You are on page 1of 76

CONDITIONAND

CONDITION FEEDINGOF
ANDFEEDING OFJUVENILE SALMON
CHINOOKSALMON
JUVENILECHINOOK
INSELECTED
IN SELECTEDINTERMITTENT
INTERMITTENTTRIBUTARIES
TRIBUTARIESOF THE
OFTHE

UPPERSACRAMENTO
UPPER SACRAMENTORIVER
RIVER

Thesis
AAThesis
Presented
Presented
tothe
to Facultyofof
theFaculty

CaliforniaState
California StateUniversity, Chico
University,Chico

Partial Fulfillment
InPartial
In Fulfillment
of the
of theRequirements for the
Requirementsfor Degree
theDegree
Master of Science
Master of Science

in
in

BiologicalSciences
Biological Sciences

\\

by
by
Teri L.
Teri L.Moore
Moore

Spring1997
Spring 1997

teri.moore@wildlife.ca.gov
CONDITION AND FEEDING OF JUVENILE CHINOOK SALMON
IN SELECTED INTERMITTENT TRIBUTARIES OF THE

UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER

A Thesis

by
Ted L. Moore
Teri

Spring 1997

Clarence D. McNabb, Ph.D.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was made possible by a grant from the U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation Ecological Research and Investigations Group, Denver, Colorado. I would

also like to thank Paul Maslin, Cal McNabb, and Neil Schwertman for their advice,
support, and constructive criticism; Marco Campbell, Jack Williamson, Carey Cobum,
Pamela Petrusso, Wayne Talo, Jason Kirkwood, and Sandy Borthwick for assistance with

data collection; and Keith Marine for donating valuable advice and field equipment.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
Acknowledgments iii

List of Tables vi

List of Figures . vii

Abstract ix

CHAPTER
I.L Introduction 1

Background 1
Watershed Overviews 3
Sacramento River . 3
Tributaries 4
IL Study Sites and Methods 8

Study Sites 8
Habitat Surveys 8
Blue Tent Creek Study Area 9
Dibble Creek Study Area 9
Sacramento River Study Area 10
Fish Capture Technique 10
Growh Rate and Condition Factor 11
Growth Rate 11
Condition Factor 11
Mark and Recapture Techniques 12
Freeze-Branding Technique 12
Fin-Clipping Technique 12
Population Estimates 13
Peterson Mark and Recapture Method 13
Zippin Removal Method 14
Stomach Content Analysis 14
Temperature and Turbidity 17
Temperature 17
Turbidity 18

IV
CHAPTER PAGE

HI.
IK Results '’ 23

Population Estimates 19
Residence Time 19
Stomach Content Analysis 21
Fullness Index 21
1995 Stomach Contents 22
1996 Stomach Contents 22
Temperature and Turbidity 25
Temperature 25
Turbidity 27
Growth Rate and Condition Factor 28
GrowthRate 28
Condition Factor 32
IV. Discussion 41

Population Estimate
Residence Time
Stomach Content Analysis
Temperature and Turbidity
Temperature
...... 41
42
42
42
45
45
Turbidity 46
Growth Rate and Condition Factor 47

V. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 49

Summary and Conclusions 49


Recommendations for Further Study 50
Literature Cited 51

Appendices
A. Habitat Survey of Blue Tent Creek Study Area 57
B. Food Organisms Found in the Stomachs of Juvenile Chinook Captured
in Blue Tent and Dibble Creeks and the Mainstem Sacramento
River 60

v
LIST OFTABLES
LISTOF TABLES

TABLE
TABLE PAGE
PAGE
. . All
11 AllFish
FishSpecies
SpeciesCaptured andDibble
Tentand
BlueTent
CapturedininBlue DibbleCreeks from
Creeksfrom
1/1/96 to 4/12/96
1/1/96 to 4/12/96 66

2.2. Population
PopulationEstimates
EstimatesCalculated forHabitat
Calculatedfor HabitatUnits Withinthe
UnitsWithin Blue
theBlue
Tent Creek Study Area, with 95% Confidence Intervals
Tent Creek Study Area, with 95% Confidence Intervals 19
19

3.3. JuvenileChinook
Juvenile ChinookMarked
Markedand
andRecaptured TentCreek
BlueTent
RecapturedininBlue from
Creekfrom
2/18/96 to 4/4/96
2/18/96 to 4/4/96 20
20
StomachFullness
FullnessIndex
4.4. Stomach
CapturedininBlue
ScoresCalculated
IndexScores
TentCreek,
BlueTent Creek,Dibble Juvenile Chinook
for JuvenileChinook
Calculatedfor
Creek,and
DibbleCreek, andthe
themainstem
mainstem
Captured
Sacramento River
Sacramento River 21
21

vi
vi
LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE
1. Sacramento River from Keswick Dam to the Red Bluff Diversion
Dam .. 2

2. Blue Tent Creek and Dibble Creek Study Areas 15


3. Sacramento River Study Area 16

4. Predominant Food Organisms Found in the Stomach Contents of


Juvenile Chinook Captured in Dibble Creek from February to
May 1995 23
5. Predominant Food Organisms Found in the Stomach Contents of
Juvenile Chinook Captured in Blue Tent Creek from February to
May 1995 24
6. Predominant Food Organisms Found in the Stomach Contents of
Juvenile Chinook Captured in Dibble Creek from February to
April 1996 25
7. Predominant Food Organisms Found in the Stomach Contents of
Juvenile Chinook Captured in Blue Tent Creek from February to
April 1996 26

8. Predominant Food Organisms Found in the Stomach Contents of


Juvenile Chinook Captured in the mainstem Sacramento River
during February and March 1996 27

9.
9. Hourly Temperatures Measured in Dibble Creek and the Mainstem
Sacramento River from 1/11/96 to 1/23/96 28

10. Hourly Temperatures Measured in Blue Tent Creek, Dibble Creek, and
the Mainstem Sacramento River from 2/1/96 to 2/29/96 29

11.
11 Hourly Temperatures Measured in Blue Tent Creek and the Mainstem
Sacramento River from 3/1/96 to 3/31/96 30
12. Hourly Temperatures Measured in Blue Tent Creek and the Mainstem
Sacramento River from 4/1/96 to 4/24/96 31

13. Turbidities Measured in Blue Tent Creek, Dibble Creek, and the
Mainstem Sacramento River from 1/12/96 to 4/12/96 32

vii
FIGURE PAGE

14. Length Distribution of Juvenile Chinook Captured in Blue Tent Creek


from 1/1/96 to 2/24/96 33
15.
15. Length Distribution and Growth Rates of Juvenile Chinook Captured
in Blue Tent Creek from 3/2/96 to 4/12/96 34
16. Length Distribution and Growth Rates of Juvenile Chinook Caudal-
Clipped in Blue Tent Creek on 3/15/96 and Recaptured from
3/23/96 to 4/4/96 35
17.
17. Length Distribution and Growth Rates of Juvenile Chinook Freeze-
Branded in Blue Tent Creek on 2/18/96 and Recaptured from
2/24/96 to 3/30/96 36
18.
18. Length Distribution of Juvenile Chinook Captured in Dibble Creek
from 1/12/96 to 4/12/96 37
19.
19. Length Distribution of Juvenile Chinook Captured in Mainstem
Sacramento River from 2/24/96 to 4/4/96 38
20. Mean Condition Factors of Juvenile Chinook Captured in Blue
Tent Creek and the Mainstem Sacramento River from 3/15/96
to 4/12/96, with 95% Confidence Intervals 39
21. Mean Condition Factors of Adipose-Clipped Juvenile Chinook
Captured in Blue Tent Creek and the Mainstem Sacramento River
from 3/16/96 to 3/30/96, with 95% Confidence Intervals 40

viii
ABSTRACT

CONDITION AND FEEDING OF JUVENILE CHINOOK SALMON


IN SELECTED INTERMITTENT TRIBUTARIES OF THE

UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER


by
Teri L. Moore

Master of Science in Biological Sciences

California State University, Chico


Spring 1997

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feeding habits, residence times,

growth rates, and condition factors of juvenile chinook


Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
tshawytscha) rearing in small, nonnatal, intermittent tributaries of the Upper Sacramento
River. The study was conducted in sections of Blue Tent Creek, Dibble Creek, and the
mainstem Sacramento River near Red Bluff, California. Samples for stomach content
analyses were obtained between February and May 1995 and between February and April

1996. From February to April 1996, juvenile fall run chinook from each sample site were
captured by beach seine, measured, and weighed. Length and weight measurements were
used to calculate growth rates and mean condition factors. When possible, the growth rates

and condition factors of juvenile chinook captured in the tributaries were compared with

those of juvenile chinook captured in the mainstem. A total of 334 juvenile chinook were

marked by freeze-brand or caudal-clip in Blue Tent Creek during February and March

IX
1996. Mark-recapture data were used to estimate the residence time, population size, and
growth rates of juvenile Chinook
chinook rearing in the tributaries.
According to the stomach content analyses, juvenile Chinook
chinook rearing in the
tributaries consumed large quantities of aquatic insects, particularly the larvae, pupae, and
adults of Chironomidae (midges), nymphs of Baetidae (small minnow mayflies) and

Capniidae (winter stoneflies), and larval cyprinoid fishes. The mark-recapture and
length-frequency data indicated that approximately 1,000 juvenile fall run chinook resided
in the 1,230 m long Blue Tent Creek study area for approximately five weeks, grew from
approximately 40 to 75 mm, then emigrated. Juvenile chinook rearing in Blue Tent Creek
grew faster than predicted by the growth model currently in use for the mainstem
Sacramento River. Furthermore, the mean condition factors of juvenile chinook captured in

the tributaries were higher than those of juvenile chinook captured in the mainstem
Sacramento River. The faster growth and higher condition factors attained by juvenile
chinook rearing in Blue Tent and Dibble Creeks may have been partially due to favorable

rearing conditions typical of small, intermittent streams; including rich food resources,
relatively warm water temperatures, and low turbidity.

x
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background
Approximately 70% of the Sacramento River tributaries between Keswick dam
and the Red Bluff diversion dam (see Figure 1) are seasonally intermittent, flowing from

approximately December to May. Most of these streams are very small, and do not provide
spawning habitat for adult chinook salmon (California Department of Water Resources
(CDWR) 1984). However, they may provide high quality rearing habitat for juvenile

chinook. Previous studies have established that some juvenile chinook migrate into small,
intermittent tributaries from the mainstem Sacramento River during the winter and early
spring; presumably to maximize feeding and growth opportunities during their freshwater

rearing phase (P. E. Maslin et al., California State University, Chico, unpublished data).
Intermittent streams are essentially “temporarily flooded habitats,” and fish
populations throughout the world have evolved life history strategies to exploit food
resources in temporarily flooded habitats. According to Northcote (1978), many tropical
species make massive, short-term migrations onto river flood-plains “to exploit the sudden
increase in the food base brought about by flooding and washing out of terrestrial sources,
or the elaboration of new production with the upsurge in nutrient supply” (p. 340).
In addition to rich food resources, small, intermittent tributaries may provide
refuge from unfavorable environmental conditions which occur in the mainstem
Sacramento River during certain times of the year. According to the Resources Agency
(1989), the Sacramento River is too cold and turbid for optimum juvenile chinook rearing

during the winter and early spring. Suboptimal water temperatures and high turbidity

1
2

Figure 1. Sacramento River from Keswick Dam to the Red Bluff Diversion Dam.
33

reducethe
reduce thegrowth
growthrate
rateand feedingability
andfeeding abilityofofsalmonids. al.(1993)
Scriveneretetal.
salmonids.Scrivener (1993)and Murray
andMurray

and Rosenau(1989)
andRosenau (1989)concluded
concludedthat highsediment
seasonallyhigh
thatseasonally levelsand
sedimentlevels andcold temperatures
coldtemperatures
FraserRiver
theFraser
ininthe Riverinduce
inducejuvenile
juvenilechinook moveinto
chinooktotomove nonnataltributaries
small,nonnatal
intosmall, feed
tributariestotofeed
andclear
and cleartheir
theirgills
gillsofofsediment.
sediment.Similar
Similarbehavior mayoccur
behaviormay occurininthe SacramentoRiver
theSacramento River

system.
system.
Themain
The mainobjective
objectiveofofthis
thisstudy wastotocollect
studywas dataconcerning
collectdata therearing
concerningthe rearing
habitsofofjuvenile
habits juvenilechinook
chinookininnonnatal,
nonnatal,intermittent tributariesofofthe
intermittenttributaries River;and
SacramentoRiver;
theSacramento and
comparethe
totocompare thegrowth,
growth,condition,
condition,and
andfeeding chinookrearing
juvenilechinook
habitsofofjuvenile
feedinghabits the
rearingininthe
tributarieswith
tributaries withthose
thoserearing
rearingininthe
themainstem SacramentoRiver.
mainstemSacramento Temperatureand
River.Temperature turbidity
andturbidity
werealso
were alsomonitored
monitoredininthe
thetributaries
tributariesand
andininthe becauseofoftheir
mainstembecause
themainstem theirimportant effects
importanteffects
onfeeding
on feedingand
andgrowth.
growth.Although
Althoughjuvenile chinookhave
juvenilechinook beencaptured
havebeen small,
severalsmall,
capturedininseveral
intermittentSacramento
intermittent SacramentoRiver
Rivertributaries
tributaries(P. E.Maslin
(P.E. Maslinetetal., CaliforniaState
al.,California University,
StateUniversity,
Chico,unpublished
Chico, unpublisheddata),
data),Blue TentCreek
BlueTent Creekand DibbleCreek
andDibble wereselected
Creekwere selectedfor more
formore
detailedstudy
detailed studybecause
becausethey areeasily
theyare containhabitat
andcontain
sampledand
easilysampled habitatrepresentative many
representativeofofmany
othersuch
other tributariesininthe
suchtributaries theSacramento
SacramentoRiver
Riversystem.
system.
Documentationofofnonnatal
Documentation nonnatalrearing
rearingby chinookisisimportant
juvenilechinook
byjuvenile forthe
importantfor the

managementofofdeclining
management decliningSacramento
SacramentoRiver
Riversalmon
salmonpopulations. maybe
Actionsmay
populations.Actions necessary
benecessary

totoprotect intermittentstream
protectintermittent habitatand
streamhabitat ensureadequate
andensure adequatewater flowsand
waterflows habitatconditions
andhabitat conditions
forrearing.
for Furthermore,increased
rearing.Furthermore, increasedunderstanding aboutthe
understandingabout importanceofof
ecologicalimportance
theecological

intermittentstreams
intermittent couldhelp
streamscould helppublic andprivate
publicand landownersmake
privatelandowners makeimproved decisions
improveddecisions

regardingland
regarding landmanagement.
management.

