
(City) Water
District, Napa
Develop habitat/spawning/flow criteria that maximize County, Napa
NpR-CCCS- habitat conditions in Bell Creek below Bell Canyon County RCD, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
3.1.1.9 Action Step Hydrology Reservoir. 2 10 NOAA/NMFS 39.50 39.50 79 a rate of $78,100/project.
CDFW,
CWQCB, Napa
(City) Water
District, Napa
Develop habitat/spawning/flow criteria that maximize County, Napa
NpR-CCCS- habitat conditions in Rector Creek below Rector County RCD, Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
3.1.1.10 Action Step Hydrology Creek Reservoir. 3 10 NOAA/NMFS 39.50 39.50 79 a rate of $78,100/project.
CDFW, Napa
(City) Water
District, Napa
County, Napa
County RCD,
Napa Valley
Determine impacts to summer rearing associated Flood Control
NpR-CCCS- with Kimball Reservoir. Prescribe and implement District,
3.1.1.11 Action Step Hydrology bypass flows to enhance rearing habitat. 2 10 NOAA/NMFS TBD
NpR-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW, City of
Napa, Napa
(City) Water
District, Napa
County, Napa
NpR-CCCS- Determine if there is an appreciable quantity of County RCD,
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage historic habitat partially or completely blocked. 2 10 NOAA/NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, City of
Napa, Napa
(City) Water
District, Napa
County, Napa
NpR-CCCS- County RCD,
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage Determine if the blocked habitat is potentially viable. 2 10 NOAA/NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, City of
Napa, Napa
(City) Water
District, Napa
County, Napa
NpR-CCCS- County RCD, Cost based on adult escapement and juvenile
5.1.1.3 Action Step Passage Determine if fish passage is technologically feasible. 2 10 NOAA/NMFS 270 270 migration model at a rate of $270,000.
CDFW, City of
Napa, Napa
(City) Water
District, Napa
County, Napa
NpR-CCCS- If determined feasible, design and install appropriate County RCD, Costs dependent on whether action is considered
5.1.1.4 Action Step Passage fishway for Conn Dam. 1 15 NOAA/NMFS TBD feasible.

CDFW, City of
St. Helena,
Corps, Dam removal projects typically are cost effective
NpR-CCCS- NOAA/NMFS, approaches to providing passage. Cost for dam
5.1.1.5 Action Step Passage Remove York Dam. 1 10 RWQCB 1,000 1,000 removal estimate is $1,000,000.
CDFW, Napa Cost based on adult escapement and juvenile
NpR-CCCS- Evaluate, design, and implement appropriate fish County RCD, migration model at a rate of $43,654 and
5.1.1.6 Action Step Passage passage at Dry Creek Road on Campbell Creek. 2 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
5.1.1.7 Action Step Passage passage at Highway 12/121 on Huichica Creek. 2 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
Evaluate, design, and implement appropriate fish CDFW, Napa Cost based on adult escapement and juvenile
NpR-CCCS- passage at Silverado Resort Reservoir on Milliken County RCD, migration model at a rate of $43,654 and
5.1.1.8 Action Step Passage Creek. 2 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
5.1.1.9 Action Step Passage passage at Concrete ford crossing on Pickle Creek. 2 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
5.1.1.10 Action Step Passage passage at Silverado Trail culvert on Selby Creek. 2 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
, CDFW, Napa Cost based on adult escapement and juvenile
5.1.1.11 Action Step Passage passage at Highway 29 on Ritchey Creek. 2 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
NpR-CCCS- passage at Bothe State Park entrance on Ritchey County RCD, migration model at a rate of $43,654 and
NpR-CCCS- passage at Calistoga Community Center on the County RCD, migration model at a rate of $43,654 and
5.1.1.13 Action Step Passage Napa River. 2 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
5.1.1.14 Action Step Passage passage at Winery Driveway on Carneros Creek. 2 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
5.1.1.15 Action Step Passage passage at Highway 29 on Mill Creek. 3 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
NpR-CCCS- passage at the Old flashboard dam on Wing Canyon County RCD, migration model at a rate of $43,654 and
5.1.1.17 Action Step Passage passage at the Concrete wall weir on Murphy Creek. 3 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
CDFW Law
Enforcement,
Napa County Cost based on adult escapement and juvenile
NpR-CCCS- Evaluate, design, and implement appropriate fish RCD, migration model at a rate of $43,654 and
5.1.1.18 Action Step Passage passage at Concretes walls dam on Murphy Creek. 3 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
5.1.1.19 Action Step Passage passage at Highway 29 on Suscol Creek. 3 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
5.1.1.20 Action Step Passage passage at State Lane on Rector Creek. 3 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
5.1.1.21 Action Step Passage passage at the Old concrete dam on Suscol Creek. 3 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
5.1.1.22 Action Step Passage passage at Green Valley Road on Spencer Creek. 3 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
5.1.1.23 Action Step Passage passage at Vichy Ave culvert on the Sarco Creek. 3 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.

5.1.1.24 Action Step Passage passage at Old dam on Huichica Creek. 3 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
5.1.1.25 Action Step Passage passage at Robinson Lane on Browns Valley Creek. 3 20 NOAA/NMFS 67.50 67.50 67.50 67.50 270 $225,916/project, respectively.
NpR-CCCS- Habitat modification, or curtailment of the species
NpR-CCCS- Recovery
Evaluate, prescribe, and implement an appropriate

number of key LWD pieces to enhance summer Napa CFCWCD,
rearing conditions in potential steelhead spawning Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- and rearing areas throughout the tributaries of the Napa County Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
6.1.1.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity Napa River watershed. 2 15 RCD 46.00 46.00 46.00 138 rate of $137,833/project.
Identify and optimize the appropriate number of key Napa CFCWCD,

LWD pieces in the following highest priority sub- Napa County, Cost based on treating 6 miles (assume 1
NpR-CCCS- basins: Redwood Creek, Dry Creek, Ritchie Creek, Napa County project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
6.1.1.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity Sulphur Creek, and York Creek. 2 15 RCD 62.67 62.67 62.67 188 $31,200/mile.
Napa CFCWCD,
Evaluate, prescribe, and rehabilitate LWD frequency Napa County, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
NpR-CCCS- in Salvador, Browns Valley, Napa, Tulucay, Napa County project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
6.1.1.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity Carneros, Huichica, and Hopper creeks. 2 15 RCD 5.33 5.33 5.33 16 $31,200/mile.
Napa (City)
Evaluate, prescribe, and implement, an appropriate Water District,
number of key LWD pieces below Lake Hennessey, Napa CFCWCD,
Milliken, Bell Creek Canyon, and Rector Creek Napa County, Cost based on treating 0.5 miles (assume 1
NpR-CCCS- reservoirs in efforts to maximize habitat conditions Napa County project/mile in 50% high IP) at a rate of
6.1.1.4 Action Step Habitat Complexity below these barriers. 1 10 RCD 8.00 8.00 16 $31,200/mile.
Involve a qualified fisheries biologist while designing

habitat enhancement features during the Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- development of the Oakville to Oak Knoll Habitat Napa County
6.1.1.5 Action Step Habitat Complexity Enhancement and Sediment Reduction Project. 2 10 RCD, NCRWQB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Napa CFCWCD,
Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- Continue the Rutherford Reach Restoration Project Napa County
6.1.1.6 Action Step Habitat Complexity habitat enhance strategies. 2 2 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Napa CFCWCD,
Strategically place LWD in locations that optimize Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- seasonal habitat features for winter ( including Napa County
6.1.1.7 Action Step Habitat Complexity spring/fall) rearing juvenile steelhead. 2 15 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action steps.
NpR-CCCS- Recovery
Evaluate, develop, and implement strategies to

increase primary pool frequency in high priority
reaches within the following tributaries: Bale Slough, Napa CFCWCD,
Bear Canyon (& tribs), Bell, Brown, Carneros, Conn, Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- Dry, Milliken, Montgomery, Napa, Pickle, Redwood, Napa County Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
6.1.2.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity Sulpher, Wing Canyon, and York creeks. 2 15 RCD 46.00 46.00 46.00 138 rate of $137,833/project.
NpR-CCCS- Recovery

