Historical Report on Salmon in the Yuba River

The Lower Yuba River supports some of California’s last remaining runs of wild Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The Yuba’s salmon run is still an impressive annual event in the main stem of the river, but the population has declined drastically since the early 1800s as a result of gold-mining, logging, road-building, and habitat loss due to dams and diversions. These endangered fish once had access to many miles of prime spawning habitat in the upper watershed, in the South, Middle, and North forks of the Yuba. Access to the upper watershed is now blocked by Englebright Dam on the Yuba’s main stem.

Currently citizens are considering ways to restore the Yuba's salmon and steelhead runs, and potentially to reintroduce them into the upper part of the watershed. Understanding the Yuba’s salmon population from a historical perspective is an important component of working to preserve and restore the remaining population of today. This report is a compilation of historical information about salmon and steelhead in the Yuba, from the time when they shared the free-flowing river with the Nisenan people, through the years of European settlement, the Gold Rush, and dam construction, and on into the present.

In attempting to reconstruct the historical extent of salmon populations in the Yuba, this report draws on information from scientific studies as well as from the historical literature. Regarding the latter (diaries, memoirs, county histories), a key scientific paper makes the following comments: “Those sources have been used infrequently by fisheries biologists, but if viewed judiciously they may convey highly useful information…historic records can be used by citizen groups to justify efforts to restore anadromous fishes to streams from which they are now absent…Because comprehensive fish survey data were not regularly collected in California until the 1940s, our knowledge of salmon and other anadromous fish distributions within the Central Valley during earlier times must rely largely on non-scientific historical writings.” (Yoshiyama et al, 2000).

Timeline of important events for Yuba River salmon

1848 Gold discovered at Sutter's Mill on the American River. The Gold Rush begins.

1850-85 Intensive hydraulic mining on the Yuba.

1884 Sawyer Decision ends release of hydraulic mining debris in the Yuba.

1892 Earliest version of Spaulding Dam completed on the South Fork of the Yuba.

1893 Caminetti Act creates the California Debris Commission to impound hydraulic mining debris with dams.

1904 Barrier No. 1 constructed 4.5 miles upstream of the present site of Daguerre Point Dam.

1907 Barrier No. 1 destroyed by floods.

1910 Daguerre Point Dam completed.

1913 Current version of Spaulding Dam completed.

1921-24 Construction of Bullard's Bar Dam on the North Fork.

1924 Fish ladders installed at Daguerre Point Dam.

1927-28 Daguerre fish ladders washed out in winter storms.

1938 Surveys of salmon and steelhead populations conducted by CDFG.

1941 Englebright Dam completed, blocking all salmon passage into the South, Middle, and North forks.

1950-52 New fish ladders installed at Daguerre Point Dam.

1961 Earliest comprehensive report of chinook abundance in Central Valley streams, covering period from

1940-1959 (Fry). Since then, CDFG has carried out regular surveys of spawning runs.

1994 Sacramento winter chinook run listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

1998 Central Valley steelhead listed as threatened.

1999 California Central Valley spring chinook run listed as threatened.

1999 Upper Yuba River Studies Program formed under CalFed's Bay-Delta Program to investigate the feasibility of re-introducing salmon and steelhead into the upper watershed above Englebright Dam.

Native Americans and Salmon

“The Bear, Yuba and Feather rivers were full of salmon, and the Indians speared them by the hundred in the clear water…The streams were as clear as crystal, at all seasons of the year, and thousands of salmon and other fishes sported in the rippling waters…” (Chamberlain and Wells, 1879).

Although information is scarce about salmon in the Yuba River before the arrival of Europeans, the accounts of a few early-arriving settlers suggest that salmon were an abundant and important resource for native people throughout the Sacramento drainage. Colonel J. J. Warner, a fur trapper in the Sacramento Valley, noted in 1832 that “the banks of the Sacramento river, in its whole course through its valley, were studded with Indian villages, the houses of which, in the spring…were red with the salmon the aborigines were curing” (Yoshiyama, 1999). A pioneer missionary's wife, writing of the Marysville area in 1851, noted, “The rivers abound in excellent salmon, which the Indians spear in great numbers, and dispose of in the towns. They are the finest I ever tasted. Some of them are three and four feet long, and weigh fifty pounds or more. It is amusing to see the Indians spearing them…Their aim is unerring” (Bates, 1857).

