U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1312 Fairlane RoadYreka, California 96097

9 June 1988

FROM: Ron Iverson

TO: Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force

SUBJECT: Draft minutes, Meeting of May 31 and June 1, 1988,Eureka, California

Attached for your review are minutes of the Eureka meeting, along

with several documents. I have followed each motion passed,

assignment made, or other decision point with a line of

asterisks.

Ron IversonRecording Secretary

Attachments

KLAMATH RIVER BASIN FISHERIES TASK FORCE

Proceedings of the Meeting Held 31 May - 1 June 1988, Eureka, CA

Call to Order Chairman Steucke convened the meeting at 1:00 p.m.,with a quorum present (see attendance list, Attachment 1).

Correction and Approval of Minutes and Agenda Minutes of themeeting held 1 March 1988 were approved without changes. Noadditions or deletions to the 31 May agenda (Attachment 2) wereidentified.:fr **************** ************* * * *********** * * :f *************** *************

Report of the Technical Work Group on Work Plan and Budget RonIverson summarized the work plan and budget proposed for Federalfunding in Fiscal Year 1989 . The emphasis of the draft Federalwork plan on monitoring and studies of natural anadromous stocksstimulated a debate among Task Force members about the value ofinvesting in depleted stocks and damaged habitats as a means ofrestoring fish runs.

Mel Odemar then described the status of the State fisheryrestoration grant program, consisting of proposals for fundingfrom various State sources, for work to be done in the State1988-1989 Fiscal Year. By sorting the work proposals, Melidentified a group of proposals that appear to address theobjectives of the Klamath Restoration Program. Budgets for theseproposals sum to about $1.9 million. Mel requested that the TaskForce review these proposals , identify those they can support,and consider that set to be the non-Federal portion of theRestoration Program work plan for the upcoming fiscal year. Heasked that this be done in advance of project proposal reviews byCalifornia Department of Fish and Game, which will take placelater this month.

Given the need for more information on proposals for Statefunding, and lack of consensus regarding some studies proposedfor Federal funding, a motion was passed by consensus callingupon the technical work group to identify project proposalstotalling about $1 million as the non-Federal contribution, andto reaffirm their support of the projects proposed for Federalfunding.

**** *********************** *#*****#***#*************##***

Mel Odemar said that, in addition to funding projects, the Statewill be making available about $50,000 in staff time.

In a meeting held the evening of May 31, the work grouprecommended a set of project proposals for State funding(Attachment 3). On June 1, the Task Force endorsed a $1 millionnon-Federal matching contribution consisting of the projectsidentified by the work group, plus a small contingency fund.****:!< ************************* :K#**:|t^* ************************•••!****

Returning on June 1 to the discussion of the work group'sproposal for the Federal part of the work plan, the Task Forcemade the following comments or changes:

o Responding to Don DeVol's concern about aggradation inthe lower Klamath, directed that more attention be givento the mainstem Klamath in future work plans.

o Requested that the products of project (0.1), programadministration, include an annual report on progress ofthe Restoration Program, and some kind of cost.accounting.

o Approved funding project (2.21), fall chinookescapement monitoring, in Fiscal Year 1988 in the amountof $24,700.

o For project (3.1), substituted the second-year budgetestimate of $109,650 for the first-year budget of$78,000, in order to get the project started at a fullactivity level. Other actions taken relative to the"educate" project were to accept the goals andobjectives as proposed by the work group, but to appointa new work group to refine the methods, products, andother proposal elements. Education work group membersare Nat Bingham, Ronnie Pierce, Bob Rice, and KeithWilkinson. The education work group will submit arefined statement of work to the Task Force prior to itsnext meeting.

o Increased funding for project (4.15), Scott subbasinsediment budget, from $36,000 to $50,000, in order toget all four elements of the project completed inFY198S. Bob Bartholomew of Soil Conservation Serviceindicated by telephone that the higher level of fundingwould be sufficient to complete the project at a surveylevel of confidence.

o Decided to provide $10,000 toward erosion control inYreka Creek, and requested Bob Rice and George Thackerayto clarify the relationships of the project proposalssubmitted by Great Northern Corporation and the City ofYreka for improvement of Yreka Creek.

o Added projects (4.32) and (4.33), providing fordiversion screen maintenance and construction, to thework plan. These projects were identified by thetechnical work group for State funding but wereinadvertently not submitted as proposals.

o The Task Force endorsed the work plan proposed by theTechnical Work Group for Federal Funding in FY 1S89,with the indicated changes and additions. That workplan is summarized in Attachment 4.