Identify locations and install structures within the Napa CFCWCD,

main stem Napa River to increase hydraulic diversity, Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- aggregation of coarse sediment, and improve the Napa County
6.1.3.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity frequency of riffle habitat. 2 15 RCD TBD
Develop and implement strategies that promote Napa CFCWCD,

hydraulic diversity and increase riffle habitat within Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- the Oakville to Oak Knoll Habitat Enhancement and Napa County
6.1.3.2 Action Step Habitat Complexity Sediment Reduction Project. 2 10 RCD TBD
Napa CFCWCD,
Continue with the same design strategies targeting Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- riffles habitat and hydraulic diversity within the Napa County
6.1.3.3 Action Step Habitat Complexity Rutherford Reach. 2 2 RCD TBD
NpR-CCCS- Recovery
Identify, evaluate, and improve shelters in adult

salmonid staging pool within the main stem Napa Napa CFCWCD,
River and the following tributaries: Bear Canyon (& Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- tribs), Browns, Canon, Conn, Health, Montgomery, Napa County
6.1.4.1 Action Step Habitat Complexity Sulphur, Napa, and York creeks. 2 10 RCD TBD
NpR-CCCS- Recovery
CDFW,
FONapaR, Napa
CFCWCD, Napa Cost based on riparian and wetland restoration
Evaluate, design, and implement strategies to County, Napa model at a rate of $88,551 and $255,969/project,
NpR-CCCS- rehabilitate native riparian communities and County RCD, respectively. Estimate for riparian restoration is
7.1.1.1 Action Step Riparian encourage large long standing trees. 2 15 RWQCB 115.00 115.00 115.00 345 $$24,682/acre in 25% high IP and 80 acres/mile.
CDFW,
FONapaR, Napa
CFCWCD, Napa
Identify and rehabilitate reaches dominated by exotic County, Napa Cost based on treating 1.9 miles (assume 1
NpR-CCCS- vegetation, and develop and implement site specific County RCD, project/mile in 5% high IP with 80 acres/mile) at a
7.1.1.2 Action Step Riparian plans to restore these reaches. 2 15 RWQCB 52.67 52.67 52.67 158 rate of $1,036/acre.
FONapaR, Napa
Manage for riparian buffer zones to the extent that CFCWCD, Napa
ambient air temperatures contribute to a reduction in County, Napa
NpR-CCCS- stream water temperatures that are suitable for County RCD,
7.1.1.3 Action Step Riparian summer rearing steelhead. 2 15 RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Improve instream gravel quality to reduce


FONapaR, Napa
Evaluate, design, and implement gravel quality and CFCWCD, Napa
quantity strategies to the extent that the maximum County, Napa
NpR-CCCS- amount of spawning and incubation habitat is County RCD, RR Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
8.1.1.1 Action Step Sediment achieved below all dams. 2 20 DUST, RWQCB 34.50 34.50 34.50 34.50 138 rate of $137,833/project.
Napa (City)
Water District,
Napa CFCWCD,
Evaluate, design, and implement gravel quality and Napa County,
quantity strategies to improve and rehabilitate Napa County
NpR-CCCS- spawning conditions in Salvador, Browns Valley, RCD, RWQCB, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
8.1.1.2 Action Step Sediment Napa, Tulucay, Hooper, and Bear Canyon creeks. 2 20 SWRCB 34.50 34.50 34.50 34.50 138 rate of $137,833/project.
quantity strategies to the extent that the maximum CDFW, Napa
amount of spawning habitat is achieved in the CFCWCD, Napa
following sub-basins: Redwood Creek, Dry Creek, County, Napa
NpR-CCCS- Ritchie Creek, Sulphur Creek, Carneros, Huichica, County RCD, Cost based on fish/habitat restoration model at a
8.1.1.3 Action Step Sediment and York Creek. 2 20 RWQCB 34.50 34.50 34.50 34.50 138 rate of $137,833/project.
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Improve gravel quantity and distribution for macro-

Napa CFCWCD,
Napa County,
Napa County
RCD, RR DUST, Cost based on sediment assessment for 67,158
NpR-CCCS- Identify fine sediment point sources within the main RWQCB, acres (assume 25% total watershed acres) at a
8.1.2.1 Action Step Sediment stem Napa River. 2 20 USEPA 254.25 254.25 254.25 254.25 1,017 rate of $15.14/acre.
CDFW, Napa
CFCWCD, Napa
Develop, design, and install habitat enhancement County, Napa
NpR-CCCS- features that encourage trapping of coarse sediment County RCD, RR Cost accounted for in other action steps: Habitat
8.1.2.2 Action Step Sediment within main stem Napa River. 2 20 DUST, RWQCB 0 Complexity.
FONapaR, Napa
CFCWCD, Napa
County, Napa
Develop strategies to improve gravel quality County RCD,
conditions within all current and potential summer NOAA/NMFS,
NpR-CCCS- rearing reaches below all dams with emphasis on RR DUST,
8.1.2.3 Action Step Sediment macro-invertebrate production. 2 20 RWQCB TBD Cost accounted for.
CDFW, Napa
CFCWCD, Napa
Design and install habitat features that increase riffle County, Napa
NpR-CCCS- habitat and hydraulic diversity while providing bank County RCD, RR Cost accounted for in other action steps: Habitat
8.1.2.4 Action Step Sediment stabilization within the main stem Napa River. 2 20 DUST, RWQCB 0 Complexity.
NpR-CCCS- modification or curtailment of the species habitat
10.1 Objective Water Quality or range
NpR-CCCS- Recovery

Identify factors limiting summer rearing water
temperature conditions and develop water
temperature reduction recommendations (if needed)
for Salvador, Browns Valley, Napa (including CDFW, Napa
NpR-CCCS- Redwood), Tulucay, Hopper, Carneros, Huichica, County RCD, Cost based on results from water temperature
10.1.1.1 Action Step Water Quality and Milliken creeks. 2 15 NOAA/NMFS TBD monitoring.
Investigate potential impacts to water temperatures

associated with riparian vegetation clearing and/or FONapaR, Napa
alterations. Provide recommendations for re- CFCWCD, Napa
NpR-CCCS- establishing a native riparian corridor that County, Napa Cost based on installing a minimum of 3 stream
10.1.1.2 Action Step Water Quality rehabilitates water temperature conditions. 2 5 County RCD 1.50 2 temperature gauges at a rate of $500/gauge.
Investigate stream temperature impacts (or potential
benefits) associated with all summer water
impoundments including, but not limited to: Kimball CDFW,
Reservoir, Lake Hennessey, Milliken Reservoir, Bell NOAA/NMFS,
NpR-CCCS- Creek Canyon Reservoir, and Rector Creek SWRCB, Water
10.1.1.3 Action Step Water Quality Reservoir. 2 15 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NpR-CCCS- Recovery
Napa CFCWCD,
Napa County, Cost based on number and type of bank
Evaluate, design, and implement, bank stabilization Napa County stabilization projects. Estimate for bank
NpR-CCCS- projects that rehabilitate and enhance aquatic habitat RCD, RWQCB, stabilization ranges from $284 to $398/ft (NMFS
10.1.2.1 Action Step Water Quality (See Rutherford Reach Restoration Project). 2 20 USEPA TBD 2008).
NpR-CCCS- Recovery (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
CDFW, Napa
CFCWCD, Napa
Involve NMFS, CDFW, RWQCB, in the design and County, Napa
NpR-CCCS- implementation of the Oakville to Oak Knoll Habitat County RCD,
12.1.1.1 Action Step Agriculture Enhancement and Sediment Reduction Project. 2 10 RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Napa
CFCWCD, Napa
County, Napa
Continue working with NMFS, CDFW, RWQCB, on County RCD,
NpR-CCCS- the design and implementation of the Rutherford RWQCB, US
12.1.1.2 Action Step Agriculture Reach Restoration Project. 2 10 EPA 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Napa
CFCWCD, Napa
Encourage and assist the NRCS and RCDs to County, Napa
NpR-CCCS- increase the number of landowners participating in County RCD,
12.1.1.3 Action Step Agriculture sediment reduction planning and implementation. 2 10 RCD, RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Napa County
Continue implementing Best Management Practices RCD,
such as those in the Fish Friendly Farming program NOAA/NMFS,
NpR-CCCS- (California Land Stewardship Institute), or other Private
12.1.1.4 Action Step Agriculture cooperative conservation programs. 2 10 Landowners 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Napa CFCWCD,
Maintain adequate stream corridor buffers to filter Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- and prevent fine sediment input from entering Napa County
12.1.1.5 Action Step Agriculture streams of the Napa River. 2 10 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind

NpR-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to water quality

12.1.2 Action Agriculture (instream water temperature)
Napa CFCWCD,
Re-establish native plant communities in riparian Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- zones to increase stream canopy to a minimum of Napa County
12.1.2.1 Action Step Agriculture 80% 2 20 RCD 0 Costs accounted for in above recovery actions.
Napa County
NpR-CCCS- Minimize impacts to stream flow to decrease water RCD, Private Cost based on implementation of other action
12.1.2.2 Action Step Agriculture temperatures. 2 20 Landowners 0 steps.
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

Napa CFCWCD, Cost based on amount and type of off-channel

Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of Napa County, storage needed to reduce impacts during spring
NpR-CCCS- water diversion during the spring and summer (e.g. Napa County and summer flows. Estimate for off-channel
12.1.3.1 Action Step Agriculture diversion during winter high flow). 2 15 RCD, NRCS TBD storage is $5,000/station.
NpR-CCCS- environmentally sound agricultural growth and water
12.1.3.2 Action Step Agriculture supply 2 15 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize adverse alterations to riparian

Napa CFCWCD,
Implement programs to purchase land/conservation Napa County, Cost based on fair market value, number and type
NpR-CCCS- easements to encourage the re-establishment and/or Napa County of conservation easement or land acquisition, and
12.1.4.1 Action Step Agriculture enhancement of natural riparian communities. 2 15 RCD TBD participation from landowner.
Napa CFCWCD,
Ensure that mature trees within the steam riparian Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- corridor are not disturbed or lost due to agricultural Napa County
12.1.4.2 Action Step Agriculture activities. 2 15 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

Promote the re-vegetation of the native riparian plant Napa CFCWCD,

community within inset floodplains and riparian Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- corridors to provide future recruitment of large wood Napa County
12.1.5.1 Action Step Agriculture and other shelter components. 2 15 RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
NpR-CCCS- Recovery substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
Establish appropriately sized and properly functioning Napa CFCWCD,

riparian buffers adjacent to watercourses that have a Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- potential to deliver sediment to spawning and rearing Napa County
12.1.6.1 Action Step Agriculture habitat. 2 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Napa CFCWCD,
Work with landowners to assess the effectiveness of Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- erosion control measures throughout the winter Napa County
12.1.6.2 Action Step Agriculture period. 2 15 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NpR-CCCS- Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

NpR-CCCS- Recovery (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or

Napa CFCWCD,
Develop riparian setbacks/buffers that protect Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- existing native riparian species composition and Napa County
12.2.1.1 Action Step Agriculture structure. 2 25 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NpR-CCCS- Channel modification, or curtailment of the species
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

Ensure that all future channel designs for flood Corps, Napa
conveyance incorporate features that enhance CFCWCD, Napa
NpR-CCCS- Channel steelhead migration under high and low flow County, Napa
13.1.1.1 Action Step Modification conditions. 3 20 County RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

Develop and implement strategies that slow urban Cost based on implementing several strategies
NpR-CCCS- Channel and agriculture runoff during the spawning and such as catchment basins, filter strips, and
13.1.2.1 Action Step Modification migration season (slow it, spread it, sink it). 2 25 City, County TBD reducing impervious surfaces.
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Channel substrate/food productivity (gravel quality and
Prevent site specific stabilization projects which will

lead to additional stream bank instability up-stream or Napa CFCWCD,
down-stream causing more fine sediment inputs - Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- Channel promote sediment reduction projects at a geomorphic Napa County
13.1.3.1 Action Step Modification reach scale. 2 20 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to habitat complexity

Ensure all future bank stabilization projects minimize Napa CFCWCD,

rip-rap, thoroughly evaluate all alternatives to rip-rap, Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- Channel and at minimum incorporate fish habitat complexity Napa County
Napa CFCWCD,
Develop and implement mitigation policy that Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- Channel requires In-Kind replacement of removed large Napa County
13.1.4.2 Action Step Modification woody debris to a minimum of a 3:1 ratio. 2 25 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Channel complexity (altered pool complexity and/or pool:riffle
Napa CFCWCD,
Ensure future retention and recruitment of large Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- Channel woody and root wads to rehabilitate existing stream Napa County
13.1.5.1 Action Step Modification complexity, pool frequency, and depth. 2 25 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Napa CFCWCD,
Prevent any future removal of habitat forming Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- Channel structures (LWD, boulders, vegetation, etc.) in Napa County
13.1.5.2 Action Step Modification natural waterways. 2 25 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Channel Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain


Design future channel modification activities to
prevent or minimize impediments to the creation, or Napa CFCWCD,
blocking access to, off channel habitat used by Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- Channel salmonids as refuge and winter rearing habitat during Napa County
13.1.6.1 Action Step Modification high stream flows. 2 25 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Ensure that all future levees or similar flood control

projects incorporate setbacks that allow the river to Napa CFCWCD,
respond to natural geomorphic processes and Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- Channel remain in equilibrium. Minimally, setbacks should Napa County
13.1.6.2 Action Step Modification accommodate a 100 year event. 2 25 RCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NpR-CCCS- Commercial modification, or curtailment of the species
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Commercial (increased turbidity, suspended sediment, and/or
Residential/ Prevent or minimize the future use of commercial

NpR-CCCS- Commercial and industrial products (e.g. pesticides) with high
22.1.1.1 Action Step Development potential for contamination of local waterways. 3 25 City, County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Cost based on number and type of filter or buffer

Residential/ Develop filter or buffer systems that reduce pollutants system needed to reduce pollutant discharge to
NpR-CCCS- Commercial from entering streams and waterways of the Napa streams and waterways. Estimate for filter strip
22.1.1.2 Action Step Development River. 3 25 City, County TBD ranges from $9,000 to $24,000/system.
Residential/
NpR-CCCS- Commercial Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory
Residential/
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Commercial Prevent or minimize impairment to floodplain
Residential/
NpR-CCCS- Commercial Prevent or greatly restrict new development within City, Counties,
22.2.1.1 Action Step Development 100-year floodprone zones. 3 50 Napa CFCWCD 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Residential/ Encourage infill and high density developments over
NpR-CCCS- Commercial dispersal of low density rural residential in
22.2.1.2 Action Step Development undeveloped areas. 2 25 City, County 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Prevent or minimize alterations to sediment transport

CalTrans, City,
County, Napa
Identify and address high and medium priority CFCWCD, Napa
NpR-CCCS- sediment delivery sites associated with roads and County, Napa Cost based on road inventory of 1334 miles of
23.1.1.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads railroads. 2 15 County RCD 511 511 511 1,532 road network at a rate of $1,148/mile.
City, County,
For all rural (unpaved) and seasonal dirt roads apply Napa CFCWCD,
best management practices for road construction Napa County,
maintenance management and decommissioning Napa County
NpR-CCCS- (e.g. Hagans & Weaver 1994 Sommarstrom 2002 RCD, RR DUST,
23.1.1.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads Oregon Department of Transportation 1999). 2 15 RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind

Educate Napa County road engineers and

and the adverse effects of improper road Napa County,
NpR-CCCS- construction and maintenance on salmonids and their Napa County
23.1.1.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads habitats (i.e. sizing of culverts, gabions, etc.).. 2 20 RCD, NMFS 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and
NpR-CCCS- Recovery migration
23.1.2 Action Roads/Railroads
City Planning,
County, Napa
Evaluate existing and future stream crossings that CFCWCD, Napa
impair natural geomorphic processes. Replace or County, Napa
NpR-CCCS- retrofit crossings to achieve more natural conditions County RCD, RR Cost accounted for in above action step:
23.1.2.1 Action Step Roads/Railroads that meet sediment transport goals. 2 15 DUST, RWQCB 0 Passage.
City Planning,
County, Napa
CFCWCD, Napa Cost based on adult escapement and juvenile
Evaluate, design, and implement projects that County, Napa migration model for 2 impassable crossing at a
NpR-CCCS- address private road stream crossings that impair County RCD, RR rate of $43,654 and $225,916/project,
23.1.2.2 Action Step Roads/Railroads adult and juvenile steelhead migration 2 15 DUST, RWQCB 180.00 180.00 180.00 540 respectively.
CalTrans,
CDFW, City,
County, Napa
CFCWCD, Napa
Ensure all future and replacement road/stream County, Napa
NpR-CCCS- crossing provide passage for all steelhead life County RCD,
23.1.2.3 Action Step Roads/Railroads stages. 2 15 RWQCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NpR-CCCS- Severe Weather Address other natural or manmade factors

24.1 Objective Patterns affecting the species' continued existence
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

CDFW, City,
Develop severe drought measures that protect all County,
NpR-CCCS- Severe Weather steelhead spawning and rearing tributaries within the SWRCB, Water
24.1.1.1 Action Step Patterns Napa River watershed. 1 25 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NpR-CCCS- Severe Weather Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory

NpR-CCCS- Recovery Severe Weather Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology

City, County,
Napa (City)
Water District,
Napa CFCWCD,
NpR-CCCS- Severe Weather Develop and implement critical flow levels for stream SWRCB, Water Cost based on stream flow/precipitation model at
24.2.1.1 Action Step Patterns reaches impacted by water diversions. 2 25 Agencies 15.80 15.80 15.80 15.80 15.80 79 a rate of $78,100/project.