Overviews
WatershedOverviews
Watershed
SacramentoRiver
Sacramento River

SacramentoRiver
TheSacramento
The Riverisisthe
thelargest
largestriver California.ItItoriginates
systemininCalifornia.
riversystem originatesnear Mt.Shasta
nearMt. Shasta

flowsapproximately
andflows
and approximately644
644km untilititjoins
south-southwestuntil
kmsouth-southwest theSan
joinsthe JoaquinRiver
SanJoaquin Riverand
and
4

empties into San Francisco Bay. The river and its tributaries drain parts of the Coast
Ranges, Klamath Mountains, Cascade Range, Sierra Nevada, and Great Valley
geomorphic provinces. Watershed elevation ranges from about 1524 m at the source to
about sea level at the mouth. Mean annual precipitation ranges from about 178 cm near the

source to about 50 cm near Red Bluff. The physical and biological features of the
Sacramento River watershed have been thoroughly described by CDWR (1984, 1985).
Rearing habitat within the Sacramento River has been substantially degraded for
chinook salmon fry and fingerlings, which prefer marginal areas of the river, particularly

back eddies and side channel areas with structural complexity and overhead cover (Healy

1991; Odenweller 1990). Many of the slower reaches and eddies that historically provided

ideal habitat have been lost due to bank protection and flood control. Bank protection
affects the sinuosity and braiding of the river. Over time, it will tend to narrow the channel,

increase the depth of flow, and reduce the hydrologic diversity. Sloughs, tributary
channels, and oxbow lakes fill with sediment, and no new ones are created.

Tributaries
Blue Tent and Dibble Creeks originate in the foothills surrounding the
Sacramento Valley west of Red Bluff and flow from west to east. They enter the
Sacramento River at river miles 247.7 and 246, respectively. Blue Tent Creek has a
drainage basin of 47 km2, and Dibble Creek has a drainage basin of 73 km2. Watershed

elevations for both creeks range from approximately 274 m at the source to 9 m at the
mouth. Mean precipitation ranges from approximately 63 cm in the foothills to 50 cm in the
Sacramento Valley. Most of the precipitation occurs between November and April
(CDWR 1992).

Mean discharge for Blue Tent Creek ranges from approximately 0.05 m3/s
during the late fall (October and November) and approximately 0.6 m3/s in the winter

(December, January, and February). Mean discharge for Dibble Creek ranges from
5

approximately 0.07 m3/s during the late fall and approximately 0.8 m3/s in the winter
(CDWR 1984). Both streams dry down predictably in the late spring (approximately late

April to late May) as base flow diminishes and seepage and evaporation exceeds available
flow (CDWR 1992). During extreme drought years, these streams may not reach the

Sacramento River.
The terrestrial plant communities in both the Blue Tent and Dibble Creek
drainage basins are characterized by oak woodland and grassland composed of perennial
and annual grasses and forbs. The major vegetation type is the blue oak (Quercus

douglasii). Some live oak ( Quercus wislinzenii) and valley oak ( Quercus lobata
lobata)) may be
interspersed. Poison oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba) is the predominant shrub. In some
areas of the riparian zone, there are remnant patches of live oak riparian woodland. Major
plants of the live oak riparian woodland include live oak, sycamore ( Plantanus racemosa ),
racemosa),

California buckeye ( Aesculas califomica),


califomica), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and willow
(Salix spp.). The predominant shrub is poison oak.

Human impacts on the watersheds of westside streams such as Blue Tent and
Dibble Creeks have been severe. Prior to settlement by European immigrants in the

mid-1800s, the Blue Tent and Dibble Creek watersheds were mostly pristine oak
woodlands with natural canopy cover ranging from 10 to 100% (CDWR 1992). To date,
the major land uses have been livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and firewood cutting

on the upland areas; and limited dryland and irrigated farming on the flat valley bottoms.
Prior to 1958, large portions of the watersheds were cleared of oak trees to improve grass
cover and to establish cultivated fields. In recent years, large blocks of oak woodland have
been harvested to provide commercial firewood for export (CDWR 1992). Additional

human activities which have adversely affected the tributaries include gravel mining,
urbanization, and the impoundment of storm runoff and springs for irrigation and

livestock.
6

Fish communities in Blue Tent and Dibble Creeks are generally limited to

species which migrate into intermittent tributaries during the winter and early spring for
spawning or rearing purposes. Species collected in Blue Tent and Dibble creeks during the
1996 sampling period are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. All fish species captured in Blue Tent and Dibble Creeks from 1/1/96 to 4/12/96.

Total # captured
California
Species Native Exotic Adults Juveniles
Catostomus occidentals
occidentalis
(Sacramento Sucker) X 25 >1000
Cottus asper
(prickly sculpin) X 3 0
Hesperoleucus symmetricus
(California roach) X 7 4
Lepomis cyanellus
(bluegill) X 0 1
Micropterus salmoides
(largemouth bass) X 0 17
Notemigonus crysoleucas
(golden shiner) X 8 4
Oncorhynchus mykiss
(rainbow trout) X 0 2
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
(chinook salmon) X 0 2,005
Ptychocheilus grandis
(Sacramento squawfish) X 0 40

California roach tolerate high temperatures and low oxygen levels, and are
known to inhabit the isolated pools of intermittent streams year round (McGinnis 1984).
However, California roach may also migrate into tributaries from the mainstem Sacramento

River. The Sacramento sucker, Sacramento squawfish, golden shiner, and rainbow trout
are known to use intermittent streams for spawning and rearing (McGinnis 1984; Moyle
7

1981). Juvenile largemouth bass, bluegill, and chinook salmon may use intermittent

streams as rearing habitat.


CHAPTER II

STUDY SITES AND METHODS

Study Sites
Sections of Blue Tent Creek, Dibble Creek, and the mainstem Sacramento River
near Red Bluff were designated as study areas (see Figures 2 and 3) and samples were
collected from the best accessible rearing habitat within these areas. In order to maximize

sample sizes for growth rate and condition factor calculations, samples were generally

taken from habitats where juvenile Chinook


chinook were most likely to be captured, such as pools
and runs in the tributaries, and slow moving marginal areas in the mainstem.

Habitat Surveys
Surveys
Habitat surveys were conducted within each study area using an abbreviated
version of methods outlined in the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual.

published by the California Department of Fish and Game. Where appropriate, each study

area was divided into habitat units such as pools, riffles, and runs. For each habitat unit,
several physical characteristics were measured, including total length, mean width, mean

depth, and maximum depth. The dominant substrate type for each unit was visually
estimated. Habitat measurements were taken on 3/29/96, when discharge appeared normal
(no storm events had occurred recently but the water level was not extremely low).

A more detailed habitat survey was conducted for the Blue Tent Creek study
area for use in population estimates (see Appendix A). In addition to the habitat
measurements described above, an approximate percentage of “usable” rearing habitat

within each unit was visually estimated based on the habitat preferences for juvenile

chinook described in the literature (Healy 1991; Odenweller 1990). For example, it was
Chinook

8
99
assumedthat
assumed thatjuvenile
juvenilechinook
chinookwould
wouldnotnothold extremelyswift
holdininextremely swiftwater,
water, areaswithout
ororininareas without

refuge fromterrestrial
refugefrom terrestrial and aquatic predators. Structural elements consideredtotoprovide
and aquatic predators. Structural elements considered provide
coverincluded
cover included undercutbanks,
undercut banks,woody debris, aquatic vegetation,boulders,
woodydebris, boulders, cobbles,
cobbles,
aquatic vegetation,
bubble curtains, and deep water.
bubble curtains, and deep water.
Blue Tent Creek Study Area
Blue Tent Creek Study Area
TheBlue TentCreek
Figure was approximately 1230mmlong,
(see Figure2)2) was approximately1230
BlueTent Creek studyarea long,
The study area(see
with averagewidth
withananaverage width of 5.5m,m, and an average depth of 0.5m.m.The
of 5.5 and an average depth of 0.5 upstreamboundary
Theupstream boundary
wasapproximately
was approximately1.6
1.6km
kmupstream
upstreamofofthe withthe
confluencewith
theconfluence SacramentoRiver.
theSacramento River.The
The
downstream boundary was the Adobe Road bridge, approximately0.4 upstreamofofthe
downstream boundary was the Adobe Road bridge, approximately 0.4km kmupstream the
confluence.The
confluence. Thestudy areacontained
studyarea containedseveral riffles,and
pools,riffles,
severalpools, andruns. Mostofofthe
runs.Most pools
thepools

wereformed
were formedbybylateral scourofofthe
lateralscour thehardpan.
hardpan.Substrate throughoutthe
Substratethroughout thestudy reach
studyreach

consisted mainlyofofmedium
consistedmainly mediumsizedsizedgravel
graveland cobble,and
andcobble, somehardpan.
andsome Sparseoverhead
hardpan.Sparse overhead
coverwas
cover wasprovided wasprovided
by scattered live oak and willow. Instream coverwas
provided by scattered live oak and willow. Instreamcover providedbyby
large cobbles, undercutbanks,
banks, and root wads.
large cobbles, undercut and root wads.
Dibble Creek Study Area
Dibble Creek Study Area
TheDibble (see Figure 2) was located approximately .6
Dibble Creek study area(see .6 km
The Creek study area Figure 2) was located approximately 1 1 km
upstream of the confluencewith
upstream of the confluence withthe SacramentoRiver,
theSacramento and consisted of onepool
River, and consisted ofone andone
pooland one
riffle.The
riffle. Thepool wasapproximately
poolwas approximately6060mmlong
longand with an averagedepth
wide, with anaverage
and1515mmwide, depthofof
anda amaximum
0.7m,m,and maximum depth of 1.3 m. The rifflewas downstreamofofthe
immediatelydownstream
0.7 depth of 1.3 m. The riffle wasimmediately thepool
pool
wasapproximately
andwas
and approximately3535mmlong
longand averagedepth
wide, withananaverage
and1212mmwide, with anda a
0.2m,m,and
depthofof0.2
maximum depth of 0.3 m. Substrateininthe
maximum depth of 0.3 m. Substrate areaconsisted
studyarea
thestudy mainlyofofgravel,
consistedmainly gravel,cobble,
cobble,

and hardpan. There was no overheadcover,


cover, and instreamcover wasprovided
coverwas providedbybylarge
large
and hardpan. There was no overhead and instream

boulders andcobbles.
bouldersand cobbles.The
The Dibble Creek studyreach wasmainly
Dibble Creek study reachwas mainlyused collectjuvenile
usedtotocollect juvenile

More extensive samplingofofDibble


chinook for stomach content analysis. More extensivesampling
chinook for stomach content analysis.
Creekwas
DibbleCreek was
planned,but
planned,
buthad to be abandoned due to land owner
concerns.
had to be abandoned due to land ownerconcerns.
10

Sacramento River Study


Study Area
The Sacramento River study area (see Figure 3) was located at River Mile 244.
The upstream boundary was approximately 0.8 km upstream of the Red Bluff Diversion

Dam near the confluence of East Sand Slough. The downstream boundary was the Red
Bluff Diversion Dam. Most samples were collected within a backwater area with relatively
slow-moving water. This area was approximately 400 m long and 40 m wide, with an
average depth of 0.8 m. The substrate consisted mainly of large gravel and cobble and there
was no overhead cover. Instream cover consisted of large cobbles, boulders, and
rootwads.

Fish Capture Technique


A 30 foot x 6 foot seine with 1/8 inch mesh was used to capture fish. Juvenile
chinook and other fish captured by seine were transferred to five gallon buckets of clean
water for immediate processing. Fish were anesthetized with tricaine methanesulfonate

(MS 222, brand name Finquel from Argent Chemical Company) and measured on a

Plexiglas measuring board to the nearest 0.5 mm. The Daily Length Table generated by the

California Department of Water Resources Environmental Services office (Johnson et al.


1992), was used to identify run membership of juvenile chinook.

Fish species other than chinook salmon were measured, placed into clean water,
and released upon recovery from the effects of the anesthetic. Adipose-clipped chinook

were sacrificed and returned to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for coded wire tag
recovery and analysis. Juvenile chinook were weighed to the nearest 0.1 gram on an Ohaus
field balance (model number C305). Fry less than 50 mm in length were not weighed
because of the 0.1 gram accuracy limitation of the balance. A chamois cloth was used to

blot and hold fish for weighing, as suggested by Anderson (1985).


11

Growth Rate and Condition Factor


Growth Rate
Growth rates were calculated from median lengths using methods described by
Busacker et al. (1990). First, distinct cohorts (age groups) were identified within the

population using graphical representations of length frequency distribution data (fish of a


single age tend to form a normal frequency distribution, which can be identified on a length
frequency histogram). Next, the median length was determined for each cohort, and shifts
in median lengths of the cohorts were followed in subsequent samples. Growth rates were
calculated using the formula (Y2-Y|)/(T2-T)); Tj is the time at the beginning of an
(Y2-Y])/(T2-T1); where T(
interval and T2 the time at the end, and Y]
Yj and Y2 are the respective fish sizes at those times.

Condition Factpr
Factor
Lengths and weights were used to calculate Fulton’s condition factor, expressed

as: K=[weight in grams/(fork length in mm)3] x 105. According to Bagenal and Tesch

(1978), Fulton’s condition factor may be used to compare differences related to habitat and

food resources in fish of approximately the same length. Furthermore, since salmonids
exhibit isometric, or “proportional” growth beginning at about 50 mm (K. True, U. S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Califomia-Nevada Fish Health Center, personal


communication), Fulton’s condition factor should remain the same for fish with a similar

energy intake over a relatively wide range of lengths. For example, a well fed fish 55 mm
long may have the same Fulton’s condition factor as a well fed fish 75 mm long.
One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences in the

mean condition factors calculated for each study area on consecutive sampling dates.
Fisher’s Protected Least Squared Difference multiple comparison test was used to test all
contrasts among the means in each ANOVA. An unpaired two group t-test was used to test

for differences between the mean condition factors of juvenile chinook captured in the
12
12

tributariesand
tributaries andthe
themainstem
mainstemon
onaaselected
selectedsample date,which
sampledate, befurther
willbe
whichwill discussed
furtherdiscussed

later. Alltests
later.All wereperformed
testswere performedatatthe 0.05significance
the0.05 levelusing
significancelevel theStatView
usingthe Student
StatViewStudent
statisticalpackage
statistical package(a(aproduct
productofofAbacus ConceptsInc.,
AbacusConcepts Inc.,Berkely, CA).
Berkely,CA).