The Yuba watershed was inhabited by the Hill Nisenan, a group of Southern Maidu who lived along both the Yuba and American Rivers. The Nisenan spent the fall harvesting acorns in the foothills and stayed on in those camps for the winter. In spring, they moved up to higher elevations, following the migration of deer and other game, as well as salmon and steelhead (Meals, 2001). Ralph Beals, in his 1933 study Ethnology of the Nisenan, reports that salmon were a part of the Nisenan diet and “at one time came far up the Yuba River.”

The spring run of salmon was the most important for native Californians. “When the Pleiades were on the western horizon at dusk it was time to watch for the first salmon” (Swezey and Heizer, 1993). At this time of year, the fish were abundant and in good condition while winter provisions were running low. The anadromous runs were large and dependable, whereas populations of nonanadromous fish in the region (other than trout) tended to be small and of poor quality. The seasonal arrival of large quantities of salmon made salmon fishing “perhaps the most efficient subsistence undertaking in Native California” (Swezey and Heizer, 1993). In the Sacramento drainage system, salmon was a food source that equaled plants and game in importance for the Maidu and other native groups (Swezey and Heizer, 1993). “Salmon and other fishery resources on the Central Valley floor were part of a resource base that enabled resident Native American groups to attain some of the highest population densities to occur among the non-agricultural native societies of North America” (Yoshiyama, 1999).

Although salmon were a valuable food source, they were only one of a wide variety of foods used by native people in this area. Sinnott, in his history of Downieville, wrote that “the area that was to become Sierra County in 1852 abounded in deer and bear, the streams were full of trout, and the mountains provided wild berries and acorns in abundance” (Sinnott, 1983). Yoshiyama et al (1998) note that because of the variety of available foods and correspondingly diverse diet of native groups in the area, it is unlikely that the salmon runs were overfished.

Another factor that may have contributed to maintaining a large and healthy salmon population was the yearly celebration of ‘first-salmon’ rites, which established specific rules about when salmon could be caught. There were many variations of the ritual among salmon-dependent tribes stretching the length of the Pacific coast, reflecting the cultural importance of salmon. In the Nisenan first-salmon rites, held when the spring run arrived, a “dreamer or singing shaman” conducted the ceremony, thus opening the season on the Yuba (Beals, 1933). Dixon (1905) describes the ritual among the Maidu:

In the region of the foot-hills there was always some little ceremony at the time when the first salmon of the season was caught. The first salmon had to be caught by one of the shamans, and no one else might fish until he was successful. The fish caught was cooked over a fire built on the spot, and was then divided into many small pieces, one of which, with a morsel of acorn-bread, was given by the shaman to each person. After that, any one might go fishing.

Those who disregarded the restrictions faced “supernaturally induced illness, death, or loss of fishing luck” (Swezey and Heizer, 1993). The purpose of the rites for the Maidu was to “‘induce a heavy run and bountiful catch’ by urging the salmon to ascend the river” (Yoshiyama, 1999).

Some sources suggest that the observances of California Central Valley native groups were “more cursory and celebratory in nature” than those of tribes that lived further north where healthy salmon runs were even more crucial to their survival. “There is no indication that they were used to actively manage the salmon resource or to ensure its equitable distribution among the various fishing groups”, according to Yoshiyama (1999). Other sources, however, maintain that the ritual may indeed have helped to conserve the salmon resource. Swezey and Heizer (1993) state that the fish were allowed to run freely before the ceremony took place – several days to two weeks – and therefore many were able to spawn successfully, ensuring their return the following year. At the same time, fishing was put off until the run reached its peak, allowing the community to harvest salmon with greater efficiency and avoiding intense competition between fishermen for a scarce supply.