CDFW, City,
County,
FONapaR, Napa
(City) Water
District, Napa
Work with water managers on regulated streams to CFCWCD, Napa
assure adequate and proper consideration is given to County, Napa
fish needs. Develop agreements that will minimize County RCD,
NpR-CCCS- Severe Weather water-use conflicts and impacts on fish and wildlife NOAA/NMFS,
NpR-CCCS- Water Diversion/ modification, or curtailment of the species
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to passage and

25.1.1 Action Impoundment migration
CDFW,
FONapaR, Napa
CFCWCD, Napa
County, Napa
County RCD,
NOAA/NMFS,
Private
Consultants,
Private
NpR-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Develop and implement minimum bypass flows that Landowners, Cost for stream flow model accounted for in other
25.1.1.1 Action Step Impoundment protect all migrating salmonids. 1 15 Water Agencies TBD action steps.
CDFW, Napa
CFCWCD, Napa
County, Napa
County RCD,
NOAA/NMFS, Cost based on number and type of fish screens
NpR-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Adequately screen water diversions to prevent RWQCB, needed. Estimate for fish screens is
25.1.1.2 Action Step Impoundment entrainment of all steelhead life stages. 2 15 SWRCB TBD $64,158/screen.
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ complexity (altered pool complexity and/or pool:riffle
25.1.2 Action Impoundment ratio)
CDFW, City,
County,
NOAA/NMFS,
NpR-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Review existing and future diversions to minimize RWQCB, Water
25.1.2.1 Action Step Impoundment effects to channel forming and maintenance flows. 2 25 Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Napa
Develop and implement flow/habitat criteria that County RCD,
NpR-CCCS- Water Diversion/ optimize pool/riffle /run habitat below all water NOAA/NMFS, Cost accounted for in other action steps:
25.1.2.2 Action Step Impoundment diversions and impoundments. 2 10 Water Agencies 0 Hydrology
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to hydrology (gravel

25.1.3 Action Impoundment scouring events)
NpR-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Develop ramping criteria for all dams and water NOAA/NMFS,
25.1.3.1 Action Step Impoundment release points within the Napa River watershed. . 2 25 Water Agencies 0 Action is considered In-Kind
NpR-CCCS- Recovery Water Diversion/ Prevent or minimize impairment to stream hydrology


Develop and implement water diversion guidelines CDFW, Napa

that minimize adverse effects to salmonid habitat by CFCWCD, Napa
establishing a more natural hydrograph, by-passing County, Napa
adequate downstream flows, regulating season of County RCD,
NpR-CCCS- Water Diversion/ diversion, and promoting and implementing off- NOAA/NMFS,
25.1.4.1 Action Step Impoundment stream storage solutions. 2 20 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Napa
CFCWCD, Napa
County, Napa
County RCD,
NOAA/NMFS,
Develop and implement alternative off-channel RR DUST, Cost based on the amount and type of off-channel
NpR-CCCS- Water Diversion/ storage to reduce impacts of water diversions during RWQCB, storage facilities needed. Estimate for off-
25.1.4.2 Action Step Impoundment the spring and summer. 2 20 SWRCB TBD channel storage is $5,000/station.
NpR-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Continue to prohibit new or increased summer

25.1.4.3 Action Step Impoundment diversions. 2 25 SWRCB 0 Action is considered In-Kind
CDFW, Napa
(City) Water
District, Napa
CFCWCD, Napa
County, Napa
County RCD,
NpR-CCCS- Water Diversion/ Assess, map, and install stream gages on all water NOAA/NMFS, Cost based on the number of water diversions.
25.1.4.4 Action Step Impoundment diversions (CDFG 2004). 2 15 SWRCB TBD Estimate for stream flow gauges is $1,000/station.

Petaluma River Population


Limited information exists regarding the historic abundance of steelhead in the Petaluma basin,
though the low elevations, gradient, valley confinement and the presence of a large marsh with
connection to the San Francisco Bay suggests the population must have been plentiful. More
modern day information available indicate that few tributaries in the watershed currently
support steelhead. In a 1962 report, steelhead were described as only "lightly using" the Petaluma
River (Skinner 1962). A 1968 CDFG visual survey of Adobe Creek reported juvenile steelhead at
an estimated density of 150 individuals per 30-meters (Leidy et al. 2005). The Casa Grande High
School/United Anglers Fish Hatchery was established in 1993. Since this time, the United Anglers
of Casa Grande High School (UACGHS) have primarily reared rainbow trout and Chinook
salmon in the hatchery. Reared juvenile rainbow trout were released into reservoirs outside of
the basin and Chinook juveniles were released into San Francisco Bay (UACG Inc. 2012). In 1994
and 1995 juvenile steelhead were collected from Adobe Creek as part of a tagging study
conducted with the Bodega Bay Marine Lab. Four hundred of these fish were released back into
Adobe Creek (UACG Inc. 2012).
Other accounts indicate that steelhead have been found in Lichau, Adobe, and San Antonio
creeks; and possibly in Lynch, Willow Brook, and Thompson creeks (SSCRCD 1999). Of these
listed tributaries, Adobe and Lynch Creeks have had the highest number of recent steelhead
observations (P. Comm. Dan Hubacher, UACGH). In spawner surveys conducted from 1987 to
2012 in Adobe Creek by UACGHS, the highest number of adult spawners observed during that
span was 60 individuals (UACG Inc. 2012). In 2007 CDFG conducted thorough habitat surveys
of major tributaries and confirmed presence of juvenile steelhead in most anadromous reaches.
History of Land Use

The following historical accounts were based on information found in the Sonoma Resource
Conservation Districts (formerly the Southern Sonoma Resource Conservation District) Draft
Watershed Enhancement Plan (2013):
Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan Public Draft Petaluma River 868

Prior to European settlement in the 1800s, Miwok people lived within the Petaluma River
basin for more than 2500 years. Historically, the river was narrow, shallow and difficult
to navigate, but through channel dredging, widening, and straightening efforts beginning
in the 1850s, it became a vital way of transporting goods from the towns of the North Bay
to San Francisco. Farming and chicken ranching boomed within the basin and the town
of Petaluma became one of the wealthiest towns in California. The Corps widened the
creek in 1880 to fifty feet wide and deepened it to three feet at high tide. By 1915 the area
was shipping out an estimated ten million eggs a year, most of them via the Petaluma
River. After the chicken industry declined, dairies began to flourish, but the dairy industry
also subsequently declined, and by 1997 there were only 15 dairies in the Petaluma
watershed, located mostly in the San Antonio Creek and Adobe Creek regions.

The Petaluma River watershed is located in southern Sonoma County and northeastern Marin
County, California, and drains an area of approximately 146 square miles to San Pablo Bay, part
of San Francisco Bay. The lower 12 miles of the river flow through the large and relatively
undisturbed Petaluma Marsh, which is the largest remaining salt marsh in San Pablo Bay,
covering 5,000 acres and is surrounded by approximately 7,000 acres of reclaimed wetlands
(Southern Sonoma Resource Conservation District [SSRCD] 2013). Upstream, the river flows
through the urbanized center of Petaluma. Residential and commercial development is sprawled
across the foothills, and a small but busy recreational and commercial port brackets the
floodplain. The northern watershed harbors the small residential town of Penngrove. The
relatively low elevation but hilly nature of upland areas below Sonoma Mountain, supports a
significant amount of agricultural and livestock ranching activities (SSRCD 1999).
The climate is relatively mild with annual average temperature ranging from approximately 70
F to 45 F, and annual rainfall averaging from 20 to 50 inches, depending upon location. Although
previously considered too cool for grape growing, vineyard development has increased in the
watershed, particularly in the Lakeville area, southeast of the city of Petaluma, and vineyards are
now competing with the dairy industry throughout the watershed. The watershed has one large
urban center, the City of Petaluma, and a smaller commercial and residential development area
in the City of Penngrove. There are also open space lands, such as state and local parks as well as
almost 5,000 acres in several marsh preserves managed by the CDFW, Marin County, State
Coastal Conservancy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Sonoma Land Trust (SSRCD 1999).