Markand
Mark RecaptureTechniques
andRecapture Techniques
Juvenilechinook
Juvenile Chinookcaptured
capturedininBlue TentCreek
BlueTent weremarked
Creekwere markedeither
eitherby
by
freeze-brandororcaudal
freeze-brand caudalclip onthree
clipon threesample
sampledates. Themarks
dates.The wereused
markswere usedtotoestimate
estimate

residence time,population
residencetime, size,and
populationsize, andgrowth rateofofjuvenile
growthrate chinookrearing
juvenilechinook Tent
BlueTent
rearingininBlue
Creek.Fish
Creek. werebranded
Fishwere ononly
brandedon onlytwo
twosample (leftand
dates(left
sampledates rightsides)
andright becausethe
sides)because the

brands appearedasasindistinct,
brandsappeared indistinct,oval
ovalspots insteadofofindividual
spotsinstead individualletters.
letters.AApartial
partialfin was
clipwas
finclip
usedtotomark
used markfish onthe
fishon thethird
thirdsample
sampledate.
date.
Freeze-BrandingTechnique
Freeze-Branding Technique
Brandsconstructed
Brands leadtypewriter
constructedofoflead typewriterletters attachedtotowooden
lettersattached woodenhandles were
handleswere
cooledininaamixture
cooled mixtureofofacetone anddry
acetoneand iceasasdescribed
dryice Everestand
byEverest
describedby andEdmundson (1967).
Edmundson(1967).
Afterfish
After wereanaesthetized
fishwere anaesthetizedand measured,brands
andmeasured, wereapplied
brandswere theleft
appliedtotothe leftor rightside
orright side
nearthe
near thedorsal
dorsalfin
finfor
fortwo
twoseconds. fallrun
Onlyfall
seconds.Only weremarked,
runwere marked,and
andfish lessthan
fishless than40 mm
40mm

long werenot
longwere marked.Juvenile
notmarked. Juvenilechinook
chinook50 mmororlonger
50mm wereweighed
longerwere afterbranding.
weighedafter branding.All
All

branded fishwere
brandedfish wereheld recoverybucket
heldininaarecovery bucketfor approximately15
forapproximately minutestotocheck
15minutes for
checkfor
immediatemortality,
immediate mortality,then
thenreleased nearthe
releasednear theplace werecaptured.
theywere
placethey captured.The
Theletter “T”was
letter“T” was
usedtotobrand
used brandjuvenile
juvenilechinook
chinookininBlue TentCreek
BlueTent onFebruary
Creekon 18and
February18 24.
February24.
andFebruary
Previouslybranded
Previously brandedfish werenot
fishwere brandedaasecond
notbranded time.
secondtime.
Fin-ClippingTechnique
Fin-Clipping Technique

On3/15/96,
On 3/15/96,juvenile
juvenilefall weremarked
chinookwere
runchinook
fallrun withaapartial
markedwith partialcaudal clip
finclip
caudalfin
andreleased
and releasedinto fourseparate
intofour unitswithin
habitatunits
separatehabitat withinthe TentCreek
BlueTent
theBlue area.
studyarea.
Creekstudy
Anesthetizedfish
Anesthetized weremeasured
fishwere andweighed.
measuredand recoveryfrom
Priortotorecovery
weighed.Prior fromthe anesthetic,
theanesthetic,

approximately3.0
approximately mmofofthe
3.0mm upperportion
theupper portionofofthe
thecaudal
caudalfin wasclipped
finwas clippedusing stainless
usingstainless
13
13

steelmicro
steel microscissors
scissorsfrom
fromCarolina
CarolinaBiological
BiologicalSupply Clippedfish
Company.Clipped
SupplyCompany. wereheld
fishwere for
heldfor
about10
about recoverybucket
minutesininaarecovery
10minutes buckettotocheck foradverse
checkfor affects,then
adverseaffects, thenreleased nearthe
releasednear the

place werecaptured.
theywere
placethey captured.Previously brandedororadipose
Previouslybranded adiposeclipped werenot
fishwere
clippedfish markedaa
notmarked

time.
secondtime.
second
PopulationEstimates
Population Estimates
PetersonMark
Peterson Markand RecaptureMethod
andRecapture Method

The PetersonMethod
ThePeterson Method(Brower
(Broweretetal. wasused
1990)was
al.1990) obtainaarough
usedtotoobtain rough

population estimateofofjuvenile
populationestimate juvenilechinook
chinookrearing theBlue
rearingininthe Creekstudy
TentCreek
BlueTent studyarea on
areaon

3/16/96. Fishmarked
3/16/96.Fish markedwith
withcaudal-clips on3/15/96
caudal-clipson wererecaptured
3/15/96were on3/16/96.
recapturedon Since
3/16/96.Since
markedfish
marked fishdid
didnot disperseevenly
notdisperse evenlythroughout
throughoutthe entireBlue
theentire TentCreek
BlueTent Creekstudy area,
studyarea,

separate populationestimates
separatepopulation estimateswere
werecalculated foreach
calculatedfor unitwhere
habitatunit
eachhabitat wherefish weremarked,
fishwere marked,

released,and
released, andrecaptured
recapturedusing
usingthe formula:N=M(n+l)/(R+l);
theformula: M=the
whereM=
N=M(n+l)/(R+l);where numberofof
thenumber
fishmarked,
fish n=the
marked,n= thenumber
numberininthe
thesecond
secondsample, andRR==the
sample,and numberofofmarked
thenumber markedfish
fish
recaptured.Standard
recaptured. StandardErrors
Errors(SE) werecalculated
(SE)were calculatedusing formula:
theformula:
usingthe

SE=the
SE= squareroot
thesquare rootof [M2(n+l)(n-R)/(R+l)2(R+2)].Ninety-five
of[M2(n+l)(n-R)/(R+l)2(R+2)]. Ninety-fivepercent confidence
percentconfidence

intervals foreach
intervalsfor eachpopulation
populationestimate werecalculated
estimatewere N±(t)(SE),
formula:N±
theformula:
usingthe
calculatedusing (t)(SE),

t=1.96.
t= Populationestimates
1.96.Population estimateswith
withStandard Errorsgreater
StandardErrors 25%ofofNNwere
than25%
greaterthan wererejected
rejected

fromfurther
from furthercalculations.
calculations.The
Thepopulation
populationestimates
estimateswith SEless
withSE 25%of
than25%
lessthan wereadded
ofNNwere added

together andexpanded
togetherand expandedtotoinclude
includeall
allofofthe “usablehabitat”
the“usable identifiedininthe
habitat” identified TentCreek
BlueTent
theBlue Creek

study areausing
studyarea thefollowing
usingthe followingformula:
formula:(N|/mj)(m2)=N2 averageofofthe
theaverage
whereN(= the
(N)/ml)(m2)=N2.where the

populationestimates
population forall
estimatesfor allofofthe
thehabitat units,mÿ
habitatunits, linearmeters
thelinear
m(=the of"usable"
metersof "usable"habitat
habitat

calculated forthe
calculatedfor thehabitat
habitatunits
unitsseined
seinedduring therecapture
duringthe effort(see
recaptureeffort AppendixA),
(seeAppendix A), the
m2=the
m2=
metersofofusable
linearmeters usablehabitat
habitatcalculated forthe
calculatedfor studyarea,
entirestudy
theentire and
area,and N2=the expanded
linear N2= the expanded

estimate.
populationestimate.
population
14
14

ZippinRemoval
Zippin RemovalMethod
Method

Samplingfor
Sampling forthe
theZippin
Zippinmethod (Broweretetal.
method(Brower wasconducted
1990)was
al.1990) conductedinin
conjunctionwith
conjunction withthe
themark
markand
andrelease stepofofthe
releasestep Petersonmethod.
thePeterson Twoseine
method.Two haulswere
seinehauls were
pulledinineach
pulled eachofofthe fourhabitat
thefour habitatunits
unitswhere
wherejuvenile werecaptured
chinookwere
juvenilechinook forfin
capturedfor fin
clipping.Those
clipping. Thosecaptured
capturedininthe
thefirst
firstseine
seinehaul werecounted
haulwere andheld
countedand helduntil afterthe
untilafter second
thesecond
seinehaul
seine wascompleted.
haulwas completed.Population estimatesfor
Populationestimates foreach
eachhabitat werecalculated
unitwere
habitatunit using
calculatedusing

theformula:
the Nsnÿ/nÿiÿ,where
formula:N=n[2/n|-n2, whereN=the
N=thepopulation size,nÿthe
populationsize, numberofofjuvenile
nÿthenumber chinook
juvenilechinook

thefirst
capturedininthe firstseine
seinehaul,
haul,and the
capturedininthe
captured n2=the numberofofjuvenile
and n2=thenumber chinookcaptured
juvenilechinook

secondseine
second seinehaul.
haul.Standard
Standarderrors
errors(SE) werecalculated
(SE)were calculatedusing formula:
theformula:
usingthe

SE=(n()(n2)
SE= (nj)(n2)(square
(squareroot
rootof n +nÿ)/(n -n )2.95%
of n)+n2)/(n|-n2)2. 95%confidence
confidenceintervals foreach
intervalsfor population
eachpopulation

estimate werecalculated
estimatewere calculatedusing theformula:
usingthe N±(t)(SE),
formula:N+ t=11.96.
(t)(SE),t= Populationestimates
.96. Population with
estimateswith
SEless
SE 25%of
than25%
lessthan wereadded
ofNNwere addedtogether andexpanded
togetherand allofofthe
includeall
expandedtotoinclude “usable
the“usable
habitat” identified
habitat” identifiedininthe
theBlue TentCreek
BlueTent studyarea,
Creekstudy aspreviously
area,as described.
previouslydescribed.

StomachContent
Stomach Analysis
ContentAnalysis
Approximatelyten
Approximately tenfall runjuvenile
fallrun juvenilechinook Tentand
BlueTent
fromBlue
chinookfrom DibbleCreeks
andDibble Creeks
weresacrificed
were sacrificedbi-monthly
bi-monthlyfrom
fromMarch
March30,
30,1995,
1995,to May11
toMay 111995; February2,2,
fromFebruary
andfrom
1995;and
1996,to
1996, April12,
toApril Duetotocollecting
1996.Due
12,1996. collectingpermit restrictions,the
permitrestrictions, theauthor wasunable
authorwas unabletoto
sacrificejuvenile
sacrifice juvenilechinook fromthe
chinookfrom themainstem
mainstemSacramento However,the
River.However,
SacramentoRiver. thestomach
stomach
of16
contentsof
contents 16incidental
incidental mortalites
mortalitesfrom
fromthe
themainstem wereanalyzed.
mainstemwere analyzed.Fish fromthe
Fishfrom the

tributaries werekilled
tributarieswere killed with
withan
anoverdose MS-222,and
ofMS-222,
overdoseof preservedininaa
immediatelypreserved
andimmediately
solutioncontaining
solution containing 10%
10%formalin (incidentalmortalites
formalin(incidental werealso
mortaliteswere alsoimmediately preserved).
immediatelypreserved).
In the
In lab,each
thelab, eachstomach wasremoved,
stomachwas washed with
removed,washed fresh water,
withfresh placedininaa
water,placed

dish,and
petridish,
petri and carefully
carefullydissected
dissected under scope.Contents
dissectingscope.
underaadissecting of the
Contentsof the intestine were
intestine were
analyzed.Prior
not analyzed.
not Priorto dissection,stomachs
todissection, wererated
stomachswere accordingto
ratedaccording an index
toan indexof “fullness,”
of “fullness,”
15

Figure 2. Blue Tent Creek and Dibble Creek study areas.


16

0.8 km

Red Bluff
Diversion Dim

Upper study area


boundary Lower study area •
boundary /

Figure 3. Sacramento River study area.


17

as follows: O=stomach
0=stomach empty; 2=stomach nearly empty; 3=stomach full, slightly distended;
4=stomach packed with food, very distended. A total of 166 stomachs were analyzed.
Preliminary analyses of stomachs obtained during the 1995 sampling period
established that the diets of juvenile Chinook
chinook rearing in the tributaries were very simple.
Therefore, stomach contents were analyzed qualitatively. A slightly modified version of the

“Points” method described by Windell


Winded (1978) and Hynes (1950) was used to determine the
most important diet items based on total numbers and bulk. Food organisms from each

stomach were identified to family, counted, and assigned points based on their relative size.

Obviously indigestible items were given a low score.


To identify the most important food organisms in the diets of juvenile Chinook
chinook
captured in Blue Tent Creek, Dibble Creek, and the mainstem Sacramento River, the total

number of each food organism was multiplied its point value (see Appendix B). For each

sample date, the percent diet of the three dominant food organisms (or less than three if
there were not three food organisms comprising at least 2% of the diet) were graphed

separately. The remaining food organisms were grouped together as “others.”

Temperature and Turbidity


Temperature
Onset “Stowaway” thermographs were established in the Blue Tent and Dibble
Creek study reaches, and in the Sacramento River near Red Bluff Diversion Dam. The
thermographs were suspended in the water columns of pools where juvenile chinook were
regularly captured or observed. In both Dibble and Blue Tent Creeks, the thermographs
were placed approximately 0.7 m from the surface. In the mainstem Sacramento River, the
thermograph was placed approximately 1 .0 m from the surface.
18

Turbidity
Turbidity
Turbidity was measured in Blue Tent Creek, Dibble Creek, and the mainstem
Sacramento River during each sampling period. Water samples were taken from the
cleanest flowing water available in each study area and analyzed in the laboratory using a
Hach Model 2100A turbidimeter. Samples were usually analyzed the same day they were
taken. Occasionally, samples were refrigerated overnight at 4°C and analyzed the following
morning. All samples were analyzed according to procedures described in the instruction

manual for the turbidimeter.


m
CHAPTER HI

RESULTS

Population Estimates
The Lincoln-Peterson mark-recapture method yielded a population estimate of

approximately 976 and the Moran-Zippan removal method an estimate of approximately


955 juvenile Chinook
chinook for the Blue Tent Creek study area. Approximately 544 meters of the
1230-meter-long study area were identified as “usable” rearing habitat during the habitat
survey (see Appendix A). The population estimates calculated for individual habitat units
are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2. Population estimates calculated for habitat units within the Blue Tent Creek study
area, with 95% confidence intervals.