Regardless of the role that Native American groups played in managing the salmon population, it is clear that European settlers arriving to the area in greater and greater numbers in the early to mid-1800s were struck by the size, abundance, and quality of the salmon in the Yuba River, as well as in the Sacramento into which it flows.

European Settlement

“[The Sacramento River] abounds in fish, the most valuable of which is the salmon. These salmon are the largest and fattest I have ever seen. I have seen salmon taken from the Sacramento five feet in length. All of its tributaries are equally rich in the finny tribe.” (Bryant, 1849)

Early-arriving settlers’ observations of the Yuba confirm that they found a pristine river well suited to salmon. The miner William Kelly described the ‘Juba’ in 1849 as “a fine stream, deep enough for navigable purposes for a considerable distance up its course to where it widens out at the ford, passing over a broad, level, gravell bed. Its waters in the stream appear of a greenish hue, but when taken into a glass are perfectly colourless, clear, and well-tasted.” He went on to note that the Yuba, along with the other “principal affluents” of the Sacramento, was a river “…abounding in salmon, and rich in golden deposits” (Kelly, 1950). Both salmon and salmon trout (another term for steelhead) were included in Bean’s Directory in 1866 among the list of fish species native to Nevada County (along with brook trout, lake trout, perch, whitefish, sucker, chub, and two varieties of eels) (Wells, 1880). In 1850 the California Fish Commission reported that “the salmon resorted in vast numbers to the Feather, Yuba, American, Mokolumne, and Tuolumne Rivers” (Yoshiyama et al, 2001).

Throughout the Sacramento drainage, settlers began to take note of the potential profits to be made from the abundant salmon runs. A Swedish scholar visiting Fort Sutter on the American River in 1843 observed: “The raising of wheat, corn, horses, and cattle constitutes the principal business of Captain Sutter; but he has realized considerable income from the salmon fisheries of the rivers, the fish being unequalled in flavor, and found in the greatest abundance” (Wells, 1880). This was only the beginning of what was to become a large and successful fishery. According to Duflot du Mofras of France, “The Sacramento and its branches yield enormous salmon of superior type that come in from the sea to spawn… The fish, after being salted, is consumed to a large extent in the Sandwich [Hawaiian] islands, where it is exported in great quantities…Ships also come out from New York expressly to load on salmon. M. Sutter confidently believes that the exportation of this product should return good profits” (Yoshiyama, 1999). As thousands of pounds of salmon were removed from the rivers and shipped off to faraway locations, populations began, not surprisingly, to decline. But another historical event had much greater consequences for salmon.

The discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill on the American River in 1848 quickly overshadowed salmon, as abundant and valuable a resource as they were. Miners, despite their one-track minds, did make occasional mention of salmon during their explorations, presumably because gold was not edible. Major William Downie, founder of the town of Downieville on the North Fork of the Yuba, relates the following tale from the year 1849. “In speaking of our start at the Forks, I am reminded of what my reader will no doubt call a fish story. It is; but it is nevertheless a true one, and let this be said with all due deference to any narrator of piscatorial adventure. While we were camped on Jersey Flat, Jim Crow caught a monster salmon, weighing nearly 14 pounds. We boiled the fish in the camp kettle, and afterwards, when we examined the water, we found gold at the bottom of it” (Downie, 1893). According to Yoshiyama et al (2001), Downie could either be referring to a salmon or a steelhead. Steelhead typically weigh 3-8 pounds, rarely exceeding 13 pounds; this suggests that the fish was more likely a late spring-run salmon. However, it could also have been an exceptionally large steelhead (which were called salmon-trout at that time) from a now-extinct summer run. Whether or not salmon traveled as far as Downieville, the California Fish Commission reports quantities of salmon on the Yuba River as late as 1853. “The miners obtained a large supply of food from [salmon]…It is the testimony of all the pioneer miners that every tributary of the Sacramento, at the commencement of mining, was, in its season, filled with this fish, hurrying and struggling as if to reach the very sources of these streams” (CFC, 1880).