The following indicators were rated Poor through the CAP process for steelhead: Habitat
complexity (all indicators), floodplain connectivity, impaired water flow (redd scour and
baseflows) and quality (turbidity and toxicity), riparian vegetation, gravel quality, road density,
urbanization, and viability (abundance and density). Recovery strategies will focus on improving
these poor conditions as well as those needed to ensure population viability and functioning
watershed processes.
Current Conditions
our CAP viability analysis. The Petaluma River CAP Viability Table results are provided below.

Only 50% (5 of 10) of major streams met optimal criteria (>70% canopy averaged for the stream).
Specifically Adobe, Washington and Ellis Creek subbasins and their tributaries rated Fair (50-69%
canopy), though the native structure of the riparian zone has been highly altered throughout the
watershed. Only 7% of the riparian zone is made up of small trees in the class of Hardwood
Forest and Hardwood Woodland species; large trees for bank stabilization and the future
recruitment of LWD are essentially lacking in this watershed. The surrounding forest, which was
historically present, was cleared for livestock and dairy operations. Today, the primary land uses
by watershed area are: Herbaceous (45%), Urban (18%), Agricultural (16%) though the lower has
a small percentage of Wetland (6%) classification. Threats contributing significantly to this
condition include: Agriculture, Channel Modification, Livestock Farming and Ranching,
Residential and Commercial Development, Roads and Railroads, Severe Weather Patterns.

Sediment Transport from road density conditions have a rating of Poor. Altered sediment
transport limits spawning gravel recruitment and impacts spawning gravel quality. Juvenile
rearing habitat suffers from channel incision and lack of floodplain refugia in all tributaries to the
Petaluma River. With continued pressure to convert agricultural and livestock ranches to
residential development, road densities are likely to increase throughout the watershed; thus,
altered sediment transport will continue to impair juvenile and adult habitat conditions in the
future. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include Residential and Commercial
Development, and Roads and Railroads.

The Petaluma River estuary, or Petaluma Marsh, has been highly altered from its natural state
due to widening, straightening and dredging for navigational purposes, and on the north side for
agricultural operations. High sediment loading from upstream erosive channel conditions due to
grazing, roads, and agricultural development have silted in the existing channel. Historically,
dairy waste and treated sewage releases have impaired water quality. Despite these changes, the
Petaluma Marsh is now the largest remaining intact natural salt marsh in the San Francisco Bay.
Conditions for rearing of smolts are limited by high water temperatures in tidal reaches of the
upper mainstem Petaluma River during the summer. Conditions for rearing smolts in the lower
estuary are unknown at this time. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include
Agriculture, and Channel Modification.

While lower Petaluma River retains wetland habitats out to the Bay on the south side, the channel
has been straightened, and the historic sloughs which provided complex winter rearing habitat
are diked, or flanked by levees, with significant agricultural development on the north side. Mid-
watershed, urban development and agricultural lands encroach upon the historic floodplain.
Road building, culverts, and grazing activities have led to severe channel incision in the mainstem
and eastern tributaries. Western tributaries, mainly San Antonio Creek, retain some natural
channel conditions, yet much of the riparian vegetation has been cleared for grazing and channel
incision is severe. The lack of large woody debris and the shelter it provides, or access to
floodplain refugia reduces overwinter survival of juveniles throughout the watershed. Channel
modification and incision has separated the active stream channel from its natural floodplain
except at extreme flood flows when salmonids can be flushed out to agricultural and grazing
lands, where they may become trapped on the declining limb of the hydrograph. Existing
infrastructure, such as urban development and roads, limits opportunities for floodplain
enhancement on the eastern side of the watershed. Threats contributing significantly to this
condition include: Agriculture, Channel Modification, Residential and Commercial
Development, and Roads and Railroads.

Channel incision in most eastern tributaries of the Petaluma River contributes to the retention of
spawning gravels and shelter as they are mobilized during high flow events, and consequently
there is high potential for redd scour. The San Antonio Creek subwatershed, on the western side
of the Petaluma River, maintains a more natural channel configuration, and therefore it is less
susceptible to this stress. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include Agriculture,
Channel Modification, and Roads and Railroads.

Though no major dams exist within the basin, numerous small residential, agricultural and
ranching diversions exist which can potentially contribute to reduced summer baseflows. Unlike
neighboring watersheds, where viticulture is a major part of the landscape, streamflow in the
Petaluma watershed does not experience the significant, instantaneous, flow reductions related
to viticulture frost protection, or other agricultural activities. A USGS gage (ID #: 11459150) is
located in the Petaluma River just downstream of the mouth of Lynch Creek, which monitors
streamflow. Aside from this monitoring station, there is no monitoring of streamflow in the
watershed. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include Water Diversions and
Impoundments, and Severe Weather Patterns.

Passage has not been thoroughly systematically assessed in the Petaluma basin, and numerous
adult migration barriers exist in the form of culverts, bridges and small dams and farm ponds.
Significant barriers are present at the confluence of Lynch Creek and the Petaluma River and in
the lower mile of Adobe Creek (several partial barriers exist that span the creek) that may impede
passage of adults into these streams during a majority of streamflows. Threats contributing
significantly to this condition include Channel Modification, and Roads and Railroads.

No streams met optimal habitat complexity criteria for pools and riffles, or shelter complexity for
any lifestage, within the watershed. Summer juvenile production is highly affected by the lack of
these habitat elements. Riffle habitats for spawning and deep pool habitats are specifically lacking
and are of particular concern in most of Petaluma River and its tributaries. Threats contributing
significantly to this condition include Agriculture, Channel Modification, and Residential and
Commercial Development.

No streams within the watershed met optimal criteria (>50% scores 1 and 2) for embeddedness.
Most streams rated Fair, and Ellis and Washington Creeks rated Poor. Gravel embeddedness
affects the survivability of incubating eggs through decreased oxygenation, and the release of
metabolic wastes from the redd, and can also inhibit emergence of alevins from the redd. Threats
contributing significantly to this condition include Livestock Farming and Ranching, and Roads
and Railroads.
Landscape Patterns: Agriculture, Timber Harvest, and Urbanization
High disturbance to watershed processes exists due to high urban development (27%).
Approximately six percent of land cover in the watershed is impervious surfaces. Agricultural

development, which was rated as Fair, contributes to 16% of the land cover in the watershed.
However, the present landscape, which primarily exists of low forest and high herbaceous cover
with high runoff rates, is a product of historical land clearing for agriculture and dairy pastures.
The potential for habitat restoration in this rural watershed is higher than for many populations
within the Diversity Stratum due to its relatively low degree of urban development and lack of
large water impoundments. Threats contributing significantly to this condition include
Agriculture, and Residential and Commercial Development.

The numerous habitat impacts and dysfunctional watershed processes contributes to low
recruitment, and spawner density, though spatial diversity was rated as good with steelhead still
occupying any accessible tributary. The UACGH hatchery program could play a role in
supplementing the low population numbers which could stem the decline of steelhead in the
watershed. The Petaluma watershed can play a significant role in increasing adult abundance in
the Interior Bay Diversity Stratum because of its relatively high potential for habitat restoration
and the presence of a functional fish hatchery in the watershed. Threats contributing significantly
to this condition include Severe Weather Patterns, and Water Diversion and Impoundments.
Water Quality: Turbidity, Toxicity and Temperature