Unit number/population estimate


Estimation method/ Entire
date Unit #1 Unit #4 Unit #9 Unit #18 study area

Lincoln-Peterson 90 ± 18 36 ± 18 ± 27
118 ±27 388 ±318 -976
3/16/96 rejected
Moran-Zippan
3/15/96 88 ±8 21 ±8 124 +
±61
61 62 +
±44 -955

Residence Time
Juvenile fall run chinook
Chinook branded on 2/18/96 were recaptured through 3/16/96
and those branded on 2/24/96 were recaptured until 3/17/96. Juvenile chinook marked by

19
20

caudal clip on 3/15/96 were recaptured through 4/4/96 (see Table 3). Only three marked

juvenile chinook were recaptured at a size larger than 80 mm.


Although several sections of Blue Tent Creek upstream and downstream of the
study area were spot checked, no branded or caudal-clipped juvenile chinook were captured
outside the study area. In general, most marked fish were recaptured within or near one of

the four pools where they were first captured, marked, and released. Even after several

high water events, marked fish were captured in the same pools until 3/30/96. However,
after a high water event which occurred on 4/1/96, very few marked or unmarked juvenile
chinook were captured anywhere in Blue Tent or Dibble Creek.

Most juvenile fall run chinook rearing in the tributaries had grown to at least 70
mm by 3/30/96. According to Healy (1991), juvenile fall run chinook generally begin
migrating seaward when they are approximately 75 mm long. Therefore, the high flows on
4/1/96 may have encouraged them to move downstream and out of the tributaries.

Table 3. Juvenile chinook marked and recaptured in Blue Tent Creek from 2/18/96 to
4/4/96.

Date/ Sample date/number recaptured


Marking number
method marked 2/24 3/2 3/15 3/16 3/17 3/23 3/30 4/4

2/18/96
Freeze-brand 100 11 5 5 9
2/24/96
Freeze-brand 42 2 3 3 1
3/15/96
Caudal-clip 192 76 40 28 6
21

Stomach Content Analysis


Fullness Index
Juvenile chinook
Chinook captured in Blue Tent and Dibble Creeks from February to
May 1995 and from February to April 1996 were full of food organisms on all sample
dates except during May 1995 when relatively high temperatures in the tributaries (average

approximately 17° C), may have increased the rate of gastric evacuation. Juvenile chinook
captured in the mainstem Sacramento River from 2/2/96 to 3/30/96 were full of food
organisms in February, but nearly empty in March (see Table 4) when high turbidity may

have inhibited feeding. It is also possible that juvenile chinook captured in the mainstem

during March 1996 were hatchery fish which had not yet grown accustomed to natural
foods. Both groups of stomach samples analyzed from the mainstem were obtained one
day after hatchery releases.

Table 4. Stomach fullness index scores calculated for juvenile chinook captured in Blue
Tent Creek, Dibble Creek, and the mainstem Sacramento River.

Blue Tent Creek Dibble Creek Sacramento River


Sample Average Sample Average Sample Average
Month/year size score size score size score
February 1995 6 3 3 2 ND
March 1995 10 4 10 3 ND
April 1995 10 4 10 4 ND
May 1995 11 2 9 2 ND
February 1996 19 3 21 4 6 3
March 1996 18 4 10 3 10 2
April 1996 9 3 4 4 ND
ND=no data; 0=stomach empty; 2=stomach nearly empty; 3=stomach full, slightly
distended; 4=stomach packed with food, very distended.
22

1995 Stomach Contents


Dibble Creek. Based on total numbers and bulk, the most important food
organisms utilized by juvenile chinook captured in Dibble Creek from 2/4/95 to 5/11/95
were the larvae, pupae, and adults of Chironomidae (midges), nymphs of Baetidae (small
minnow mayflies) and Capniidae (winter stoneflies), oligochaete worms (Lumbriculidae),
larval cyprinoid fishes (probably Sacramento suckers), and a variety of “others” (see

Appendix B). The three most important food organisms found in the diets of juvenile
chinook captured in Dibble Creek on each sample date from February to May 1995 are
displayed in Figure 4.
Blue Tent Creek. The most important food items utilized by juvenile chinook
captured in Blue Tent Creek from 2/4/95 to 5/11/95
5/11/95 were the larvae, pupae, and adults of
Chironomidae, nymphs of Baetidae and Capniidae, larval cyprinoid fishes, larvae of

Tipulidae (crane flies), and a variety of “others” (see Appendix B). The three most
important food organisms found in the diets of juvenile chinook captured in Blue Tent
Creek on each sample date from February to May 1995 are displayed in Figure 5.

1996 Stomach Contents


Dibble Creek. The most important food organisms utilized by juvenile chinook
captured in Dibble Creek from 2/6/96 to 4/11/96 were the larvae, pupae, and adults of
Chironomidae, nymphs of Capniidae and Baetidae, larval cyprinoid fishes, and a variety of

“others” (see Appendix B). The three most important food organisms found in the diets of
juvenile chinook captured in Dibble Creek on each sample date from February to April
1996 are displayed in Figure 6.
Blue Tent Creek. The most important food organisms utilized by juvenile
chinook captured in Blue Tent Creek from 2/2/96 to 4/11/96 were the larvae, pupae, and
adults of Chironomidae, nymphs of Capniidae and Baetidae, larvae of Hydrophilidae
(water scavenger beetles), and a variety of “others” (see Appendix B). The three most
23

□ Chironomidae |\>| Capniidae

■ Baetidae jÿ| Lumbriculidae


□ Others | Larval cyprinoid

10% 10%

Apr 27, 95 May 11,95

Figure 4. Predominant food organisms found in the stomach contents


of juvenile Chinook captured in Dibble Creek from February to May
1995.

Chinook captured in Blue Tent


important food organisms found in the diets of juvenile chinook
Creek on each sample date from February to April 1996 are displayed in Figure 7.
Mainstem. The most important food organisms utilized by juvenile chinook
Chinook
captured in the mainstem Sacramento River from 2/2/96 to 3/30/96 were the larvae, pupae,
24
24

| ]| Chironomidae
Chironomidae Q
j Others
Others ||jj Tipulidae
|lj Tipulidae
§|§
| Baetidae
Baetidae
■ Larvalcyprinoid
Larval cyprinoid

11% 5% 3%

Mar 30, 95

10%

27,95
Apr27,
Apr 95 May 11,95
May11,95

Figure 5. Predominant
Figure5. Predominantfood
foodorganisms thestomach
foundininthe
organismsfound contents
stomachcontents
of juvenile Chinook captured in Blue Tent Creek from February
of juvenile Chinook captured in Blue Tent Creek from February to May
toMay
1995.
1995.

andadults
and adultsof Chironomidae,nymphs
of Chironomidae, ofBaetidae
nymphsof andEphemerellidae
Baetidaeand (spinycrawler
Ephemerellidae(spiny crawler
mayflies),larvae
mayflies), larvaeof
of Hydropsychidae
Hydropsychidae(common netspinningcaddisflies),
(common netspinning andaavariety
caddisflies),and of
varietyof
“others”(see
“others” (see Appendix B).The
AppendixB). The three
threemost foodorganisms
importantfood
mostimportant foundthe
organismsfound of
dietsof
thediets

juvenile chinookcaptured
juvenileChinook in the
capturedin mainstemSacramento
themainstem Riverduring
SacramentoRiver duringFebruary andMarch
Februaryand March

1996 aredisplayed
1996are displayed ininFigure
Figure8.
8.
25

m
| ]| Chironomidae [\ÿ| Capniidae H1 Others

IB
| Baetidae |
(H Larval cyprinoid

2% 3%

18, 96
Feb 18,96

Apr 12,96
12, 96

Figure 6. Predominant food organisms found in the stomach contents of


juvenile Chinook captured in Dibble Creek from February to April 1996.

Temperature and Turbidity


Temperature
Due to vandalism of thermographs, temperature data for Blue Tent Creek was
not obtained during January 1996 and data for Dibble Creek was obtained only during

February 1996 and part of January 1996. However, temperatures in Blue Tent and Dibble
26
26

| |] Chironomidae
Chironomidae [PI Capniidae
f-oj Capniidae 'pi] Others
||| Others

|Baetidae
jl|
, Baetidae H| Hydrophilidae
| Hydrophilidae

8%
8% 4% 6%
2% 6%
4% 2%

Feb 18, 96 Mar16,


Mar 96
16,96

30,96
Mar30, 96 Apr 12,96
Apr12, 96
Mar

Figure7.7. Predominant
Figure Predominantfood
foodorganisms foundininthe
organismsfound thestomach contentsofof
stomachcontents
juvenile Chinook captured in Blue Tent Creek from February to 1996.
April1996.
juvenile Chinook captured in Blue Tent Creek from Februaiy to April

Creeks weresimilar
Creekswere similarand
anddata
datafrom oneofofthe
fromone creekscould
thecreeks couldbe
beused
usedtotoestimate
estimatethe
the
temperatureofofthe
temperature theother.
other.Average dailytemperatures
Averagedaily temperaturesininDibble wereapproximately
Creekwere
DibbleCreek approximately
1°Cwarmer
1°C warmerthan
thanthose
thoserecorded
recordedininBlue TentCreek.
BlueTent Creek.
Averagedaily
Average dailytemperatures tributariesincreased
thetributaries
temperaturesininthe fromapproximately
increasedfrom 8'C
approximately8°C
Januarytotoapproximately
ininJanuary 14°CininApril.
approximately14°C April.Average dailytemperatures
Averagedaily themainstem
temperaturesininthe mainstem

SacramentoRiver
Sacramento Riverincreased fromapproximately
increasedfrom 9°CininJanuary
approximately9°C Januarytotoapproximately 12°Cinin
approximately12°C
27

□ Chironomidae £23
py] Perlodidae

■ Baetidae Ephemerellidae

□ Others |
j Hydropsychidae

Feb 2, 96 6, 96
Mar 116, Mar 30, 96

Figure 8. Predominant food organisms found in the stomach contents of juvenile


chinook
Chinook captured in the mainstem Sacramento River during February and March
1996.

April (see Figures 9 through 12). Average diel temperature fluctuations in the tributaries
ranged from approximately 3°C in January to approximately 7°C in March. Average diel

temperature fluctuations in the mainstem Sacramento River ranged from approximately 1°C

in January to approximately 2°C in April (see Figures 9 through 12).

Turbidity
Figure 13 compares turbidities in Blue Tent Creek, Dibble Creek, and the
mainstem Sacramento River. On all sample dates, the turbidities measured in the mainstem
were higher than those measured in the tributaries, often by a factor of four or five.
28
28

(C)
(C)

Tempratue

Figure 9.
Figure 9. Hourly
Hourly temperatures
temperatures measured
measured in Creek and
Dibble Creek
in Dibble and the mainstem Sacramento
the mainstem Sacramento
River from 1/1 1/96 to 1/23/96.
River from 1/11/96 to 1/23/96.

Growth Rate and


Growth Rate Factor
Condition Factor
and Condition

Rate
Growth Rate
Growth
From 2/24/96
From 2/24/96 to 3/30/96, caudal-clipped,
to 3/30/96, branded, and
caudal-clipped, branded, unmarked juvenile
and unmarked fall
juvenile fall
run chinook
run chinook captured
captured in Tent Creek
Blue Tent
in Blue Creek grew an overall
grew an average of
overall average of approximately 0.9
approximately 0.9
29

Figure 10. Hourly temperatures measured in Blue Tent Creek, Dibble Creek, and the
mainstem Sacramento River from 2/1/96 to 2/29/96.
30

11. Hourly temperatures measured in Blue Tent Creek and the mainstem
Figure 11.
Sacramento River from 3/1/96 to 3/31/96.

mm/day (see Figures 14 through 17). Between 3/15/96 and 3/23/96, the growth rates
calculated for caudal-clipped and unmarked juvenile chinook captured in Blue Tent Creek

increased to approximately 1.1 mm/day (see Figures 15 and 16). Growth rates calculated
for Blue Tent Creek after 3/23/96 were problably lower than actual growth rates, due to
31

(C)

Tempratue

Figure 12. Hourly temperatures measured in Blue Tent Creek and the mainstem Sacramento
River from 4/1/96 to 4/24/96.

emigration of larger fish (note truncated length frequency distributions in Figures 15


and 16).
Median lengths could not be used to calcuate growth rates for the mainstem
Sacramento River because of hatchery releases. However, the growth model currently in
use for the Upper Sacramento River (The Daily Length Table; Johnson et al. 1992)
32

Sacramento River Blue Tent Creek Dibble Creek

Sample date
Figure 13. Turbidities measured in Blue Tent Creek, Dibble Creek, and the mainstem
Sacramento River from 1/12/96 to 4/12/96.

predicted a growth rate of approximately 0.33 mm/day for the mainstem from 2/24/96 to
3/30/96. Growth rates could not be calculated for Dibble Creek due to insufficient data (see
Figures 18 and 19).
Condition Factor

The mean condition factors calculated for juvenile chinook captured in Blue

.0 throughout the sampling period (see Figure 20).