Life changed drastically for the Nisenan on the Yuba with the discovery of gold. “When we began to find gold on the Yuber (Yuba) river we could git'em [the native people] to work for us day in and day out, fur next to nothin'. We told 'em the gold was stuff to whitewash houses with, and give 'em a handkerchief for a tin-cup full,” a white woman recalled. One miner reported that a trader exchanged a handkerchief and a string of beads for $500 in gold (Chatterjee, 1997). According to Stevenson (1853), “The Indians in this portion of the State are wretchedly poor, having no horses, cattle, or other property. They formerly subsisted on game, fish, acorns, etc., but it is now impossible for them to make a living by hunting or fishing, for nearly all the game has been driven from the mining region.” Mining had a drastic effect not only on the lifestyle of the native people, but on the salmon as well. “On the head of the Sacramento, before that beautiful river was changed from a silver sheet to a dirty yellow stream, I have seen the stream so filled with salmon that it was impossible to force a horse across the current. [Last summer the Native Americans were devastated by] the utter failure of the annual salmon run on account of the muddy water” (Chatterjee, 1997).

Decline of the Salmon

“The rivers or tributaries of the Sacramento formerly were clear as crystal and abounded with the finest salmon and other fish. But the miners have turned the streams from their beds and conveyed the water to the dry diggings, and after being used until it is so thick with mud that it will scarcely run it returns to its natural channel.” (Stevenson, 1853)

Gold mining took an enormous toll on the clarity of the water and the quality of salmon habitat in the rivers where it was carried out. Hydraulic mining operated by literally washing entire hillsides into the river in order to remove the gold contained in them. The Yuba River experienced some of the most intensive hydraulic mining undertaken anywhere during the California Gold Rush. Although once the Yuba was described as “perfectly clear and well-tasted”, in March of 1860 the Marysville Appeal remarked that “the yellow Yuba…that turgid vehicle of sediment takes a vulgar pride in spreading out its dirty face” (Kelley, 1989).

The sediment washed into the river by hydraulic mining was carried downstream and accumulated in quantity in the main channel. According to the Department of Fish and Game, “By 1876, the channel of the Yuba River reportedly had become completely filled and the adjoining agricultural lands covered with sand and gravel” (CDFG, 1993). Chamberlain and Wells’ 1879 History of Sutter County reported that “At Timbuctoo ravine it is claimed that the Yuba river has been filled with a deposit eighty feet in depth…At Marysville, the depth of the deposit is about twenty-two feet…The bottom-lands along the Yuba and Bear rivers have been covered to a depth of five to ten feet, extending, in some places, one and one-half miles back from the streams.” Gilbert (1917) estimated that from 1849-1909, 684 million cubic yards of gravel and debris from hydraulic mining washed into the Yuba River basin; “more than triple the volume of earth excavated during construction of the Panama Canal” (Yoshiyama et al, 2001).

Salmon eggs require clear, well-oxygenated water to survive, and this is why salmon seek out gravel-bottomed stretches of river to build their nests. As early as 1870, a report by the Commissioners of Fisheries of California recognized the problem caused by mining for salmon: “Formerly salmon were plenty and largely caught by the Indians in the Feather River, in the Yuba, and in the American; but of late years they have ceased to visit these rivers. It is not because the waters of these rivers are muddy...they will pass through muddy water, if beyond they find clear water and clean gravelly bottoms. The gravel beds that formerly existed in these streams are now covered with a deposit of mud, washed down from the mines; and on this the eggs of the salmon will not hatch.” (Sumner and Smith, 1940).