Report on Proposed Legislation Bruce Taylor reported that boththe amendments to the Klamath Act and the Russian River Bill aremoving through the consideration process in the House ofRepresentatives. The Klamath amendments are included in H.R.4030, an omnibus fisheries bill expected to proceed fromcommittee to the House floor during the week of 6 June. Bruceexpected this non-controversial bill to be enacted by the Octoberadjournment of Congress. The Russian River Bill, H.R. 2513, maybe included in the omnibus fisheries bill after review by theHouse public works committee. The bill directs the Fish andWildlife Service and the Corps of Engineers to conduct studies ofwatersheds, aquatic habitats, and fish populations. Bruce thoughtthat passage and appropriations might take place in time forstudies to get underway in FY1989.

Implementation Procedures for Federally-Funded Work. Bob Gableexplained the types of funding arrangements likely to be used toimplement the Klamath Restoration Program:

o Cooperative agreements between the Service and states,Federally-recognized tribes, counties, and other levelsof government.

o Interagency agreements between the Service and otherFederal agencies.

o Contracts, including:

oo Sealed-bid procurements. These are not much usedin acquiring professional services

oo Negotiated procurements, typically used tocontract for professional services such as studiesor planning. The time required between a requestfor contracting and the contract award is typically4-6 months.

Bob explained that agreements take less time to implement thancontracts, because the requirement for competition is waived.

Questions of Bob included:

Q: Could a continuing, multi-year agreement be enteredinto?A: Yes, but funds are provided year-to year.

Q: What happens to unexpended funds left at the end ofthe fiscal year?A: The Klamath Act authorises carryover of funds betweenfiscal years.

Q: How will the Service comply with the requirement(paragraph 2(b)(3) of the Klamath Act) that certainclasses of unemployed people be given preference inemployment for construction activities related tofishery restoration?A: It will be difficult to determine whether anindividual qualifies for this special consideration,especially for the category: ..."other persons whoselivelihood depends upon Area fishery resources."

Q: Several nonprofit entities have expressed an interestin the Restoration Program. Can they be given specialconsideration?A: Yes, with justification. Generally, competition ispreferred.

Q: Will the Service accept unsolicited proposals, inadvance of bid solicitation, if they meet Task Forcepriorities?A: Not for the FY1989 work plan.

Q: Is there a way to speed the process of implementingthe FY1989 work plan?A: The cooperative and interagency agreements (notcontracts) can be entered into pending- appropriation offunds .

Regarding the question on unemployed groups, 'Mel Odemar noted theState of California will be funding most of the RestorationProgram construction work, and the State has ways of selectivelyhiring these people.

In response to a question as to how much the Service woulddeviate from the budget allocation approved by the Task Force,Wally Steucke said that deviations of more than about ten percenton any project would be brought to the Task Force.

Task Force Mission and Goals Following brief discussion of thedraft mission statement provided by Ron Iverson, a work group wasappointed to review the statement and develop it further. Membersare: Nat Bingham, Rod Mclnnis (chair), Mel Odemar, Mike Orcutt,and Phil Schafer.

No time limit was placed on development of the mission statement.Ways to get public review were discussed, including incorporatingmission identification in the education project, releasing areview draft for public and user group review, and includingmission statement review with the public review process for thelong-range program plan.

Interaqency Memorandums of Agreement Ron Iverson reviewed thedrafts that had been mailed earlier to the Task Force.

Other Old Business Wally Steucke reminded the group that SueMasten's request to have the Bureau of Indian Affairs representedon the Task Force had been forwarded, with Task Forceendorsement, to the Interior Secretary.