Tent and Dibble Creeks remained over 11.0
33

o 1/1/96 '
u
o
ui
o TT 1 1 n ii i fl 1 1 H TTfnMn'nMÿ'H niiiiiniinniiiiiiiiiM
8 1/12/96
u
o
ui
o ... .. n n .
i i ITI 1 1 M IN i niM i MMMM11n Mi
captured u
o
Number m
o 1 1 rrn ff ff ff m 1 1 rn ii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ii 1 1 1 1 1 1 m 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 M 1 11 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1

8
ui 2/18/96
o
u
o
&
1 1 11 ...
n 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 m 1 1 1 ii 1 1 n i n 1 1 1 n

u!
o

JOt— m IO'PON' ~ (r)£ÿo\~tÿ(n rÿ'ov'— rn >n P'oT— co (nfÿo\ÿrÿ >o rÿ'Sv'S


ON
yrofOTi-T}-Tj-Tj-ra.«ni/,ÿu-i,/ÿwÿvovovov£)VOrÿcÿ.rÿ.rÿ,ÿ0Q0oooooooo\ONO\ONO\s
VO 00
cn ro rr
o' rj-
CN rf VO 00 o' (N -<fr VO* 00 o' (N rf vo' oo' o' (N Tf vo' oo' o' CS Tf vo' 00 O*IN Tt VO' oo' Al
TJ- rj- TJ- U-> >O »/-> in >n vo vovOvo'£>t'~r-~r-r-r-ocoooooooo ovpvpv Ovpv
0 1<
Fork length (mm)

Figure 14. Length distribution of juvenile Chinook captured in Blue Tent Creek from 1/1/96
to 2/24/96.
34

25
20
15
3/2/96

_ Growth rate, 2/24/96 to 3/2/96:
0.85 mm/day
10
5
0
jfc JiL_
11i i m n m 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 I'I 1 1 rr n nm
25
20 3/15/96
J Growth rate, 3/2/96 to 3/15/96:
15
10
5
n
0 1 1 1 fl 1 1 1 1 1 1 HM
JUUJ. 0.8 mm/day

11 1 1 1 11 1 11 11 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1
25
20 Growth rate, 3/15/96 to 3/23/96: ■■ fc
•o 15
•e
| 3/23/96
■ J J L&;
ifL
|10 io 1.1 mm/day

3f
U4
5
oM l TTTTTTi
l l l l l l 1 mrrfrtmrnrmVTTTTTTTTTmTf
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II In 11 1 1 1 M 1 !! 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 ri
I25
125
Jj 20
z
15 Growth rate, 3/23/96 to 3/30/96: |1L- 3/30/96
10 0.6 mm/day
5
0 rrrrr
25
20
15
10
5
0
25
20
15

— —
10
5
0

----
ri i- oi
m Tt rf
y m rn
M VI h co in S oi
in in in in
'OOOONTt'OOOOMI'ÿCCCNt'C
m vo 2
• •■ ■Tfviiriinirno'OvovovO'Or'
vq vS
in S
vo_ vq « h; jE'p N Is; oo S
cncoTfTf--«d-TtTj-<n»n<nm«nvovovovovor'-r--r--t''-t'--ooooooooooovovqvONO\

Fork length (mm)

chinook captured in Blue Tent


Figure 15. Length distribution and growth rates of juvenile Chinook
» o2
» 00 oo 5ÿ5
oo S ON o\ SNSN
vo oo o cs Tf vo oo' o ci TJ-'VO' OO' O' C4 ■«$' vo' oo' o' ci -*t vo' oo' o' <s vo oo' o' cs
_
oÿo\ ON
rj-'vo'
8ÿÿ
>10
oo'

Creek from 3/2/96 to 4/12/96.


35
35

Growth rate, 3/15/96 to 3/23/96: 3/23/96

L 1
1.1 mm/day

captured J-A
II 1 1 1 II II 1 II II 1 1 II M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 II 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M M 1 1 1

Number Growth rate, 3/23/96 to 3/30/96:


0.9 mm/day
3/30/96

uldb.
4/4/96

rn rnrn
ro —
MMiiiM MiiMii MMiiMiiMMiii
K bV rn in
't 't
5T
TT in —
~ <rT m fÿOs cn(?)T— Os~rn(r>tÿOs~
in in in »n >n \© \© \o vo vo
10 >n in in vo vq 'O «
iiWWni
r~
I Miiiiiiniii
m u~) t-• ON
r~; rÿ_ oooo oooo oooo oo_ oc
oc oo
SJ « OOOO ©
VO
•'t Tt
o CSN Tf't V©« OO00 ©O CNfiTfr't v©« oO00 ©~
O <N M*TT't VO'O 0093 O N
O ci « OO*
N "t VO M O <N
<3
N 'f vO
Tt
po.
«
po.
00
00
£2j£1
r*i rn TTZiZL2lZÿ
rj- Tt TtIL!£LI£1!£1
>o y-> y> u-> !£Ly>!C1vo1£Lvo yoi£, vo VQ j> r- r- [HEllEllSi
r- r~. oo, oo 90.oo. oo, oo 90.

Forklength
Fork (mm)
length(mm)

Figure16.
Figure 16. Length
Lengthdistribution
distributionand growthrates
andgrowth ratesofofjuvenile
juvenileChinook caudal-clippedininBlue
chinookcaudal-clipped Blue
Tent Creek on 3/15/96and recaptured
Tent Creek on 3/15/96 and from
recapturedfrom 3/23/96 4/4/96.
3/23/96to 4/4/96.
to

Between3/15/96
Between 3/15/96and 3/23/96,the
and3/23/96, meancondition
themean factorsof
conditionfactors ofall juvenilechinook
alljuvenile captured
chinookcaptured
thetributaries
ininthe tributariesincreased
increasedsignificantly (F=50.7,DF=251.
significantly(E=50.7, P<.0001).
DF=251.E< .0001).
36

captured Growth rate, 2/24/96 to 3/2/96:


1.0 mm/day
l.Omm/day
3/2/96

Number i in
ITI
.I. 1 1 i i 1i 1i 1 1 M
i i ni Inn
rmrfl
n 1n II i 1
1_ 1
1iiIIi n 1 TT 1 II 1 1 VI 1 ll1 1 1 1 1 1 TT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l

Growth rate, 3/2/96 to 3/15/96: 3/15/96

U■
0.8 mm/day

' n1 1 1 1in
1i 1i 1i 1i 1i 1i 1i 1i 1i i1 i 1 1 1r 1i 1r 1ii1 "i1 1i
LI I 1 MINI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IT1

3/30/96

ITI
«
TI ri i
t'-Ov—
co
VO OO Oo' CN
r IT mu
-minr-ON— ■mior'-O'.
r'0'-Hfninr'0\-
TT rt rr
ro Tt
rn cn Tt rt in in in vi
rf 't
N Tf" «
\o" 00 (N rf «
o" rs
oo" o’ VO" 00
n
o" ci
oo" o’
i ir 1 1 1 1 1 1
<cninr-ov'-<c<ninr~ovÿcninf--CT\
in in « « 'O
N t
« voiq «
Tf" VO" M o" <N
OO" O —r i n rn i n
rf «
N rf
mc>Ti-T}-TtTfrT}-inmini/->»nvovovovovor'~r'~t'~r~-r'-oooooooooo
cnm'ÿn-'ÿ-TtTtinininininvovovovo'orÿr'rÿr'rÿoooooooooo
VO" 00
M
i ri
'cr>»or~a'.— < cn m t-"- o\
oo x
M OO
©" c-f
oo" O
oo OO
N Tf VO
oo
oo OO
OO"
VO" 00 —
n i T ITI T I H i"i

TJ-"
n i rl
Sc

Fork length (mm)

Figure 17. Length distribution and growth rates of juvenile Chinook freeze-branded in
Blue Tent Creek on 2/18/96 and recaptured from 2/24/96 to 3/30/96.
37
37

10
10
88 1/12/96
1/12/96
66
44
22
25
mm m
on°n m I ITTTI
1 1 11 Tii1 1 1 1 11 1 1 n 1 1 m 1 1 ■ft*
1 Mu4 1 1 ii 1 1 1 1 1 1 i'll mr

IL
UL
20 2/2/96
2/2/96
15
10

25 1InfliHl
T T ft T ftl TTT 1 1 1 1 1 1 n n 1 1 1 1 1 II i n 1 1 1 1 II 1 1
20 2/18/96

UL*
15 2/18/96

lea
10
5
0
10
8
I I I I I fl I n I I I I 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 .....
.. n I I I I II I IIIT

3/2/96
3/2/96
o °4
1ZI 2
0 II i M i n i n 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 m i i n n I 'TT
10
8
6 3/15/96
3/15/96
4
2
II 1 1 1 1 1 1 111"1 i 1 Minn
nrÿLn
1 1 1 1 1 II 1 M 1 1 1 II M rrPt4rr I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I rTTTTTTT

3/23/96
3/23/96

I I TTI I 1 I 'I I I II I1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I n ff n I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 I 1 I 1 i 1 I 1 I 1 i1 I m

4/12/96
4/12/96

ftrrft I
TTTT I II I I i II i I I I I I I I
p-
vo—
ON

...... >n pOVÿ


! VO" CC O r?Tt V£5 00 © CN Tf InVO 00 o"Sci'S voVO 00* O
oppc4ÿ\poppfsVvppoo<s- so vo vo r»- (N ■

length(mm)
Forklength (mm)
VVVOOOOOOOOOOOvOvOvOvCv
tv
oo
'O 00 O
ON S <2rfr \©oSSÿSv
(N
oo oo.po.oo oo.q\q\PV p\. p\
fvÿ
oo" O <N Tf SvVO 00 >10
Fork
18. Length
Figure18.
Figure Lengthdistribution
distributionof juvenilechinook
ofjuvenile Chinookcaptured DibbleCreek
capturedininDibble Creekfrom 1/12/96
from1/12/96
to 4/12/96.
to 4/12/96.
38

10
8 2/24/96
6

\ jdL
10
“i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ii 1 1 1 1 1 1 ITT 1 1 mi 1 1 m"i
8 3/2/96
6

lydtaui 111 Hi 1 1 1 1 n 1 1
10
8 Hatchery Release 3/15/%
3/15/96 1m ■ 3/16/96
6
4
(mean FL 66 mm) f
2
0
10
FmTTTTTTTTTTTrm ITTTI 1 A
8 3/23/96
6

4*4#L
4
2
0
10
HIIII i W i H" HT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I nn i
8 Hatchery Release 3/26/96 3/30/96
6
(mean FL 71 mm)
4
2
H H
0 Tl ITT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FI 1 1 1 1 11 ffl 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINI n i ■■ i 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1
10
8
4/4/96

i i i i 11 i i i i i 11 i i'H i HH H HTI" I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ITI


' *
rf Tf rtTt in in in
vooooci't ""
d oo"o' ci~
-t vd" oo © ci"
'O00Od't«00O(Sÿ-'O00ON "
rn ITI rf 't Tt in m in in >n vo vo
*ÿ'
* ” ” ” ~ oo© c4 ■ rv© oo o r4
r-ooooooooooa\OsavOsON
vd oo >10
Fork length (mm)

Chinook captured in the mainstem Sacramento


Figuree 19. Length distribution of juvenile chinook
River from 2/24/96 to 4/4/96.

39

R~|
(\>| Blue Tent Creek (caudal-clipped) Q| Dibble Creek

~~]
| Blue Tent Creek (unmarked) £| Sacramento River
i

1.3

3/15 3/23/96 3/30/96 4/4/96 4/12/96


Sample date
Figure 20. Mean condition factors of juvenile Chinook
chinook captured in Blue Tent Creek and the
mainstem Sacramento River from 3/15/96 to 4/12/96, with 95% confidence intervals.

Throughout the sampling period, the mean condition factors calculated for
juvenile chinook captured in the tributaries were higher than those calculated for juvenile

chinook of comparable size captured in the mainstem (see Figure 20). However, the
periodic release of smolts and pre-smolts from Coleman National Fish Hatchery (CNFH)
complicated the interpretation of condition factor data. According to Swain et al. (1991),
length:weight ratios which are consistently
hatchery-produced juvenile chinook may have length.weight
different than those of naturally spawned fish due to genetic or environmental factors
associated with hatchery rearing.

To obtain a useful comparison, the author tested the mean condition factors of
adipose clipped fall run juvenile chinook which had been released from CNFH on 3/15/96
40
40
andcaptured
and capturedininBlue TentCreek
BlueTent Creekororthe
themainstem
mainstemSacramento
SacramentoRiver on3/23/96.
Riveron mean
Themean
3/23/96.The

condition factorofofadipose-clipped
conditionfactor adipose-clippedjuvenile
juvenileChinook
Chinookcaptured TentCreek
BlueTent
capturedininBlue was
Creekwas
significantlyhigher
higher(DF=13,
(DF=13,1=3.153,
T=3.153, P=.0038) meancondition factorofofthose
conditionfactor
significantly £= .0038)than themean
thanthe those
capturedininthe
captured themainstem
mainstemSacramento
SacramentoRiver
River(see Figure21).
(seeFigure 21).

factofarctor
Condit
3/16/96
3/16/96 3/18/96
3/18/96 3/23/96
3/23/96 3/30/96
3/30/96
Sampledate
Sample date

Figure 21.Mean
Figure21. Meancondition
conditionfactors
factorsofofadipose-clipped
adipose-clippedjuvenile
juvenilechinook capturedininBlue
chinookcaptured Tent
BlueTent
Creek and the mainstem Sacramento River from 3/16/96 to 3/30/96, with 95% confidence
Creek and the mainstem Sacramento River from 3/16/96 to 3/30/96, with 95% confidence
intervals.
intervals.
CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

Population Estimate
The expanded Peterson and Zippin population estimates provided rough
estimates of the number of juvenile chinook
Chinook present in the Blue Tent Creek study area on
3/15/96 and 3/16/96. Although the population estimates calculated for each habitat unit
were probably accurate, the expanded estimates were subject to human error in designating
“usable” habitat for juvenile chinook salmon. Furthermore, these population estimates did

not account for all of the fish which resided in Blue Tent Creek during the winter and early

spring of 1996, because more than one race of juvenile chinook used Blue Tent Creek for
rearing purposes.
For example, from January 1, 1995, to February 2, 1996, a total of 107
juvenile winter run chinook were captured in Blue Tent and Dibble Creeks. Sixty-five of
these were adipose-clipped fish, released from Coleman National Fish Hatchery (CNFH)
on December 21, 1996. Juvenile winter run were not captured in the tributaries after
February 2, 1996. However, a new cohort of naturally spawned juvenile fall run chinook
was sampled on this date (see Figure 14). Adipose-clipped fall run chinook from CNFH
were also captured in Blue Tent Creek. A total of twenty-three were captured from 3/18/96

to 3/30/96. Since adipose-clipped fish represent only a small percentage of the fall run
juveniles released from CNFH, it is likely that a much larger number of hatchery produced
fall run juveniles actually migrated into the creek.