The lack of riparian habitat and the high occurrence of bank erosion contribute to high siltation
and low oxygen levels in the water, which affect incubating eggs. Turbidity is also considered to
be a problem for winter rearing juveniles because it inhibits their ability to forage for food and
avoid predators. High water temperatures exist throughout the watershed due to the lack of
riparian corridor, or thin riparian corridor (and the resulting shade produced from an intact
riparian corridor) in many tributaries. In 1982, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
reported that dissolved oxygen and nutrient problems persist in the watershed (SSRCD 2013).
Threats contributing significantly to this condition include Livestock Farming and Ranching,
Roads and Railroads
Threats
Petaluma River CAP Results). Recovery strategies will likely focus on ameliorating High rated
threats; however, some strategies may address Medium and Low threats when the strategy is
Agriculture
Ongoing agricultural practices have eliminated or reduced riparian width and thereby the
recruitment of LWD and shade, with viticulture being a recent addition in the Lakeville portion
of the watershed. Though GIS spatial analysis showed vegetation in the watershed is composed

of 16% agricultural production, an additional 45% of the watershed is currently shrubland; a
habitat type which could be readily converted to agricultural production (including vineyards)
as this component already contains rangeland and dairy lands. Increased water diversions to
support viticulture activity could further impact summer baseflows, causing disconnected
aquatic habitat and elevated instream temperatures. Also, future agriculture operations could
potentially encroach into adjacent riparian areas, increasing sediment delivery, and impact
shading and wood recruitment if proper Best Management Practices are not utilized.
Channel modification has been the largest impact to salmonid resources in the Petaluma River
and its tributaries through the removal of floodplain and riparian resources. Juvenile steelhead
access to refugia during high velocity streamflows in the winter is limited because less than 50%
of stream channels are connected to their floodplain. Channel modification has also led to channel
incision, over-steepened banks, high erosional forces and gravel embededness, and ultimately,
loss of riparian trees and width.
Dredging of the lower main river continues by the Corps on a 10 year cycle and in the upper river
channel on a 4 year cycle. Based on the Corps experience over the past 50 years, an average of
60,000 cubic yards of material is deposited in the river each year (SCWA 1986). Sedimentation in
un-leveed tidal areas has been aggravated by the construction of levees and landfills in tidal areas.
This is because the confinement of the natural waterway by levees has accelerated sediment
buildup in areas outside of levees. Sedimentation in these reaches reduces flood-carrying
capacity and soon the levees begin to lose their effectiveness (SSCRCD 1999).
Encroachment on the floodplain, and the effects of road building, culverts and grazing have led
to severe channel incision in upper reaches of mainstem Petaluma River and many tributary
reaches. Bank protection structures such as concrete rubble, rock riprap, grouted gabion baskets
and sacked concrete have been placed at locations throughout the watershed by local
jurisdictions, water agencies, and residential property owners to protect roads and houses. These
types of structures reduce the biological and physical integrity of stream habitats by restricting
riparian vegetation growth and lateral channel migration. Bank hardening and grade control
structures can also pose as barriers to fish passage.

Conversion of forestlands to grasslands and livestock grazing has significantly impacted riparian
corridors. Cattle and other livestock browsing has decreased understory riparian species which
provide habitat for terrestrial invertebrates that are food for rearing juvenile salmonids. GIS
analysis of the riparian forest indicated 0% of the forest riparian canopy is made up of large tree

classes, while only 7% of the riparian is made up of small trees in the class of Hardwood Forest
and Hardwood Woodland species. Grazing and loafing of livestock within riparian corridors
also erodes stream banks which causes high gravel embeddedness that impacts spawning success
and egg incubation.

Road and water use impacts related to existing residential and commercial developments are
discussed below. The potential future conversion of ranchettes and large agricultural parcels to
residential and commercial parcels could increase water demand in the watershed. Currently,
these large agricultural parcels buffer the watershed from excessive water use to some extent.
Summer juvenile habitat is absent in locations where domestic water demand exceeds flow
capacity.
Roads and Railroads

Both watershed road density and streamside road density is high in the Petaluma River
watershed. In urbanized areas, roads mainly impact the stream by adding to the amount of
impermeable surfaces in the watershed, creating passage barriers, and, where they encroach upon
floodplains, restricting lateral channel migration. A notable example of this is the reach of Adobe
Creek between the Old Adobe Road crossing and the Ely Road crossing, where there are several
poorly designed road crossings and the road encroaches upon the floodplain. In rural areas, there
are many existing private ranch roads that occur in close proximity to streams and are not
properly maintained to reduce erosion. Unlike many of the neighboring watersheds in Marin
and Sonoma County, there is no watershed-wide road assessment or transportation plan for the
Petaluma River watershed. With few road decommissioning and upgrading projects in the
subbasin and the likelihood of more road building, this threat is likely to continue in the future.

The primary sources of reported water diversions in the watershed are related to summer
residential and agricultural diversions. The number of these types of diversions is low. However,
there are also many unreported diversions (illegal and riparian rights) throughout the watershed
that contribute to the overall water demand in the basin. As vineyard development continues
water use for vineyard frost protection will likely increase due to the cool conditions of the basin.
Water diversion in the tributaries have the potential to strand and kill steelhead fry and juveniles
in isolated pools and dewater redds below in late spring and early summer. Streamflow in the
mainstem has been compromised by channelization which has confined winter flows and
resulted in high sediment yield, lower riparian cover, and high temperatures.

Threat and stress analysis within the CAP workbook suggests juvenile lifestage is most limited.
Quality winter rearing habitat, as well as summer rearing habitat, is lacking for steelhead.
Impaired quality and extent of habitat connectivity, as well as impaired water flow, are the
stresses most limiting recovery of steelhead in the Petaluma River watershed.

the watershed. Priority Recovery Actions: To improve the Poor and inadequate ratings of key
habitat attribute indicators in the Petaluma River watershed. Priority recovery actions in this
watershed include: improving riparian and canopy, reducing the input of sand and silt,
improving streamflows in tributaries, removing passage barriers, addressing water pollution
problems, and increasing population numbers through supplementation efforts following
significant habitat restoration to address the above issues. San Antonio, Ellis, Adobe, Lynch,
Lichau, and Willow Brook creeks are high priority areas for implementing the following recovery
actions.

Improving riparian composition and structure would increase stream shading and improve LWD
recruitment and result in increases in instream shelter for juvenile steelhead. Practices to improve
riparian condition include native riparian planting, development and enforcement of riparian
buffers, livestock exclusion fencing, and aligning stream maintenance objectives with riparian
conservation objectives.

Existing problem roads and active erosion sites should be evaluated, prioritized, and addressed
as part of a comprehensive sediment reduction and transportation plan for the entire Petaluma
River basin. Future road construction should utilize BMPs to prevent alteration of hydrologic
processes, sediment transport, and fish passage, and avoid or minimize construction of roads
within riparian zones.
Increase Instream Habitat Complexity
Shelter ratings should be improved within poor quality reaches of all tributaries. In stable
reaches, adding LWD or boulder structures will improve the habitat complexity of existing pool
habitats where shelter components are currently comprised of small wood and aquatic
vegetation. In unstable channel reaches, restoration efforts should implement wood/boulder

structures into degraded reaches where shelter components are currently comprised of undercut
banks to increase pool frequency and volume. Expanding opportunities for adult spawning and
resting habitats, such as staging pools for resting, and trapping of spawning gravels for spawning,
is specifically recommended throughout the mainstem and higher order tributary stream
reaches.

residential expansion should be discouraged, especially in lowland agricultural zones, and except
where the County General Plan elements are protective enough to offset impacts. Conservation
easements to protect riparian resources have been useful and should be implemented further to
re-establish riparian corridors. Restoration of riparian corridors through the purchase of
easements from willing landowners, removal of levees, and expansion of stream corridors,
through both natural meandering processes and re-vegetation with native species appropriate to
the area, would aid sediment transport, channel processes and perhaps reduce the need for
dredging.
Improving distribution of livestock to reduce prolonged concentrated utilization of grassland and

riparian areas and to provide periods of rest for improved grassland is recommended. Confining
livestock out of riparian corridors is a high priority for the basin. Projects to limit access by
livestock in any riparian areas where livestock currently have access should be implemented,
either independently or as part of cooperative restoration projects. Existing and future
agricultural practices should follow accepted BMPs such as those of the Fish Friendly Farming
program to protect and enhance salmonid resources and water quality. A programmatic
approach to funding and regulatory hurdles could be explored with NRCS or the local RCD.
Increase Abundance and Prevent Extirpation

Consider and evaluate the role of a conservation hatchery or hatchery stocking within the
Petaluma River basin, as part of a program for the larger Interior San Francisco Bay diversity
stratum. Such a program would preserve the remaining genetic and phenotypic characteristics
that promote life history variability through a captive broodstock, supplementation, or rescue
rearing program, and reduce the short-term or immediate risk of extinction. Evaluate the
feasibility of using the existing hatchery facility at the Casa Grande High School for such a
program.

Protect Natural Seasonal and Summer Hydrologic Conditions
Protecting and enhancing summer baseflows will increase the extent of summer rearing habitat
in most Petaluma River tributaries. Maximizing opportunities for aquifer recharge encourages
efficient water use, and establishing guidelines that ensure adequate summer baseflows should
be developed and implemented. In order to successfully implement strategies that will protect
and enhance summer baseflows, future investigation evaluating groundwater/surface water
interaction needs to occur. Streamflow monitoring should also be conducted in the basin.