Reporting on controversy over the management of the Kelsey Creekspawning channel, Mel Odemar said that California Department ofFish and Game will continue to fund the operation of thatfacility. The spawning channel is out of operation for repair ofleaks, but probably will resume operation in State fiscal year1988-89. Disagreements during last year's operation had to dowith appropriate times to release fish. Chinook salmon reared inthe facility grew too slowly to be released in late spring, andState biologists felt water temperatures in Scott River were toohigh to permit release of fish until fall. The role of the TaskForce in resolving such conflicts was discussed, but no consensuswas reached.

Predicted Klamath Basin Flow Conditions Paul Hubbell provided astatement on predicted flow conditions (Attachment 5). Paul saidCalifornia is still considered critically dry, but recentprecipitation will permit the Bureau of Reclamation to provideprescribed minimum flows in Klamath River. Flows in Trinity Riverwill follow the "dry year" schedule shown in Attachment 5.Overall, conditions for Chinook salmon spawning this fall inKlamath Basin should be comparable to last year.

Public Comment Al Foss expressed concern that more effort shouldbe invested in steelhead trout propagation. He described hisinvolvement in a small steelhead hatchery, and said his group atOrleans may be interested in submitting a proposal forRestoration Program funding. Wally Steucke responded that aproposal may be submitted to the State of California, the KlamathField Office, or Task Force members.

Jeff Self said he was glad the Task Force had seen fit to provideconsiderable support to education. He invited the Task Force toview the model fish hatchery at Washington elementary school inEureka. . / .

Discussion of Next Meeting Wally Steucke proposed the nextmeeting be held in mid-October, when the Federal budget forFY1989 may be known. Klamath Field Office will poll Task Forcemembers for acceptable dates and suggestions for location.

Adjournment was at 4 p.m., June 1.

ATTACHMENT 1

KLAMATH RIVER BASIN FISHERIES TASK FORCE

Attendance Roster, Meeting of May 31 - June 1, 1988.TASK FORCE MEMBERS

Name

Nat BinghamDon DeVolRod MclnnisMel OdemarMike OrcuttRonnie PierceBob RicePhil SchaferJim SmithWally SteuckeGeorge ThackerayKeith Wilkinson

OTHERS ATTENDING

Name

Jeff SelfMitch FarroMichael BryanAldaron LairdPaul M. KubbellDee NekerJim CookDiane HigginsRobert W. GableJerry BarnesAl FossDel RobinsonSun Gnome MadroneDouglas DentonBruce TaylorMike Parton

Representing

California commercial salmon fishing industryDel Norte CountyNational Marine Fisheries ServiceCalifornia Department of Fish and GameHoopa Indian TribeHumboldt CountyDepartment of AgricultureCalifornia in-river sport fishing communityTrinity CountyDepartment of InteriorSiskiyou CountyOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Representing;

Eureka City SchoolsNorth Coast Troll FishermanSiskiyou CountyTrinity Fisheries ConsultingCalifornia Department of Fish and GamePCFFAGreat Northern Corp.Educational interestsU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Forest ServiceOrleans Rod & Gun ClubBIARCAACalif. DWRCongressman's Bosco officeKaruk TribeKINS

ATTACHMENT 2KLAMATH RIVER BASIN FISHERIES TASK FORCE

MEETING AGENDA

May 31, 1988

/ 1:00 P.M. Call to order

J 1:10 Correction and approval of minutes and agenda

t 1:20 Report on proposed legislation (Taylor)

H.R. 3496, proposed amendments to the Klamath RiverBasin Fishery Resources Restoration Act

H.R. 2513, proposed studies of Russian Riverfishery resources

/,/l:40 Report of the technical work group on thework plan and budget for Federal Fiscal Year 1989and State Fiscal Year 1933-89

Work plan component proposed for Federal funding(Iverson)

Work plan component proposed for non-Federalfunding (Odemar)

2:30 Break

* 2:45 Work plan presentation (continued)

X'3:30 Implementation procedures for Federally-fundedwork (Gable)

4:00 Adjourn

June 1, 1988

9:00 A.M. Convene. Discussion of Task Force mission andgoals statement (Steucke)

9:30 Discussion of interagency memorandums of agreement(Iverson)

10:00 Other old business

10:15 Break

10:30 Briefing on instream flow conditions projected forsummer 1988 in Kla:r.= th Basin (Hubbell)

10:45 Other new business

KLAMATH RIVER BASIN FISHERIES TASK FORCEMEETING AGENDA

5

June 1, 1988 continued

11:15 Public comment period

11:45 Discussion of next meeting

12:00 Adjourn

•No. 1

/09/88

TASK SUBTASK

ATTACH

FEDERALLY-FUNDED WORK PLAN AND

BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1989

KLAMATH BASIN

FISHERY RESTORATION PROGRAM

PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST IMPLEM_BY CONTINUE INFY1990?