41
4242

ResidenceTime
Residence Time
Accordingtotothe
According thelength-frequency
length-frequencydata
datadisplayed Figures1414and
displayedininFigures 15,juvenile
and15, juvenile

fall runchinook
fallrun Chinookentered
enteredBlue TentCreek
BlueTent Creekbetween
between2/2/96
2/2/96and 2/18/96,
and2/1 for
remainedfor
8/96, remained
approximatelysix
approximately sixweeks,
weeks,and emigratedbetween
andemigrated between3/30/96 and4/4/96.
3/30/96and Duringthis
4/4/96.During time,
thistime,

they grewfrom
theygrew fromapproximately
approximately4040toto7575mm.
mm.These
Thesedata weresupported
datawere supportedbybythe mark-
themark-

recapture data.Juvenile
recapturedata. Juvenilechinook
chinookmarked brandororcaudal
freezebrand
markedbybyfreeze remainedininBlue
clipremained
caudalclip Blue
TentCreek
Tent foratatleast
Creekfor leastthree
threeweeks afterthey
weeksafter weremarked,
theywere marked,grew mm
approximately7575mm
grewtotoapproximately

(see Figure16),
(seeFigure 16),then
thenemigrated
emigratedbetween
between3/30/96 and4/4/96.
3/30/96and have
researchershave
Otherresearchers
4/4/96.Other
reportedsimilar
reported similarresidence
residencetimes
timesand
andsize rangesfor
sizeranges forjuvenile rearingininsmall,
chinookrearing
juvenilechinook small,

nonnataltributaries.
nonnatal Forexample,
tributaries.For example,according Murrayand
accordingtotoMurray Rosenau(1989),
andRosenau (1989),juvenile fall
juvenilefall
runchinook
run chinookused
usednonnatal
nonnataltributaries
tributariesofofthe FraserRiver
theFraser Riverfor approximatelyten
forapproximately weeks,
tenweeks,

grewfrom
grew fromapproximately
approximately4242toto80 mm,then
80mm, emigrated.
thenemigrated.
Thestrong
The strongsite
sitefidelity
fidelityexhibited
exhibitedbybyjuvenile
juvenilechinook duringthis
chinookduring thisstudy wasalso
studywas also

consistent withbehavior
consistentwith behaviordocumented
documentedbybyother
otherresearchers Consultants
ChapmanConsultants
(DonChapman
researchers(Don
1989;Edmundson
1989; Edmundsonetetal.
al.1968). Additionally,J.J.Craig
1 968). Additionally, Craig(U.S. andWildlife
Fishand
(U.S.Fish WildlifeService
Service
CoastalCalifornia
Coastal CaliforniaFish
Fishand
andWildlife
WildlifeOffice,
Office,unpublished
unpublisheddata), andD.D.Demko
data),and Demko

(S.P. andAssociates,
Cramerand
(S.P.Cramer Associates,Chico,
Chico,unpublished
unpublisheddata) concludedthat
data)concluded thatjuvenile chinook
juvenilechinook
couldnot
could “flushed”from
notbebe“flushed” fromrearing areasbybyhigh
rearingareas untilthey
flowsuntil
highflows wereready
theywere emigrate.
readytotoemigrate.

Stomach ContentAnalysis
StomachContent Analysis
Juvenilechinook
Juvenile chinookgenerally feedonondrifting
prefertotofeed
generallyprefer driftingorganisms are
whichare
organismswhich
readilyavailable,
visible,readily
visible, available,and
andorganoleptically basedononprior
acceptablebased
organolepticallyacceptable (Higgs
experience(Higgs
priorexperience

etetal. 1995).Therefore,
al.1995). Therefore,the
thestomach contentsofofjuvenile
stomachcontents chinookcaptured
juvenilechinook tributaries
thetributaries
capturedininthe
andthe
and mainstemprobably
themainstem probablyreflected
reflectedthe
thefood
foodorganisms
organismswhich werethe
whichwere themost abundant,
mostabundant,
visible,and
visible, readilyavailable
andreadily availableininboth
bothenvironments. Unfortunately,too
environments.Unfortunately, toofew were
sampleswere
fewsamples

conductaadetailed
obtainedtotoconduct
obtained analysisofofthe
detailedanalysis dietsofofjuvenile
thediets chinookrearing
juvenilechinook rearingininthe
the
43

mainstem, or to conduct a thorough comparison with the tributaries. Therefore, the

remainder of this discussion concerns data obtained from the tributaries.


Based on total numbers and bulk, the overall most important diet items found in
the stomachs of juvenile Chinook captured in the tributaries were the larvae, pupae, and
adults of Chironomidae, nymphs of Baetidae and Capniidae, and larval cyprinoid fishes

(see Appendix B). All of these organisms are common inhabitants of intermittent streams

throughout the world (Williams 1987).


For example, some species of Chironomidae, Baetidae, and Capniidae have
evolved behavioral and physiological adaptations which enable them to exploit periodically
dry environments (Williams 1987); and cyprinoid fishes are known to use intermittent

streams for spawning (Moyle 1981). The larval cyprinoid fishes found in the stomach

contents of juvenile chinook


Chinook captured in the tributaries during April and May 1995 and
during March and April 1996 could not be identified. However, they were probably the

offspring of sexually mature adult Sacramento suckers captured and observed in the
tributaries beginning in March 1995 and February 1996.
The generally full stomachs of juvenile chinook captured in Blue Tent and

Dibble Creeks probably reflected the abundance of opportunistic and specially adapted
aquatic organisms which typically exploit food resources (particularly detritus) available in
small, intermittent streams. For example, algae which grew on the substrate during the

previous wet season are exposed to air, die, and partially decay during the dry season.
Leaves and other dead plant materials from the riparian vegetation fall into the dry stream
bed and also begin to decay. Some researchers (Barlocher et al. 1978; Williams 1987)

suggest that decaying vegetation which is exposed to air has a higher protein content, and,
thus, a superior nutritional value than decaying vegetation which remains submerged.

Enhancement of the protein content is due to colonization of the detritus by fungi and

bacteria with little or no interference from invertebrates for months at a time. Barlocher et
44
44

(1978,p.p.290)
al.al.(1978, 290)states “Thefood
states“The resourceprovided
foodresource providedbybythis proteinrich
thisprotein detritusinin
richdetritus

temporary mayexplain
poolsmay
temporarypools therapid
explainthe rapiddevelopment
developmentofofthe
theprolific invertebratecommunity
prolificinvertebrate community

ininspring eventotocasual
which,even
springwhich, casualobservers,
observers,isismuch morespectacular
muchmore spectacularinintemporary thaninin
temporarythan
comparablepermanent
comparable pools.”The
permanentpools.” sameprinciple
Thesame mayalso
principlemay intermittentstreams.
applytotointermittent
alsoapply streams.

JuvenileChinook
Juvenile Chinookrearing
rearingininintermittent
intermittentstreams benefitfrom
streamsbenefit fromthe prolific
theprolific

invertebrate communityasasaafood
invertebratecommunity source.They
foodsource. benefitfrom
Theybenefit fromboth numberofoffood
largenumber
thelarge
boththe food

organisms andthe
organismsand lifehistory
thelife historypatterns evolvedby
patternsevolved byaquatic desiccation.
avoiddesiccation.
insectstotoavoid
aquaticinsects
Suchadaptations
Such adaptationsinclude
includerapid
rapidgrowth, shortgeneration
growth,short synchronizationofofthe
andsynchronization
time,and
generationtime, the

life cycleininresponse
lifecycle responsetototemperature
temperatureand
anddaylength. Forexample,
daylength.For example,Chironomidae exhibit
Chironomidaeexhibit
rapidgrowth
rapid growthand
andshort
shortgeneration time,particularly
generationtime, warmertemperatures
particularlyatatwarmer (Andersonand
temperatures(Anderson and
Wallace1984).
Wallace 1984).Therefore,
Therefore,Chironomidae
Chironomidaepotentially provideaaconstant
potentiallyprovide sourcefood
foodsource
constantfood food

juvenile Chinookrearing
juvenileChinook rearingininintermittent
intermittentstreams.
streams.
Synchronizationofofthe
Synchronization thelife responsetototemperature
cycleininresponse
lifecycle andday
temperatureand lengthisis
daylength

characteristic somespecies
characteristicofofsome speciesofofCapniidae
Capniidaeand
andBaetidae. AccordingtotoAbell
Baetidae.According the
(1981),the
Abell(1981),
nymphsofofCapniidae
nymphs Capniidaeand
andBaetidae
Baetidaerespond
respondtotoenvironmental cuesby
environmentalcues fromthe
migratingfrom
bymigrating the

hyporheic zonetotothe
hyporheiczone surfacegravels,
thesurface wherethey
gravels,where availableininthe
becomeavailable
theybecome drift.These
thedrift. mass
Thesemass

migrations occurininthe
usuallyoccur
migrationsusually theearly winterfor
earlywinter forCapniid andininthe
nymphs,and
Capniidnymphs, theearly for
springfor
earlyspring

Baetid Warmerspring
nymphs.Warmer
Baetidnymphs. springtemperatures maystimulate
temperaturesmay stimulateBaetid emerge
nymphstotoemerge
Baetidnymphs
soonerand
sooner growfaster.
andgrow However,Capniid
faster.However, Capniidnymphs growfaster
maygrow
nymphsmay fasterwhen exposedtoto
whenexposed
lowertemperatures
lower temperaturesininthe
thewinter (Williams1987).
winter(Williams 1987).The availabilityofofCapniid
Theavailability andBaetid
Capniidand Baetid

nymphs thedrift
nymphsininthe driftatatdifferent timesofofthe
differenttimes yearisisreflected
theyear reflectedininthe dietsofofjuvenile
thediets Chinook
juvenileChinook

captured BlueTent
capturedininBlue Tentand
andDibble Creeks(see
DibbleCreeks Figures66and
(seeFigures 7).
and7).
45

Temperature and Turbidity


Temperature
The average daily temperatures recorded in Blue Tent Creek were warmer than

those recorded in the mainstem Sacramento River from February through April. The

tributaries also exhibited more pronounced diel and seasonal temperature variation than the
mainstem. Although temperatures in the tributaries peaked at 23°C during some days in

March and April, the average daily temperatures were close to the optimum 15°C reported
for juvenile Chinook (Banks et al. 1971; Brett 1952).
Water temperature has several important effects on the growth rate, condition
factor, and smolt transformation of juvenile chinook.
Chinook. For example, according to Brett
(1979), temperature is the most important physical factor influencing the growth of juvenile

chinook, as it directly affects the metabolic rate and, hence, the food requirements.

According to Clarke et al. (1981), among temperature, photoperiod, and salinity,


temperature had the greatest influence on the growth of sockeye, coho, and fall run chinook

salmon. Brett et al. (1982) reported that the growth rate of juvenile chinook increased with
temperature up to 19°C, as long as adequate food was available.
The amplitude of diel temperature fluctuations in the rearing environment may
also affect the growth rate and condition factor of juvenile chinook. Several researchers
(Hokanson 1977; Spigarelli et al. 1982; Biette and Geen 1980; Brett 1971; Konstantinov

and Zdanovich 1986) have shown that feeding and growth are stimulated more by
fluctuating temperatures than by a constant temperature. According to Behnke (1992,
p. 43), “Diumally fluctuating temperatures of several degrees promote more efficient
conversion of temperature units to growth than do constant temperatures, presumably by

stimulating greater food consumption.”


Because temperature controls the rate of growth, it can also influence the
attainment of necessary body size for smolting
smoking and subsequent seaward migration (Clarice
(Clarke
46

and Hirano 1995). For example, Clarke and Shelboume (1985) demonstrated that fall run

chinook fry reared at 17°C reached maximal seawater adaptability about two months earlier
Chinook

than those reared at 9°C. Similar results have been achieved with other species of Pacific
salmon (Novotny 1975; Brannon et al. 1982; Yamauchi et al. 1985; Kasahara et al. 1989).
According to Wedemeyer et al. (1980, p. 1 1), “Smoking
11), “Smolting occurs sooner at higher
temperatures, and, further, changing temperatures seem to be more stimulating than a
constant temperature.”

Faster growth and earlier smoking


smolting at warmer temperatures may increase the
survival of juvenile chinook rearing in small, intermittent tributaries, which must emigrate
before the streams dry down in the late spring (approximately late April or early May).

Earlier smolting may also enable juvenile chinook from the tributaries to avoid unfavorable
conditions which occur in the lower Sacramento River and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
delta during the late spring and summer. According to the Resources Agency (1989), water

temperatures in the Lower Sacramento River reach stressful levels for juvenile chinook
beginning in May. According to Johnson et al. (1992), water temperatures in the delta are

not suitable for juvenile chinook in the summer. As previously discussed, most juvenile
chinook rearing in Blue Tent and Dibble Creeks during the 1996 sampling period reached

smolting size by approximately late March.


Turbidity

Turbidity is an optical property caused by suspended and colloidal matter,


which decreases water clarity and reduces the penetration of light. Moderate levels of

turbidity (24 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) for chinook salmon) are known to
reduce feeding efficiency, disrupt growth and social behavior, and increase susceptibility to

disease in salmonids (Chapman and Bjomn 1969). Some researchers suggest that juvenile

chinook may migrate to avoid turbidity (Scrivener et al. 1993; Murray and Rosenau 1989).
47

Turbidity measurements taken from January 12, 1996, to April 12, 1996, in
Blue Tent Creek, Dibble Creek, and the mainstem Sacramento River indicated that the

tributaries were less turbid than the mainstem Sacramento River on all dates sampled (see

1 3). However, these data contain a systematic error in that sample dates were
Figure 13).
chosen when flows in the tributaries were low enough to ensure the safety of field
personnel, and, therefore, probably less turbid. The fact remains that Blue Tent and Dibble
Creeks cleared up faster than the mainstem after storm events. According to CDWR
(1992), the turbidities in most small, intermittent Sacramento River tributaries peak sooner

and clarify “well before” the larger tributaries or the mainstem.

Growth Rate and Condition Factor


The growth rates calculated for juvenile Chinook rearing in Blue Tent Creek

from 2/24/96 to 3/30/96 (approximately 0.9 mm/day) were faster than those predicted for
the Sacramento River by Johnson et al. (1992), and were similar to those observed by

Kjelson et al. (1982) for juvenile chinook rearing in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta.
Kjelson et al. (1982) concluded that juvenile chinook rearing in the delta grew

approximately 0.53 to 0.86 mm per day, while juvenile chinook rearing in the mainstem
Sacramento River grew approximately 0.33 mm per day. According to Fisher (1992, p. 2),
growth rates calculated for the delta in Kjelson's study were “greater than any previously
observed hatchery or natural rates.”

Besides rapid growth, juvenile chinook rearing in the tributaries also exhibited
exceptionally high condition factors. A condition factor of approximately 1.0 is considered

“good” for juvenile chinook within the size range of approximately 50 to 90 mm (K. True,
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Sevice Califomia-Nevada Fish Health Center, personal
communication). The mean condition factors calculated for juvenile chinook rearing in the

tributaries between 3/15/96 and 4/12/96 were greater than 1.0 on all sample dates.
48

The rapid growth and high condition factors of juvenile chinook rearing in Blue
Tent and Dibble Creeks may be partially explained by physical and biological characteristics
of intermittent streams previously discussed in this report, including relatively warm winter
and early spring temperatures, plentiful food, and low turbidity. Among these variables,

the effects of water temperature were the most easily observed.