Assessing and removing barriers will greatly improve the current access to quality habitat for
steelhead in the Petaluma River watershed. Improving or removing fish passage barriers on
priority streams (such as Lynch and Adobe Creeks for example), to gain access to upstream
higher value habitat, may be the most effective recovery strategy available when compared to
rehabilitating degraded habitat conditions through the lowland urban corridor. A
comprehensive barrier assessment should be conducted for the basin which would prioritize and
evaluate the quality and quantity of habitat made available from each barrier treatment.

A limiting factors assessment should be conducted in the estuary to determine the current and
future potential habitat conditions for rearing juvenile and smolt salmonids. Levee breaching and
restoring tidal flow in strategic locations may increase the quantity of available estuarine habitat,
while rehabilitating and reclaiming historic tidal wetland/slough habitat could greatly improve
the quality of estuarine habitat for rearing steelhead.
Literature Cited
Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, and B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical Distribution and Current
Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco
Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland,
California. [Available at: http://www.cemar.org/estuarystreamsreport/pdfonly.html]
Skinner, J. E. 1962. Fish and Wildlife Resources of the San Francisco Bay Area.
California Department of Fish and Game, Water Projects Branch, Sacramento California.
[Available at: http://downloads.ice.ucdavis.edu/sfestuary/skinner/archive1000.PDF]
SCWA (Sonoma County Water Agency) 1986. Petaluma River Watershed Master
Drainage Plan. Report #47. Prepared for the City of Petaluma. [I added the report
number.

SSRCD (Southern Sonoma Resource Conservation District) 1999. Petaluma Watershed
Enhancement Plan: An Owners Manual for the Residents and Landowners of the
Petaluma Watershed. July 1999. Available at:
http://www.sscrcd.org/pdf/PWEP%20(June%201999)%20Section%201-2.pdf.
SSRCD (Southern Sonoma Resource Conservation District) 2013. DRAFT Petaluma Watershed
Enhancement Plan. April 2013.
UACG Inc. 2012. Adobe Creek Restoration Project 5 Year Plan 2012-2016. Petaluma, CA.

Petaluma River CAP Viability Results
Current
Target Rating
Measurement
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
0% of streams/
stream average)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 75
<50% of IP-Km
Passage at Mouth or 50% of IP-Km to 75% of IP-Km to 50% of IP-Km to
accessible*
<50% of IP-Km
50% of IP-Km to 75% of IP-Km to 50% of IP-Km to
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km

50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants
>1 spawner
low risk spawner
spawner density per
Spence (2008)
Flow Conditions
Condition)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 50
Hydrology Redd Scour Poor
Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 >75
>17% (0.85mm) 15-17% 12-14% <12% (0.85mm) 15-17%
(6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm) (6.4mm) <30% (6.4mm)
streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km streams/ IP-Km 48 % IP-km
Gravel Quality
(Embeddedness)
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
Summer Properly
Juveniles Condition

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 89% of >90% of
11% streams/
Percent Primary 4% IP-km (>49%
Habitat Complexity (>49% of pools (>49% of pools (>49% of pools (>49% of pools Poor
Pools of pools are
are primary are primary are primary are primary
primary pools)
pools) pools) pools) pools)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
0% of streams/
stream average)
Hydrology Poor
(Baseflow) Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score Factor Score
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 >75
Flow Conditions
Hydrology (Instantaneous Good
Condition)
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 50
<50% of IP-Km <50% of IP-Km
Passage/Migration or <16 IP-Km >90% of IP-km or <16 IP-Km Poor
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*

Riparian
Canopy Cover stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; stream canopy; Fair
Vegetation
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50 to 74% IP 75 to 89% IP
<50% IP km >90% IP km 50-74% IP-km
km (<20 C km (<20 C
coho IP coho IP
overlaps) overlaps)
No Evidence of
Contaminants
0.2 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.5
Fish/m^2 Fish/m^2
50-74% of 75-90% of
<50% of >90% of 75-90% of
Range Range

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Winter Rearing
Juveniles
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of <50% of
Large Wood
Frequency (Bankfull
Width 10-100
meters)
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
<50% of IP-Km
accessible*
40 - 54% Class 5 55 - 69% Class 5
km km
of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2) of 1 & 2)
50-80%
Floodplain Response
Connectivity Reach
Connectivity
No Evidence of
Contaminants

<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
Not
Specified
Properly
Condition
<50% of 50% to 74% of 75% to 90% of >90% of
0% of streams/
stream average)
Hydrology Passage Flows Good
>75 51-75 35-50 <35 50
<50% of IP-Km
Passage at Mouth or 50% of IP-Km to 75% of IP-Km to 50% of IP-Km to
accessible*
No Evidence of
Contaminants
Smolt Smolt Smolt
Smolt
abundance to
produce low
risk spawner
density per
Spence (2008)
(2008) Spence (2008) (2008)

>10% of 7-10% of 3-6% of <3% of 6.034% of
>30% of 20-30% of 10-19% of <10% of 16% of
>35% of 26-35% of 25-15% of <15% of <15% of
>20% of 12-20% of 8-11% of <8% of 27% of
2.5 to 3 1.6 to 2.4 <1.6 3.5
Transport Mile
Mile Mile Mile Mile
0.5 to 1 0.1 to 0.4 <0.1 2.8
Mile Mile Mile Mile

Petaluma River CAP Threat Results

Overall Threat
Rank
1 Agriculture Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
2 Channel Modification High High High High Medium Medium High
3 Competition Low Not Specified Medium Low Low Low Low
5 Fire Suppression Low Low Low Not Specified Low Low Low
7 Ranching Medium High High Medium Low Medium High
Logging and Wood
8 Harvesting Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
9 Mining Low Not Specified Low Not Specified Medium Low Low
10 Activities Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Low Low
11 Development Medium Medium High Medium Low High High
12 Roads and Railroads High High Medium Medium Medium Medium High
13 Severe Weather Patterns Medium Low Medium Low Medium Medium Medium
Water Diversion and
14 Impoundments Medium Low High Low Medium Low Medium
Project High High High Medium Medium High High

Petaluma River, Central California Coast Steelhead (Interior San Francisco Bay) Recovery Actions
PR-CCCS- modification, or curtailment of the species
PR-CCCS- Recovery
Develop Estuary Enhancement Projects to improve
rearing habitat for juveniles and smolts (eg. habitat Friends of the
PR-CCCS- features such as LWD, vegetative cover, deeper Petaluma River, Costs will vary depending on methods
1.1.1.1 Action Step Estuary habitat, etc.) 2 5 SFEI TBD implemented.
CDFW, Friends
of the Petaluma
Identify and provide recommendations for potential River, NMFS,
PR-CCCS- rehabilitation sites that have been altered by Private Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
1.1.1.10 Action Step Estuary dredging and diking. 3 25 Consultants 0 Kind.
CDFW, Friends
of the Petaluma
PR-CCCS- Identify locations to install habitat complexity features River, NMFS,
1.1.1.11 Action Step Estuary to enhance steelhead estuary rearing conditions. 2 10 Sonoma RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
Support a salmonid limiting factors assessment in Friends of the
PR-CCCS- San Pablo Bay (CDFG 2004) and the Petaluma Petaluma River,
1.1.1.2 Action Step Estuary River Marsh. 1 5 SFEI 0 Action is considered In-Kind
Per a completed limiting factors assessment, and
utilizing adaptive management guidelines, develop
restoration projects in areas which have high value Cost based on amount of estuarine habitat
PR-CCCS- physical and chemical properties for rearing restoration projects. Cost accounted for in other
1.1.1.3 Action Step Estuary salmonids 1 15 NMFS TBD action steps.
Restore estuarine wetlands and sloughs, and

improve prey abundance by increasing shoreline
PR-CCCS- perimeter and planting native emergent and riparian CDFW, Private Cost based on treating 20 acres at a rate of
1.1.1.4 Action Step Estuary species to improve foraging and cover. 2 10 Landowners 447 447 893 $44,640/acre.
City of Petaluma,
RCD, Sonoma
Improve estuarine water quality by identifying and County, Sonoma Cost based on installing a minimum of 3
remediating upstream pollution sources which County Water continuous water quality monitoring stations at a
PR-CCCS- contribute to poor water quality conditions in the Agency, Sonoma rate of $5,000/station. Cost does not account for
1.1.1.5 Action Step Estuary estuary 2 20 RCD 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 15 data management or maintenance.
CDFW, City of
Petaluma,
Minimize future encroachment of landuse RWQCB,
PR-CCCS- (agricultural, residential and commercial) into Sonoma County,
Evaluate the effect of nearby landuse practices and Costs associated with removal of structures will
development structures which may impair or reduce City of Petaluma, depend on the number and type of structures
PR-CCCS- the historical tidal prism and other estuarine functions SFEI, Sonoma identified and cannot be accurately determined at
1.1.1.7 Action Step Estuary and implement improvements 3 10 County TBD this time.
PR-CCCS- Evaluate alterations to river mouth dynamics and CDFW, NMFS, Cost based on estuary use/residence time model
1.1.1.8 Action Step Estuary implement changes to restore natural function 2 10 USACE 169.50 169.50 339 at a rate of $338,679/project.
Friends of the
Petaluma River,
Evaluate water quality conditions (salinity, dissolved Private
PR-CCCS- oxygen, temperature) in potential steelhead estuary Consultants,
1.1.1.9 Action Step Estuary rearing areas. 3 10 UACG TBD Cost accounted for in above action step.
PR-CCCS- Floodplain modification, or curtailment of the species