** (OMDMIMSTER PROGRAM(0)ADMINISTER PROGRAM

** Subtotal **

** (1) PLAN PROGRAM

(1 ) PLAN PROGRAM

** Subtotal **

** (2) GET INFORMATION

(2) GET INFORMATION

(2) GET INFORMATION

(2) GET INFORMATION

12) GET INFORMATION

(2) GET INFORMATION

(2) GET INFORMATION

(2) GET INFORMATION

(2) GET INFORMATION

(2) GET INFORMATION

12) GET INFORMATION

(O.l)OPERATE KLAMATH FIELD

OFFICE

(1.1) COORDINATOR FOR PLAN ANDENV. ASSESSMENT

(2.1) OCEAN HARVEST INFO

(2.1) OCEAN HARVEST INFO

(2.2) CHINOOK ESCAPEMENT

(2.2) CHINOOK ESCAPEMENT

(2.2) CHINOOK ESCAPEMENT

(2.2) CHINOOK ESCAPEMENT

(2.3) STEELHKAD ESCAPMNT

(2.4) PRODUCTIVECAPACITY

(2.4) PRODUCTIVECAPACITY

12.4) PRODUCTIVECAPACITY

[2) GKT INFORMATION (2.4) PRODUCTIVECAPACITY

(2.11) PARTITION CHINOOKPRODUCTION ESTIMATES

(2.12) TAGGING NEEDS FORTIME/AREA MANAGEMENT

(2.21) ESTIMATE FALL CHINOOKESCAPEMENT

(2.22) FALL CHINOOKESCAPEMENT. LOWER KLAMATH

(2.23) FALL CHINOOKESCAPEMENT. BLUE CREEK

(2.25) HYDROACOUSTIC WEIR.

SALMON RIVER

(2.31) STEELHEAD ESCAPEMENT,

SELECTED TRIBS

(2.41) HABITAT TYPE. STANDING

CROP. 125 MI.STREAM

(2.42) TYPE HABITAT. PLAN-REHAB. PINE CREEK

(2.43) JUVENILE PRODUCTION.

LOWER KLAMATH TRIBS

(2.44) HABITAT AVAILABLE FOR

FALL CHINOOK. BLUE CR

150000 USFWS YES

150000

105500 CONTRACT YES

105500

50800 CDFG NO

36400 CONTRACT NO

41700 CDFG YES

24000 USFWS YES

43800 USFWS YES

22100 CDFG YES

63700 USFS YES

85100 USFS YES

20000 HVBC NO

0 USFWS YES

0 USFKS YES

Page No.06/09/88

TASK SUBTASK

FEDERALLY-FUNDED WORK PLAN AXDBUDGET. FISCAL YEAR 1989

KLAMATH BASIN'FISHERY RESTORATION PROGRAM

PROJECT DESCRIPTION' COST IMPLEM_BY CONTINTE IXFY1990?

(2) GET INFORMATION

(2) GET INFORMATION

»» Subtotal **

** (3) EDUCATE(3) EDUCATE

** Subtotal **

** (4) MANAGE HABITAT(1) MANAGE HABITAT

(4) MANAGE HABITAT

(4) MANAGE HABITAT

(4) MANAGE IIAH1TAT

I'D MANAGE HABITAT

** Subtotal **

(2.5) DOWN'STRM MIGRANTS (2.51) TRAP OUTMIGRANTS. LOWERKLAMATH RIVER

(2.6) INSTREAM FLOWS (2.61) ANALYZE RECORDS.FEASIBILITY OF AUGMENT.