For example, sharp increases in the growth rates and mean condition factors of
juvenile chinook captured in the tributaries between 3/15/96 and 3/23/96 directly coincided

with an increase in the average daily temperatures recorded in Blue Tent Creek (see Figures
1 1) during the same time period. The increases in growth rate and condition factor
20 and 11)
were most likely a result of increased food availability and increased food consumption by
juvenile chinook at warmer temperatures. As previously discussed, warmer temperatures

stimulate the hatching, emergence, and drifting behavior (Boles 1988) of some aquatic
insects. Furthermore, temperatures up to approximately 19°C increase the metabolism,

food consumption, and growth rate of juvenile chinook salmon.


Historically, rearing habitats with physical and biological characteristics similar
to those found in small, intermittent streams were common in the Sacramento River

system. For example, prior to the construction of numerous flood control projects on the

Sacramento River and its tributaries, low-lying areas of the valley floor were transformed
into relatively warm, clear, shallow, productive wetlands (Thompson 1961) by high runoff
during the winter and spring. The flooding extended from the mouth of the Sacramento
River to the present site of Red Bluff and comprised an area greater than one million acres.
These huge wetlands most likely provided rearing habitat for many species of California

native fishes, including juvenile chinook salmon.


CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND


RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary and Conclusions


The mark and recapture and length-frequency indicated that juvenile chinook
Chinook
resided in the tributaries for approximately five weeks, grew from approximately 40 to 75
mm, then presumably emigrated. On most sample dates, the stomachs of juvenile Chinook
chinook
rearing in the tributaries were full of food organisms, particularly the larvae, pupae, and
adults of Chironomidae, nymphs of Baetidae and Capniidae, and larval cyprinoid fishes.
Juvenile chinook rearing in the tributaries grew faster than predicted by the growth model
currently in use for the mainstem Sacramento River, and attained exceptionally high
condition factors. When marked fish rearing in both Blue Tent Creek and the mainstem
were compared, those rearing in Blue Tent Creek had significantly higher condition factors
than those captured in the mainstem. Well fed, faster growing fish smolt and emigrate
earlier, and may avoid unfavorable conditions which exist in the lower Sacramento River

and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta during the late spring and summer.
The rapid growth, high condition factors, and full stomachs of juvenile chinook

rearing in Blue Tent and Dibble Creeks may have been a result of favorable rearing
conditions in the tributaries, including relatively warm temperatures, low turbidity, and rich

food resources. In the absence of historic natural wetlands, small, intermittent streams may
represent some of the best rearing habitat currently available in the Upper Sacramento River

and should be protected from further degradation. Current threats to intermittent stream

habitat include channelization, devegetation, agricultural diversion, gravel mining, livestock

49
50
50
grazing,illegal
grazing, illegaldumping,
dumping,impoundment
impoundmentofofwater forornamental
waterfor ornamentalponds, andfish
ponds,and passage
fishpassage
problemsresulting
problems resultingfrom
fromimproperly
improperlyconstructed
constructedroads andculverts.
roadsand culverts.

Recommendations forFurther
Recommendationsfor Study
FurtherStudy

11. Identifyand
. Identify anddocument
documentall
allofofthe
thenonnatal,
nonnatal,intermittent tributariesininthe
intermittenttributaries Sacramento
theSacramento
Riverwatershed
River watershedwhich
whichprovide rearinghabitat
providerearing forjuvenile
habitatfor juvenilechinook population
conductpopulation
andconduct
chinookand
estimatesininthose
estimates thosestreams.
streams.
Identifyhabitat
2.2.Identify habitatdegradation
degradationand passageproblems
fishpassage
andfish nonnatal,intermittent
problemsininnonnatal, intermittent
tributariesknown
tributaries knowntotoprovide
providehabitat
habitatfor juvenilechinook.
forjuvenile chinook.
Conductphysiological
3.3.Conduct physiologicaltests determinewhen
teststotodetermine chinookrearing
juvenilechinook
whenjuvenile the
rearingininthe

tributaries areready
tributariesare smolt.
readytotosmolt.

4.4.Conduct moredetailed
Conductmore detailedstudies
studiestotoquantify
quantifyprimary
primaryand productivityinin
secondaryproductivity
andsecondary
intermittentstreams.
intermittent streams.
LITERATURE CITED
LITERATURECITED
LITERATURE CITED

Abell, D.L.
Abell,D. L.1981.
1981.Invertebrates
Invertebratesofofsome
someCalifornia
Californiaintermittent
intermittentstreams. 46-60ininS.
Pages46-60
streams.Pages S.
Jain and P. B. Moyle, editors. Vernal pools and intermittent streams. Institute
Jain and P. B. Moyle, editors. Vernal pools and intermittent streams. Institute
ofEcology,
of Ecology,Publication
PublicationNo.No.28,
28,University
Universityof California,Davis.
ofCalifornia, Davis.
Anderson,R.
Anderson, R.O.,
O.,and S.J.J.Gutreuter.
andS. Gutreuter.1985.
1985.Length, weight,and
Length,weight, associatedstructural
andassociated structural
indices. Pages 283-300 in L. A. Nielson and D. L. Johnson, editors. Fisheries
indices. Pages 283-300 in L. A. Nielson and D. L. Johnson, editors. Fisheries
techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Anderson, N.H.,
Anderson,N. H.,and B.Wallace.
andJ.J.B. 1984.Habitat,
Wallace.1984. Habitat,life behavioral
andbehavioral
history,and
lifehistory,
adaptations of aquatic insects. Pages 38-58 in R.W. Merrit
adaptations of aquatic insects. Pages 38-58 in R.W. Merrit and K.W.
andK.W.
Cummins, editors. Aquatic insects of North America. Kendall Hunt Publishing
Cummins, editors. Aquatic insects of North America. Kendall Hunt Publishing
Company, Dubuque,
Company, Dubuque, Iowa. Iowa.

Bagenal, T.B.,
Bagenal,T. B.,and F.W.
and F. W.Tesch. 1978.Age
Tesch.1978. andgrowth.
Ageand growth.Pages 101-136in
Pages101-136 T.Bagenal,
inT. Bagenal,
editor. Methods for the assessment of fish production in fresh waters.
editor. Methods for the assessment of fish production in fresh waters.
BlackwellScientific
Blackwell ScientificPublications
PublicationsLtd., OsneyMead,
Ltd.,Osney Oxford.
Mead,Oxford.

Banks, L.J.J.Fowler,
L.,L.
Banks,J.J.L., Fowler,and W.Elliot.
andJ.J.W. Elliot.1971. Effectsof
1971.Effects ofrearing
rearingtemperatures
temperaturesonon
growth, body form, and hematology of fall Chinook fingerlings. Progressive
growth, body form, and hematology of fall chinook fingerlings. Progressive
Fish-Culturist33:20-26.
Fish-Culturist 33:20-26.
Barlocher,F.,
Barlocher, R.J.J.McKay,
F.,R. McKay,and B.Wiggins.
G.B.
andG. Wiggins.1978.
1978.Detritus processingininaatemporary
Detritusprocessing temporary
vernal pool in southern Ontario. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 81:269-295.
vernal pool in southern Ontario. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 81:269-295.
Behnke, R.J.J.1992.
Behnke,R. 1992.Western
Western trout of North
troutof NorthAmerica.
America.American FisheriesSociety,
AmericanFisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.
Bethesda, Maryland.
Biette, R.M.,
Biette,R. M.,and
andG.G.N.
N.Geen.
Geen.1980.
1980.Growth
Growthof of underyearling Oncorhynchus
salmon,Oncorhynchus
underyearlingsalmon,
nerka , under constant and cyclic temperatures in relation to live zooplankton
nerka, under constant and cyclic temperatures in relation to live zooplankton
size. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 37(2):203-210.
size. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 37(2):203-210.
Boles,G.
Boles, L.1988.
G.L. 1988.Water
Watertemperature onchinook
effectson
temperatureeffects chinooksalmon, Oncorhynchus
salmon,Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha, with emphasis on the Sacramento River. California Departmentof
tshawytscha, with emphasis on the Sacramento River. California Department of
Water Resources, Northern District, Internal memo, Red Bluff.
Water Resources, Northern District, Internal memo, Red Bluff.
Brannon,E.,
Brannon, C.Feldmann,
E.,C. Feldmann,and
andL.L.Donaldson. 1982.University
Donaldson.1982. ofWashington
Universityof zero-age
Washingtonzero-age
coho salmon smolt production. Pages 195-200 in H. A. Bern and
coho salmon smolt production. Pages 195-200 in H. A. Bern and C. V. C. V.W.
W.
Mahnken, editors. Salmonid smoltification. Proceedings of a symposium
Mahnken, editors. Salmonid smoltification. Proceedings of a symposium
sponsoredby
sponsored bythe
thePacific SeaGrant
PacificSea GrantAdvisory Programand
AdvisoryProgram andthe
theCalifornia Sea
CaliforniaSea
Grant College Program, Aquaculture28.
Grant College Program, Aquaculture 28.
Brett,J.J.R.
Brett, 1952.Temperature
R.1952. Temperaturetolerance youngpacific
toleranceininyoung genusOncorhynchus.
salmon,genus
pacificsalmon, Oncorhynchus.
Journal ofthe
Journalof theFisheries
FisheriesResearch
ResearchBoard ofCanada
Boardof 9:265-323.
Canada9:265-323.

52
52
53
53

Brett, R. 1971.
Brett, J.J. R. 1971. Energetic response of
Energetic response of salmon
salmon to temperature: aa study
to temperature: of some thermal
study of
relations in the
relations in physiology and
the physiology and freshwater of sockeye
ecology of
freshwater ecology salmon,
sockeye salmon,
Oncorhynchus nerka.
Oncorhynchus nerka. American
American Zoologist 1:99-113.
Zoologist 111:99-113.
Brett, J.J. R.
Brett, 1979. Environmental
R. 1979. Environmental factors
factors and growth. Pages
and growth. in W.
599-675 in
Pages 599-675 W. S. J.
S. Hoar, D. J.
Randall, and
Randall, and J. R. Brett,
J. R. Brett, editors. Fish physiology,
editors. Fish 8, Bioenergetics
volume 8,
physiology, volume Bioenergetics and
growth. Academic
growth. Academic Press, New York.
Press, New York.
Brett, J. R.,
Brett, J. W. C.
R., W. C. Clarke,
Clarke, and J. E.
and J. E. Shelboume. Experiments on thermal
1982. Experiments
Shelboume. 1982. thermal
requirements for growth
requirements for growth and food conversion
and food efficiency in
conversion efficiency in juvenile chinook
salmon, Oncorhynchus
salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.
tshawytscha. Canadian
Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries
and Aquatic Science
and Aquatic Science 11127:29.
127:29.
Brower, J.,
Brower, J. Zar,
J., J. Zar, and
and C. von Ende.
C. von Ende. 1990.
1990. Field for general
methods for
laboratory methods
and laboratory
Field and
ecology,
ecology, 3rd
3rd edition. Wm. C. Brown
edition. Wm. C. Brown Publishers,
Publishers, Dubuque,
Dubuque, Iowa.
Busacker, G. P.,
Busacker, G. R. Adelman,
P., I.I. R. Adelman, and E. M.
and E. 1990. Growth.
M. Goolish. 1990. Growth. Pages 363-388 in C.
B. Schreck
B. Schreck and P. B.
and P. B. Moyle, editors. Methods
Moyle, editors. for fish
Methods for biology. American
fish biology. American
Fisheries Society, Betheseda, Maryland.
Fisheries Society, Betheseda, Maryland.
California Department of
California Department Water Resources,
of Water Northern District. 1984. Middle Sacramento
Resources, Northern
River spawning gravel study.
River spawning gravel study. Internal Red Bluff.
memo, Red

California Department of
California Department Water Resources,
of Water Resources, Northern District. 1985. Sacramento River
Northern District.
spawning gravel
spawning gravel studies.
studies. Internal memo, Red
Internal memo, Red Bluff.

California Department of
California Department Water Resources,
of Water Resources, Northern District. 1992. Sacramento Valley
Westside Tributary
Westside Tributary Watersheds
Watersheds Erosion Study Executive Summary. Internal
memo, Red
memo, Red Bluff.
Bluff.

California Department of
California Department Water Resources, Northern District. 1994. Sacramento River
of Water
bank erosion
bank erosion investigation
investigation memorandum. Progress report, Red Bluff.
Chapman, D.
Chapman, W., and
D. W., T. C.
and T. C. Bjomn. 1969. Distribution of salmonids in streams with
special reference to food and feeding. Pages 153-176 in T. G. Northcoate,
special reference to
editor. Symposium on salmon and trout in streams. H. R. MacMillan Lectures
editor. Symposium
in Fisheries, University
in Fisheries, of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Clarke, W. C.,
University of
and T. Hirano.
and T. Hirano. 1995. Osmoregulation. Pages 317-377 in C. Groot, L.
Margolis, and W. C. Clarke,
Margolis, and W. C. Clarke, editors. Physiological ecology of pacific salmon.
UBC
UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C.
W. C.,
Clarke, W.
Clarke, J. E. Shelboume, and J. R. Brett. 1981. Effects of artificial photoperiod
C., J.
cycles, temperatures, and salinity on growth and smoking in underyearling
coho Oncorhynchus kisutch
coho ((Oncorhynchus O. tshawytscha ), and sockeye (O.
), chinook ((O.
kisutch),
nerka
nerka ) ) salmon. Aquaculture 22:105-1 16.
W. C.,
Clarke, W.
Clarke, and J. E Shelboume. 1985. Growth and development of sea water
C., and
adaptability by juvenile fall chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in
relation to temperature. Pages 21-31 in J. E. Thorpe, H. A. Bern, R. L.
relation
Sanders, and A. Soivio, editors. Proceedings of a workshop on salmon
Sanders,
smoltification, Aquaculture 45, Sterling, U.K.
smoltification,
54

Don Chapman Consultants. 1989. Summer and winter ecology of juvenile chinook salmon
and steelhead trout in the Wenatchee River, Washington. Chelan County Public
Utility, Wenatchee, Washington.
Edmundson, E., F. E. Everest, and D. W. Chapman. 1968. Permanence of station in
juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout. Journal of the Fisheries Research
Board of Canada 25:1453-1464.
Everest, F., and E. Edmundson. 1967. Cold branding for field use in marking salmonids.
Progressive Fish-Culturist 29:175-176.
Fisher, F. W. 1992. Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, growth and occurrence
in the Sacramento-San Joaquin river system. California Department of Fish and
Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Office report, Sacramento.