Others, too, were aware and distressed by the declining populations of salmon on the tributaries of the Sacramento. An article published in Hutchings California Magazine in 1860 lamented, “Many of the pioneers of California, if they are not already aware of the fact, will be sorry to learn that the Salmon fish are fast disappearing from our waters — that is, upon all the streams upon which mining is carried on to any extent, and, in fact, we may say from all the streams of importance. This may be attributed to...the mining operations, by which the water is carried by ditches and flumes for miles out of its channel, and, when it again finds its natural course, it would scarcely be true to call such a muddy mass, water. This being the case on all the tributaries, the fountain being impure the whole stream is polluted, and our beautiful and highly palatable fish, scorning to ‘live, love, and have their being’ in such an impure element, are seeking other realms, where their native element is not made so unpleasant by man’s search for gold.” (Olmsted, 1962)

Hydraulic mining was detrimental not only to fish populations, but also to people living downstream when the sediment load caused the river to spill over its banks and flood agricultural land and cities. In 1884 most mines were forced to close when Judge Lorenzo Sawyer, in ‘Woodruff versus North Bloomfield Gravel and Mining Company’, ruled “to restrain the defendants, being several mining companies, engaged in hydraulic mining on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada mountains, from discharging their mining debris into the effluents of the Yuba River, and into the river itself, whence it is carried down by the current into the Feather and Sacramento Rivers, filling up their channels and injuring their navigation, and sometimes overflowing and covering the neighboring lands with debris.” This meant that mining was allowed to continue only if miners prevented silt and gravel from washing downstream. The Caminetti Act in 1893 created the California Debris Commission, the role of which was to build dams to impound hydraulic mining debris (Sumner and Smith, 1940).

Mining continued to affect salmon populations, however. Hard rock mining succeeded hydraulic mining, and this method made use of dissolved cyanide to remove gold from ground ore. In their 1940 survey of the Yuba, Sumner and Smith noted that, “Though the State Fish and Game Code prohibits pollution of streams by chemicals or other materials harmful to aquatic life, poisonous mine tailings have been washed directly into streams where they have killed fish and fish food. This pollution was often observed during the present survey, particularly from Poorman creek on the South Yuba. Here the stream bottom was devoid of aquatic insects two miles below the Spanish Mine.” (Sumner and Smith, 1940) And the dams built to contain the debris from hydraulic mining, as well as for other purposes, were at least as detrimental to the fish as mining itself.

Dams

“I was at the [Daguerre Point] dam a couple of weeks ago and the last run of salmon were lying dead by the dozen...” From a letter to the Fish and Game Commission from Smartsville resident Asa Fippin, February, 1920.

“It must be kept in mind that while the production of gold will ultimately end, salmon can go on reproducing their kind indefinitely; and the debris dams will continue indefinitely to restrict present and potential salmon runs and the permanent economic values to be derived therefrom” (Sumner and Smith, 1940).

The rivers of California’s Central Valley provide water for one of the world's most productive agricultural regions as well as for two major urban areas, San Francisco and Los Angeles. For this reason, they are “among the most disrupted rivers in the world, with hundreds of dams and diversions emplaced on the mainstems and tributaries." (Yoshiyama et al, 2000). This is especially true of the Yuba. Dams and diversions have altered the flow of the Yuba River and affected salmon populations since 1892, with the construction of Spaulding Dam. Here is the chronology of dams on the Yuba:

Spaulding Dam: South Fork. Earliest version built in 1892, current version in 1913, by Pacific Gas & Electric Company. The dam is 275 feet tall and diverts 66% of the South Yuba’s flow.

Barrier No. 1: Preceded Daguerre Point Dam on the main stem, 4.5 miles upstream. Constructed in 1904-05 by the California Debris Commission. 1200 feet long, 15 feet high, with a spillway around one end. Plans to enlarge the spillway and add 8 feet to the total height of the barrier were made in February 1907; in March 1907, floods carried away a significant amount of the dam, and restoration was “deemed inadvisable.”

Daguerre Point Dam: Yuba main stem. 15 feet high, completed in 1910 by the California Debris Commission to contain debris from hydraulic gold mining. When hydraulic mining was not resumed, the dam was retrofitted as a diversion point to provide water for consumptive water users. Fish ladders constructed in 1924, destroyed by floods in 1927-28. Improved fish ladder (pictured at left) installed around 1950-52 (Yoshiyama et al, 2001).