PR-CCCS- Recovery Floodplain
Encourage willing landowners to restore historical City of Petaluma,

PR-CCCS- Floodplain floodplains or offchannel habitats through Sonoma County, Existing programs and outreach are considered In-
2.1.1.1 Action Step Connectivity conservation easements, etc. 3 25 Sonoma RCD 0 Kind.
City of Petaluma,
Private
Set-back existing levees in strategic areas to Landowners, Cost based on amount of existing levees to set-
PR-CCCS- Floodplain increase flood-flow detention and promote flood- Sonoma County, back. Cost for set-back estimated at
2.1.1.2 Action Step Connectivity tolerant land uses. 2 40 Sonoma RCD TBD $41.93/linear ft.
Support landowners in developing projects to

improve channel conditions and restore natural
channel geomorphology, including side channels and
dense contiguous riparian vegetation (CDFG 2004).
backwater, or perennial pond habitats where channel
modification has resulted in decreased shelter, LWD City of Petaluma,
frequency, and habitat complexity, develop and Private
implement site specific plans to improve these Landowners,
PR-CCCS- Floodplain conditions to re-create, and restore alcove, Sonoma County, Cost cannot be determined due to unknown
2.1.1.3 Action Step Connectivity backwater, or perennial pond habitats. 3 40 Sonoma RCD TBD number of projects at various scales.
City of Petaluma,
NMFS, Private
Landowners,
PR-CCCS- Floodplain Identify areas where floodplain connectivity can be re- Sonoma County,
2.1.1.4 Action Step Connectivity established in low gradient response reaches 2 10 Sonoma RCD TBD Cost accounted for in other action steps.
PR-CCCS- Recovery
Identify flow requirements that support adult
PR-CCCS- steelhead immigration from and juvenile emigration CDFW, NMFS,
3.1.1.2 Action Step Hydrology to San Pablo Bay 3 5 Sonoma RCD 0 Cost accounted for in above action step.
City of Petaluma,
Private
Landowners,
PR-CCCS- Reduce redd scour to improve egg Sonoma County, Costs will vary depending on methods
3.1.1.3 Action Step Hydrology incubation/emergence survival. 2 10 Sonoma RCD TBD implemented.
City of Petaluma,
Private
Landowners,
PR-CCCS- Sonoma County, Costs will vary depending on methods
3.1.1.4 Action Step Hydrology Reduce dewatering and stranding conditions. 2 5 Sonoma RCD TBD implemented.
PR-CCCS- Recovery
5.1.1 Action Passage Modify or remove physical barriers to passage

City of Petaluma,
Conduct a systematic culvert assessment on county Sonoma County,
PR-CCCS- roads within the watershed, and prioritize culverts for Sonoma RCD, Cost based on replacing 5 stream crossings at a
5.1.1.1 Action Step Passage replacement, upgrade and retrofit. 2 5 UACG 500 500 rate of approximately $100,000/site assessment.
City of Petaluma,
Sonoma County,
Evaluate and modify fish passage impediments on Sonoma County
PR-CCCS- Adobe, Lynch and Washington Creeks at the Water Agency,
5.1.1.10 Action Step Passage confluence with the Petaluma River 1 5 UACG TBD Costs accounted for in above action step.
City of Petaluma,
Evaluate private crossings identified in the CDFW Private
Habitat Inventories, conduct culvert assessments, Landowners,
PR-CCCS- and prioritize culverts for replacement, upgrade and Sonoma County,
5.1.1.2 Action Step Passage retrofit. 2 5 Sonoma RCD TBD Cost accounted for in above action step.
City of Petaluma,
Private
Landowners,
PR-CCCS- Replace, retrofit and upgrade culverts according to Sonoma County,
5.1.1.3 Action Step Passage completed surveys identified above. 1 5 Sonoma RCD TBD Cost accounted for in above action step.
City of Petaluma,
Modify or remove man made physical passage Private
barriers to the extent that all current and potential Landowners,
PR-CCCS- high value habitat is accessible to spawning adults Sonoma County, Cost based on providing passage at 5 dams at a
5.1.1.4 Action Step Passage and rearing juvenile steelhead. 1 5 Sonoma RCD 2,166 2,166 rate of $433,178/project.
Evaluate, develop, and implement fish passage

features to enhance passage conditions in Adobe
Creek at the Adobe Road Crossing and the boulder City of Petaluma,
structure spanning the creek in the lower reach of Sonoma County,
Adobe Creek. Recommend and determine Sonoma County
PR-CCCS- maintenance requirements and responsibility. Water Agency,
5.1.1.5 Action Step Passage 1 5 UACG TBD Cost accounted for in above action steps.
City of Petaluma,
Sonoma County,
Sonoma County
PR-CCCS- Relocate or modify the gas/water line crossing on Water Agency, Costs will vary depending on methods
5.1.1.6 Action Step Passage Adobe Creek at Sartori Road. 1 5 UACG TBD implemented.
CDFW, City of

2015 Steelhead Recovery Plan Vol 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015 Steelhead Recovery Plan Vol 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COASTAL MULTISPECIES PLAN

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST STEELHEAD

requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that

LITERATURE CITATION SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS:

ADDITIONAL COPIES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM:

Or on the web at:

Russian River Overview

North Coastal Diversity Stratum

Green Valley Creek

North Coastal Diversity Strata Rapid Assessment

o Drakes Bay Tributaries

o Estero Americano Creek

o Redwood Creek (Marin Co.)

North Coastal Diversity Strata: Russian River Populations Rapid Assessment

o Dutch Bill Creek

Mark West Creek

Upper Russian River

Interior Diversity Stratum Rapid Assessment

o Miller Creek (Russian)

Coastal San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum

San Francisquito Creek

Coastal S.F. Bay Rapid Assessment

o Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio

o Miller Creek (Marin Co.)

o San Mateo Creek

Interior San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum

Green Valley/Suisun Creek

Interior SF Bay Diversity Stratum Rapid Assessment

o San Leandro Creek

o San Lorenzo Creek

o San Pablo Creek

San Gregorio Creek

San Lorenzo River

Santa Cruz Mountains Diversity Stratum Rapid Assessment

o San Pedro Creek

o San Vicente Creek

functionally independent and 26 potentially independent) and 22 dependent populations

criteria for the 56 populations are (Biological Recovery Criteria):

28 essential independent populations attaining a low extinction risk (i.e., Corte

Five supporting independent populations attaining moderate extinction risk criteria

Laguna Creek); and

18 supporting dependent populations contributing to redundancy and occupancy

tributaries, and San Pedro Creek.

regardless of their status or role in the recovery scenario.

CCC STEELHEAD LISTING

CCC STEELHEAD SECTION 4(A)(1) THREATS

ESA section 4(a)(1) factors:

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or

(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(C) disease or predation;

(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and

(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Factor A: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat

anthropogenic and natural conditions included: agriculture, logging, ranching, recreation,

mining, forestry, habitat blockages, water diversions, artificial propagation, estuarine

destructions or modification, flooding, forestry, hydropower development, instream habitat

urbanization, and water management.

monitoring, education, and organizational support to watershed groups. Restoration efforts

continue, and some populations and strata remain nonviable.

impairments preclude the conservation and recovery of the species.

California deserves special attention. Groundwater, which is often hydrologically linked to

groundwater pumping impacts on streamflow will be an integral part of future groundwater

management. These anticipated improvements to groundwater management have the potential

the DPS during at least the next decade or two.