(3.1) (SCOPE OF WORK TO BEDEVELOPED)

(4.2) IXSTREAM HABITAT (4.25) EVALUATE EXISTINGHABITAT IMPROVEMENTS

(4.3) SCREEN DIVERSIONS (4.32) INCREASE MAINTENANCECAPABILITY

(4.3) SCREEN DIVERSIONS (4.33) BUILD NEW SCREENS

** (5) ARTIF. PROPAGATION(5) ARTIF. PROPAGATION (5.1) EVALUATE

(5) ARTIF. PROPAGATION (5.1) EVALUATE

** Subtotal **

*** Total »**

(5.11) EVALUATE PRESMOLTCHINOOK RELEASE. IGSFH

(5.12) EVALUATE POND REARINGOF FALL CHINOOK

27200 USFWS VES

36000 CONTRACT NO

450800

109000 CONTRACT YES

109000

(4.1) CONTROL SEDIMENT (4.15) CONTROL BANK EROSION. 10000YREKA CREEK

(4.1) CONTROL SEDIMENT (4.15) SEDIMENT BUDGET, SCOTT 50000 SCSSUBBASIN

NO

0 USFS YES

20000 CDFG YES

20000 CDFG YES

100000

57000 CDFG YES

27600 CDFG YES

84GOO

999900

^̂ 0̂

o. 1

TASK

** (O)ADMINISTER PROGRM10(ADMINISTER PROGRM

** Subtotal **

SUBTASK

** (31 EDUCATE(3) EDUCATE

(3) EDUCATE

13) EDUCATE

(3) EDUCATE

** Subtotal **

** (4) MANAGE HABITAT(4} MANAGE HABITAT

(4) MANAGE

( 4 ) MANAGE

(4) MANAGE

(4) MANAGE

(4) MANAGE

(4) MANAGE

(4) MANAGE

(4) MANAGE

(4) MANAGE

(•1) MANAGE

(4) MANAGE

(1) MANAGE

(4) MANAGE

14) MANAGE

HABITAT

HABITAT

HABITAT

HAD I TAT

HABITAT

HABITAT

HABITAT

HABITAT

HABITAT

HABITAT

HABITAT

HABITAT

HABITAT

HABITAT

(4.1)

(4.1)

(4.1)

(4.1)

(4.2)

(4.2)

(4.2)

(4.2)

(4.3)

(4.1)

(4.1)

(4.2)

(4.2)

(4.2)

(4.2)

CONTROL SEDIMENT

CONTROL SEDIMENT

CONTROL SEDIMENT

CONTROL SEDIMENT

IXSTREAM HABITAT

INSTREAM HABITAT

INSTREAM HABITAT

INSTREAM HABITAT

SCREEN DIVERSIONS

CONTROL SEDIMENT

CONTROL SEDIMENT

INSTREAM HABITAT

INSTREAM HABITAT

INSTREAM HABITAT

INSTREAM HABITAT

KLAMATII FISHERY RESHilmON PROGRAM

PROJECTS RECOMMENDED TO

BE FUNDED BY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENTOF FISH AND GAME. FY 1988-1989.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST

STATE ADMINISTRATION 50000

50000

(99) YREKA CREEK NATURE TRAIL 11000

(111) CLASS ROOM INCUBATOR. EUREKA 2000

(146) TEACHER WORKSHOPS ON SALMO.NVSTEELIIEAD 7000

(45) AQUATIC ECOLOGY PROGRAM. EUREKA 3000

23000

(150) ANALYZE AGGRADATION, LOWER KLAMATM TRIBS 10700

(9) CONTROL BANK EROSION, SCOTT R. 113000

( ) GRAVEL ENHANCEMENT 73000

(10) REMOVE AND ROUTE SEDIMENT. SCOTT BASIN 16000

(194) SIDE CHANNELS FOR REARING, SALMON BASIN 35300

(15) HABITAT MODIF, BLUE CREEK 20000

(196) HELICOPTER PLACEMENT OF WOODY DEBRIS 7100

(195) BARRIER MODIFICATION, JACKASS CREEK 3500

(139) INVENTORY UNSCREENED DIVERSIONS 95800

(101) SCOTT RIVER SAND TRAP 28300

(8) SCOTT RIVER SEDIMENT REMOVAL/TRAPPING 28800

(146) BOULDER GROUPS. AKINS CREEK 7500

(209) BOULDER PLACEMENT. BLUFF CREEK 101000

(211) BOULDER PLACEMENT, RED CAP CREEK 25400

(210) LOG PLACEMENT, BOISE CREEK 29300

Page No.06/09/88

TASK

(4) MANAGE

(4) MANAGE

(4) MANAGE

(4) MANAGE

(4) MANAGE

(4) MANAGE

** Subtotal

SUBTASK

HABITAT (4.21 INSTREAM HABITAT

HABITAT (4.2) IXSTREAM HABITAT

HABITAT (4.2) INSTREAM HABITAT

HABITAT (4.2) IKSTREAM HABITAT

HABITAT (4.1) CONTROL SEDIMENT

HABITAT (4.1) CONTROL SEDIMENT

*» (5) ARTIF. PROPAGATION(5) ARTIF. PROPAGATION (5.2) REAR FISH

(5) ARTIF. PROPAGATION (5.2) REAR FISH

(5) AHTIF. PROPAGATION (5.2) REAR FISH

(5) ARTIF. PROPAGATION (5:2) REAR FISH

(5) ARTIF. PROPAGATION (5.2) REAR FISH

(5) ARTIF. PROPAGATION (5.2) REAR FISH

(5) ARTIF. PROPAGATION (5.2) REAR FISH

** Subtotal **

*** Total ***

KLAMATH FISHERY RESTORATION PROGRAMPROJECTS RECOMMENDED TO

BE FUNDED BY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENTOF FISH AND GAME. FY 1988-1989.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

(165) SPAWNING RIFFLES, COTTONWOOD CREEK

(197) INCREASE SIDE CHANNEL FLOW, ELK CREEK

(198) ROCK CLUSTERS. ELK CREEK

(199) ROCK CLUSTERS, INDIAN CREEK

(166) GRIDER CREEK BANK STABILIZATION

(98) YREKA CREEK BANK STABILIZATION

(157) REAR LATE-RUN FALL CHINOOK. HUNTER CREEK

(58) OPERATE EXISTING FACILITIES, SALMON BASIN

(158) REAR LATE RUN FALLS. HIGH PRAIRIE CREEK

(159) REAR LATE RUN FALLS. OMAGAR CREEK

(16) REAR RESCUED STEELHEAD. EAGLE RANCH

(236) REAR CHINOOK. FALL CREEK FACILITY

(152) POND REARING OF YEARLING CHINOOK. KLAMATH R.

COST

31700

16500

5700

14000

20200

8000

690800

12000

40000

19200

19600

29600

25400

76700

222500

986300

ATTACHMENT 5

Projected Instream Flow Conditions in theKlamath River Basin -- Summer 1933 1/

The 1988 period for water supply accumulation in Californiais now very nearly over. At this point, it appears virtuallycertain that 1987 and 1988 will go into the record books asthe third set of back-to-back critically dry years in thiscentury.

Snowpack conditions continue to be far below normal. In anaverage year, about 7O percent of the seasonal snowpackremains on May 1. This year, the Play 1 snowpack inCalifornia's North Coast Area, which includes that part ofthe Klamath River system lying within the State, amounted toonly about 17 percent of the May 1 average. The snowpack inthe Upper Klamath River Basin (Oregon) amounted to 35 percentof average on May 1. That in the Sacramento basin, bycomparison, totaled 15 percent of the May 1 average.

Flows in most unregulared streams within the Klamath systemare already relatively low. April runoff in the North CoastArea amounted to only 29 percent'of average. For the period,October through April, total runoff for this area amountedto only 53 percent of average. Last year, runoff during thisperiod totaled 6O percent of average for the area.

April-July runoff for the North Coast Area as a whole isforecast to be about 40 percent of average. Runoff duringthis period in the Trinity River basin at Lewiston ispredicted to be about 44 percent of average, while that inthe Scott River system, at Fort Jones, is projected to beonly about 35 percent of average. The runoff into UpperKlamath Lake (Oregon) is forecast to be about 32 percent ofaverage during this period.