Bullards Bar Dam: North Yuba. Constructed 1921-24 for mining debris storage. New Bullards Bar Dam was built by the Yuba County Water Agency, 1969.

Englebright Dam: Yuba main stem, 12 miles above Daguerre. Originally called Upper Narrows Dam. Construction begun in 1938, completed in 1941, at a cost of $4 million. Originally built to catch hydraulic mining debris, retrofitted for hydroelectric generation (provides power for 50,000 homes annually). Also used recreationally by houseboaters and anglers. The dam is 260 feet high and 1142 feet long; Englebright Reservoir is 227 feet deep at the dam, covers 815 acres, and is 9 miles long with 24 miles of shoreline.

Sumner and Smith, in their 1940 survey of salmon populations, point out two problems with debris dams for the fishery. First, the height of the dams blocks all potential salmon and steelhead runs upstream of the barriers. Second, debris dams are built “for the sole purpose of allowing gravel and silt to be washed into the streams above them, and this silt will affect both resident and migrant fish” (Sumner and Smith, 1940). The fish ladder at Daguerre was constructed almost 15 years after the dam was completed in order to allow fish access to the spawning grounds above the dam. However, Sumner and Smith describe it as “a rather ineffectual fishway... That few fish have been able to use it...is testified to by the almost universal belief among local residents that at present no fish ever come above the dam. It was also reported that heavy runs of salmon occurred in Dry Creek and Deer Creek above Daguerre Point Dam before its construction, but there are few, if any, there now.” Large numbers of salmon must have gotten over Daguerre during certain high-water years, however. Reports from the construction of Bullards Bar Dam on the North Fork in 1921 to 1924 state that “so many salmon congregated and died below it that they had to be burned” (Sumner and Smith, 1940).

The matter of the Daguerre Point Dam fish ladders is discussed at length in the correspondence of the Army Corps of Engineers from 1920 to 1924 and provides some interesting reading. Asa Fippin of Smartsville wrote to W.H. Shebley at the Fish and Game Commission, February 4, 1920: “I was at the dam a couple of weeks ago and the last run of salmon were lying dead by the dozen such conditions being witnessed by others of the party accompanying me... If the conditions at the dam could not easily be remedied, such conditions might be excused, but I cannot see why the U.S. Government or Colonel Rand or whoever may be at fault should be allowed to maintain a dam across any stream that is the natural home of the game fish that live therein it being an act of injustice to the people of this locality and shows absolute disregard for the laws of the State of California.” Shebley then wrote to the San Francisco District Engineers Office of the War Department, February 18, 1920: “There is a run of food fish, Chinook salmon, in the Yuba River and they should be saved from extermination. Kindly let us know whether you cannot construct a fishway over this dam, according to the plan that we made two years ago.”

A letter dated April 21, 1924, from the Chief of Engineers of the War Department to the President of the California Debris Commission makes reference to another letter from Shebley. Presumably the quoted correspondence was addressed to Fippin. “A communication from W.H. Shebley…[has] been brought to the attention of this office: ‘Referring again to the fishway, kindly get up a petition stating the facts regarding the efforts made to have this fishway built and forward the petition to Congressman Lea requesting his assistance…It is the only way we see out of it. If the people of your district demand the fishway, which we know they will, and make their wants known in the form of a petition to Congressman Lea stating firmly that we have exhausted our best efforts to get the War Department to construct this fishway and for him to use his influence in Washington to get this work done.’ ” The letter continues, quoting the petition as reading: “ ‘We, the undersigned residents of California, urgently ask you to use your influence with the War Department to erect a fishway at Daguerre Point Dam, in Yuba County, California, in order to permit the fish of the Yuba River to seek spawning beds and freely circulate. As present conditions prevail it is a serious reflection on the United States Government in its efforts for conservation of game fish to permit the condition to exist. The California Fish an Game Commission is willing to co-operate with the United States Government but cannot do so without authority from the War Department.’ ”

The initial response from the Engineers at the War Department did indeed seem to be somewhat uncooperative. A May 5, 1924, letter to the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers from the California Debris Commission explains that the Engineers previously chose not to acknowledge the necessity of the ladders: “In March, 1920, the State Fish and Game Commission requested that a fish ladder be built over the Daguerre Point sill in the Yuba River. The then District Engineer replied to their request as follows: ‘The dam in question forms a reservoir behind it which causes the depositing of a large amount of the material carried in the river waters, above the dam, thereby clarifying the water to a large extent…Such being the case, it must therefore be considered that the Daguerre Point Sill, even without a fish ladder, is really a benefit to the fish of the Yuba River below the sill rather than a detriment.”