Healy, M. C. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon. Pages 311-393 in C. Groot and L.
Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C.
Higgs, D. A, J. S. Macdonald, C. D. Levings, and B. S. Dosanjh. 1995. Nutrition and
feeding habits in relation to life stage. Pages 161-315 in C. Groot, L. Margolis
and W. C. Clarke, editors. Physiological ecology of Pacific salmon. UBC
Press, Vancouver, B.C.

Hokanson, K. E. F., C. F. Kleiner, and T. W. Thorslund. 1977. Effects of constant


temperatures and diel temperature fluctuations on specific growth and mortality
rates and yield of juvenile rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri. Journal of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 34(5):639-648.
Hynes, H. B. N., 1950. The food of freshwater sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus , and
Pygosteus pungitius ), with a review of methods used in studies of the food of
fishes. The Journal of Animal Ecology 19(1): 37-58.
Johnson, R. R., F. W. Fisher, and D. D. Weigand. 1992. Use of growth data to determine
the spatial and temporal distribution of four runs of juvenile chinook salmon in
the Sacramento River, California. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Report
AFF-FRO-92-15, Red Bluff, California.

Kasahara, N., H. Yamada, K. Soyano, J. Saito, M. Nagata, and K. Yamauchi. 1989.


Physiological and behavioral changes in the accelerated underyearling
broodstock masu salmon, Oncorhynchus masou, during smoltification.
Aquaculture 82:21-28.

Kjelson, M. A., P. F. Raquel, and F. W. Fisher. 1982. Life history of fall run juvenile
chinook salmon,Oncorhynchus tshawytscha , in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
estuary, California. Pages 393-41 1 in V. S. Kennedy, editor. Estuarine
comparisons. Academic Press, New York.
Konstantinov, A. S., and V. V. Zdanovich. 1986. Peculiarities of fish growth in relation to
temperature fluctuation. Journal of Ichthyology 26(4):65-74.
55

McGinnis, S. A. 1984. Freshwater fishes of California. University of California Press,


Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley,
Los Angeles, London.
Moyle, P. B. 1981. Use of intermittent streams by California fishes. Pages 61-65 in S.
Jain and P. B. Moyle, editors. Vernal pools and intermittent streams. Institute
of Ecology, Publication No. 28, University of California, Davis.
Murray, C. B., and M. L. Rosenau. 1989. Rearing of juvenile chinook salmon in nonnatal
tributaries of the lower Fraser River, British Columbia. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 118:284-289.
Northcote, T. G. 1978. Migratory strategies and production in freshwater fishes. Pages
326-359 in S. D. Gerking, editor. Ecology of freshwater fish production.
Halsted Press, New York.
Novotny, A. J. 1975. Net-pen culture of Pacific salmon in marine waters. Marine Fisheries
Review (U. S.) 37:36-47.
Odenweller, D. B., 1990. Determination of habitat preference criteria for Upper
Sacramento River chinook salmon. California Department of Fish and Game,
Internal memo, Bay-Delta Project, Stockton.
Resources Agency. 1989. Upper Sacramento River fisheries and riparian habitat
management plan. California Resource Agency, Management plan, Sacramento.

Scrivener, J. C., T. G. Brown, and B. C. Anderson. 1993. Juvenile chinook salmon


( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) utilization of Hawks Creek, a small and nonnatal
tributary of the upper Fraser River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science 51:1139-1
51:1139-1146.
146.
Shaffter, R., P. Jones, and J. Karlton. 1982. Sacramento River and tributaries bank
protection and erosion control investigation. California Department of Fish and
Game, Evaluation of impacts on fisheries, Bay Delta Fishery Project, Stockton.

Spigarelli, S. A., M. M. Thommes, and W. Prepejchal. 1982. Feeding, growth, and fat
deposition by brown trout at constant and fluctuating temperatures.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111
111:199-209.
:199-209.
Swain, D. P., B. E. Riddell, and C. C. Murray. 1991. Morphological differences between
hatchery and wild populations of coho salmon,Oncorhynchus kisutch::
environmental versus genetic origin. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science 48:1783-1791.
Thompson, K. 1961. Riparian forests of the Sacramento Valley, California. Ann. Assoc.
Amer. Geog. 51:294-315.
56

Wedemeyer, G. A., R. L. Sanders, and W. C. Clarke. 1980. Environmental factors


affecting smoltification and early marine survival of anadromous salmonids.
Marine Fisheries Review (U. S.) 42(6):1-14.
Williams, D. D. 1987. The Ecology of temporary waters. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

Windell, J. T. 1978. Methods of studying foods consumed. Pages 198-203 in E. E.


Ricker, editor. Methods for assessment of fish production in fresh waters, 1st
edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh.
Yamauchi, K. M. Ban, N. Kasahara, T. Izumi, H. Kojima, and T. Harako. 1985.
Physiological and behavioral changes occurring during smoltification of masu
salmon,Oncorhynchus masou.. Aquaculture 45:227-235.
APPENDIX A
HABITAT SURVEY OF
BLUE TENT CREEK STUDY AREA

% Usable
Habitat Mean Mean Mean Max Substrate rearing
Unit # type length width depth depth type habitat
1 pool 59 7.4 0.5 0.9 gravel 50
2 step-run 60 5 0.3 0.6 gravel 75
3 riffle 28.5 2 0.15 0.3 hard-pan 20
4 run 69 7 0.3 0.6 gravel 75
5 riffle 58 6 0.1 0.15 gravel 25
6 pool 29 6.5 0.35 0.65 gravel 60
7 riffle 19 5 0.05 0.1 hard-pan 10
8 pool 24 4.5 0.4 0.6 gravel 50
9 step-run 90 8 0.3 0.55 gravel 60
10 riffle 28 3 0.3 0.3 hard-pan 15
11 pool 54.4 8 0.4 1.2 gravel 50
12 riffle 9 8 0.05 0.1 hard-pan 10
13 pool 88 7.5 0.6 1.5 sand 30
14 riffle 25.5 4 0.1 0.15 gravel 10
15 step-run 47 5.5 0.3 0.5 cobble 25
16 pool 30 5.5 0.5 0.8 gravel 75
17 riffle 70 7.5 0.1 0.2 hard-pan 10
18 pool 47 8.0 0.5 1.0 gravel 70
19 riffle 23 4.5 0.1 0.3 hard-pan 5
20 pool 47 8.5 0.5 0.7 gravel 45
21 riffle 30 6 0.1 0.2 cobble 5
22 pool 12.9 4.5 0.8 1.4 gravel 90
23 riffle 5 5 0.05 0.1 gravel 5
24 pool 72 7 0.5 0.7 hard-pan 50
25 riffle 6 6 0.1 0.2 gravel 0

58
59

% Usable
%
Habitat Mean Mean Mean Max Substrate rearing
Unit
Unit## type length width depth depth type habitat
26 run 72 16 0.3 0.5 gravel 40
27 riffle 4 5 0.05 0.15 hard-pan 0
28 pool 13 7 0.3 0.5 gravel 85
29 riffle 30 5 0.1 0.15 gravel 20
30 pool 45 7 0.45 0.8 gravel 70
31 riffle 112 6 0.15 0.2 gravel 25
APPENDIX B
FOOD ORGANISMS FOUND IN THE STOMACHS OF
JUVENILE CHINOOK CAPTURED IN BLUE TENT
AND DIBBLE CREEKS AND THE MAINSTEM
MAINSTEM
SACRAMENTO RIVER

Food organisms found in the stomachs of juvenile Chinook


chinook captured in Dibble Creek from
2/4/95 to 5/11/95

Taxon # Observed Points each Total points


Baetidae (nymph) 1,069 7 7,483
Chironomidae (larvae) 361 3 1,083
Chironomidae (pupae) 81 2.5 202.5
larval cyprinoid 7 10 70
Lumbriculidae 6 8 48
Simuliidae (larvae) 10 4 40
Aphididae (terrestrial) 9 4 36
Chironomidae (adult) 16 2 32
Dyticidae (larvae) 7 4 28
Ceratopogonidae (larvae) 17 1.5 25.5
Formicidae (terrestrial) 13 2 26
Arachnidae (terrestrial) 4 6 24
Capniidae (nymph) 3 6 18
Simuliidae (adult) 4 3 12
Ceratopogonidae (adult) 20 0.5 10
Hydrophilidae (larvae) 1 8 8
Tipulidae (larvae) 1 5 5
Corixidae (adult) 1 4 4
Hydroptilidae (larvae) 1 4 4
Braconidae (terrestrial) 1 3 3
Cicacdellidae (terrestrial) 1 3 3
Limnephilidae (larvae) 1 3 3

61
62

Taxon # Observed Points each Total points


Notonectidae (adult)
Nematoda 2 0.5 1
Average number per fish* 51 287
*32 juvenile Chinook analyzed, mean length 61 mm.
64

Chinook captured in Dibble Creek from


Food organisms found in the stomachs of juvenile chinook
2/6/96 4/12/96
to

Taxon # Observed Points each Total points


Chironomidae (larvae) 562 3 1,686
Capniidae (nymph) 173 6 1,038
Chironomidae (adult) 318 2 636
Baetidae (nymph) 61 7 427
Chironomidae (pupae) 146 2.5 365
larval cyprinoid 8 10 80
Capniidae (adult) 4 6 24
Simuliidae (larvae) 5 4 20
Ceratopogonidae (pupae) 18 1 18
Aphididae (terrestrial) 2 6 12
Dyticidae (larvae) 3 4 12
Ceratopogonidae (larvae) 7 1.5 10.5
Cicacdelhdae
Cicacdellidae (terrestrial) 2 3 6
Average number per fish* 37 124
Chinook analyzed, mean length 47 mm.
*35 juvenile chinook
63

Food organisms found in the stomachs of juvenile Chinook


chinook captured in Blue Tent Creek
from 2/4/96 to 4/12/96

Taxon # Observed Points each Total points


Chironomidae (larvae) 1,029 3 3,087
Baetidae (nymph) 67 7 469
larval cyprinoid 27 10 270
Tipulidate (larvae) 44 4 176
Dyticidae (larvae) 31 5 155
Aphididae (terrestrial) 24 4 96
Capniidae (nymph) 9 6 54
Simuliidae (larvae) 13 4 52
Simuliidae (adult) 16 3 48
Notonectidae (adult) 4 5 20
Ceratopogonidae (adult) 30 0.5 15
Arachnidae (terrestrial) 2 6 12
Capniidae (adult) 2 6 12
Chironomidae (pupae) 4 2.5 10
Hydrophilidae (larvae) 1 8 8
Formicicae (terrestrial) 3 2 6
Ceratopogonidae (larvae) 3 1.5 4.5
Simuliidae (pupae) 1 3.5 3.5
Cicacdellidae (terrestrial) 1 3 3
Hirudinea 1 3 3
Amphipoda 3 0.5 1.5
Isotomidae 2 0.5 1
Nematoda 2 0.5 1
Average number per fish* 36 122
Chinook analyzed, mean length 53 mm.
*37 juvenile chinook
65
65

Food organismsfound
Foodorganisms foundininthe
thestomachs juvenileChinook
stomachsofofjuvenile capturedininBlue
chinookcaptured TentCreek
BlueTent Creek
from 2/2/96 to 4/12/96
from 2/2/96 to 4/12/96

Taxon
Taxon ##Observed
Observed Pointseach
Points each Total points
Totalpoints
Baetidae(nymph)
Baetidae (nymph) 1,159
1,159 77 8,113
8,113
Chironomidae(larvae)
Chironomidae (larvae) 647
647 33 1,941
1,941
Capniidae(nymph)
Capniidae (nymph) 140
140 66 840
840
Chironomidae(adult)
Chironomidae (adult) 218
218 22 436
436
Chironomidae(pupae)
Chironomidae (pupae) 91
91 2.5
2.5 227.5
227.5
Hydrophilidae(larvae)
Hydrophilidae (larvae) 24
24 88 192
192
Simuliidae (larvae)
Simuliidae(larvae) 45
45 44 180
180
Dyticidae (larvae)
Dyticidae(larvae) 24
24 44 96
96
Aphididae (terrestrial)
Aphididae(terrestrial) 66 44 24
24
Simuliidae(adult)
Simuliidae (adult) 88 33 24
24
Ceratopogonidae(larvae)
Ceratopogonidae (larvae) 12
12 1.5
1.5 18
18
larval cyprinoid
larvalcyprinoid 11 10
10 10
10
Notonectidae(adult)
Notonectidae (adult) 22 55 10
10
Formicicae (terrestrial)
Formicicae(terrestrial) 44 22 88
Simuliidae(pupae)
Simuliidae (pupae) 22 3.5
3.5 77
(adult)
Capniidae(adult)
Capniidae 11 66 66
Cicacdellidae(terrestrial)
Cicacdellidae (terrestrial) 22 33 66
Ichneumonidae(terrestrial)
Ichneumonidae (terrestrial) 11 55 55
Ceratopogonidae (adult)
Ceratopogonidae(adult) 99 0.5
0.5 4.5
4.5
(adult)
Veliidae(adult)
Veliidae 11 44 44
Isotomidae
Isotomidae 66 0.5
0.5 33
Thripidae(terrestrial)
Thripidae (terrestrial) 33 11 33
Empididate(adult)
Empididate (adult) 11 22 22
Nematoda
Nematoda 22 0.5
0.5 11
numberper
Averagenumber
Average perfish*
fish* 52
52 264
264
*46juvenile
*46 chinookanalyzed,
juvenileChinook meanlength
analyzed,mean mm.
54mm.
length54
66

Food Organisms found in the stomachs of juvenile chinook


Chinook captured in the mainstem
Sacramento River from 2/2/96 to 4/12/96

Taxon # Observed Points each Total points


Baetidae (nymph) 81 7 567
Chironomidae (larvae) 100 3 300
Perlodidae (nymph) 33 7 231
Ephemerellidae (larvae) 10 9 90
Hydropsychidae (larvae) 9 8 72
Chironomidae (adult) 13 2 26
Heptageniidae (nymph) 4 5 20
Rhyacophilidae (larvae) 3 5 15
Arachnidae (terrestrial) ‘2
'2 6 12
Simuliidae (larvae) 3 4 12
Ceratopogonidae (larvae) 6 1.5 9
Tipulidae (larvae) 2 4 8
Capniidae (nymph) 1 6 6
Hydrophilidae (larvae) 2 3 6
Dyticidae (larvae) 1 4 4
Simuliidae (pupae) 1 3.5 3.5
Trichoptera (pupae) 1 3 3
Formicidae (terrestrial) 1 2 2
Amphipoda 4 0.5 2
Average number per fish* 17 87
*16 juvenile chinook
Chinook analyzed, mean length 53 mm.