At the beginning of May, storage levels in major Klamathbasin reservoris remained fairly high, compared to historicalaverages. On May 17, Trinity Lake held approximately 1.969million acre-feet (a/f) of water, just over SO percent of itscapacity, and 9O percent of average for that date. On aboutMay 1, Upper Klamath Lake was at approximately 95 percent ofits available active storage capacity of about 5OO,OOO a/f.By comparison, Shasta Reservoir on May 17, containedapproximately 3.O96 million a/f of water. This is equal to

I/ Report to the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force,May 31, 1983. Prepared by Paul M. Hubbell, CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game.

about 76 percent of average for that date, and amounts toabout 68 percent of capacity.

While the May storms that have struck California and Oregonhave increased precipitation totals somewhat, much of thewater they yielded fell at lower elevations, generallyincreasing streamflows somewhat, but contributing onlyrelatively minor amounts to reservoir storage.

Because Shasta Lake inflow for water year 1983 has beenforecast at below 4.0 million a/f (the break-point betweenwet/normal and dry water years, as defined in the January1981 Interior Secretary Decision Document), flow releasetotals to the Trintiy River at Lewistop will be reducedapproximately 2O percent, from an originally scheduled325,113 a/f to 26Q.60O a/f (see Table 1). At present, itappears the revised schedule will be maintained.

On April 11, 19S8, the Bureau of Reclamatation's KlamathProject Manager advised the Department of Fish and Game ofthe Bureau's concerns about depleting the active storagecapacity of Upper Klamath Lake this year with the possibilityof yet another dry year occurring next year, and the need totake steps required to reserve a minimum carryover of 10O,OOOa/f of active storage in the lake. To retain this block ofwater, the Bureau felt flow "releases to the Klamath Riverbelow Iron Gate would have to be reduced. Fish and'Game andBureau representatives met April 27 in Klamath Falls todiscuss the Bureau's conservation proposals. Following themeeting, the Department, on May 9, provided the Bureau with arecommended schedule of releases for the reduced volume theBureau proposed for the river (see Table 2). Subsequent tothat date, the Bureau has advised the Department that becauseof recent storms, water conditions in Upper Klamath Lake haveimproved, to a point where all proposals to reduce flows tothe Klamath River below Iron Gate Damn are now "on hold".

At the present time, water conditions in the main stems ofthe Klamath and Trinity rivers during the fall 1983 spawningseason are expected to be comparable to those which occurredin 1937. Flows in unregulated tributary streams are expectedto be lower than average, with conditions approximating thoseobserved in the fall of 1987. As a result, unlesssignificant early fall rains occur, most Chinook salmonspawning is expected to occur in areas used in 1937.

Table 1

Comparison of Water Year 1988 Trinity River Flow Release Schedules forLewiston Dam Under Normal and Dry Year Conditions

Month Normal year (cfs) Dry year (cfs)

October 1-31 300 300November 1-30 300 300December 1-31 300 300January 1-31 300 300February 1-29 300 300March 1-31 450 450April 1-17 600 500April 18-May 13 800 600May 14-21 500 500May 22-June 30 700 500June 1-3 700 500June 4-17 . 700 400June 18-30 • _ ~ 700 300July 1-31 600 300August 1-14 500 300August 15-31 400 300September 1-30 300 300-

TOTAL RELEASE (acre-feet) 325,113 260,600

Table 2

Comparison of 1988 Drought Contingency Flow Schedule Suggested by theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game in Response to Bureau of ReclamationKlamath Project (Oregon) Draft Water Conservation Plan for Dpper Klamath Lake

With Normal Minimum Iron Gate Dam Releases to Klamath River a/

Normal minimum Suggested droughtMonth release (cfs) contingency releases (cfs)

JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJuly •AugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

1,3001,3001,3001,3001,000710710

1,0001,3001,3001',300 -1,300

700400300

1,0001,0001,000 b/

a/ The Bureau of Reclamation has proposed modifying 1988 downstream flowreleases in order that they may keep at least 100,000 acre-feet of activestorage in Upper Klamath Lake to serve agricultural needs and ensure somedownstream releases in 1989, should dry conditions persist.

b_/ October releases may be reduced to 800 cfs, if drought conditions continueat that time.