The persistent Mr. Fippin was so passionate about the fish ladder project that he was willing to try to raise the necessary funding himself. The Fish and Game Commission wrote to U.S. Grant, Army Chief of Engineers, on May 20, 1924: “We took the matter up regarding Daguerre Point Fishway with Mr. Asa Fippin of Smartsville, California, who is the person that seems to be most interested in the petitions for having the fishway built over Daguerre Point Dam. He informs us that there are 50 miles of spawning grounds above the dam as well as in a number of tributary streams in which there are 20 or more miles of spawning ground in which the Chinook salmon can spawn…Judging from his letter…if there is no money available…the citizens in the vicinity of Smartsville will raise the necessary funds to pay for the material and labor to construct the fishway according to the plans we have made…he claims there is a very large run of salmon that is locked in the passage up the river by Daguerre Point Dam and they are very anxious to have this obstruction removed by constructing a proper fishway.”

Fippin wrote to Major U.S. Grant himself on June 3, 1924: “Am in receipt of your letter requesting information concerning the necessity of a fishway over Daugerre Point Dam, in the Yuba River. The people of this and other districts along the water shed of the Yuba river have made complaint to the Fish and Game Com. of the dam in question every since the dam was built having been deprived of a valuable source of getting fresh fish, principally salmon.

“Every year, generally during the low water season fish in great numbers of different varieties come up the river to spawn and not being able to get over the dam their efforts are useless as they cannot get to the natural spawning beds above.

“If it is in your power to have a fishway built over Daugerre Point dam, I think you could not perform a more earnest duty, than to construct same. There are about 100 miles of river or creek above the dam that can be traversed and is suitable for spawning beds…If there are no funds available to build fish way over dam I think I can raise the amount necessary to build a fish way of moderate cost as the people of this district most earnestly desire the fish way over Daugerre Point Dam.

“I am sending sketch of southern section of dam where fish try to get over and system of pools that would help them to get over without difficulty.” (See drawing below.)

Evidently Fippin’s persistence paid off in the end. A headline in the Sacramento Bee on July 12, 1924, reads: “Fishway To Be Installed In Yuba River: Agitation of Ten Years Standing is Ended With Order For Piscatorial Aid At Daguerre Dam.” The article goes on to state that, though “heretofore all attempts to secure a fishway have been fruitless,” the California Debris Commission had just approved the installation of the fishway, in response to pressure from sportsmen’s clubs and individuals maintaining that salmon were unable to pass Daguerre Point and the upper branches of the Yuba were being depleted of fish.

Unfortunately, other information from the Army Corps files calls into question the effectiveness of the ladders Fippin and other citizens worked so hard to bring about. An inspector for the Army Corps, one J.H. Wygant, concludes in his Daily Report on salmon at Daguerre Point for November 11, 1937, that “Present fish ladder is entirely useless.” His report also includes the following observations and suggestions: “...looked at the salmon below dam. 8 or 10 are spawning in a 10’ wide x 35 foot long diagonal in the clean water from Dry Creek canal. Main stream was a little cloudy. I started up streambed where possible and on dredge piles the balance to the washed out old concrete-faced dam at the power line crossing. There was 4 salmon working near the concrete intake box. There was 2 more and except those below the dam was all I saw today. Below the suspension bridge there are 4 and 2 working two beds - all salmon were from 32 to 36” long. Several looked like humpbacks a very poor grade... The distance from Daguerre Point to near Timbucto is all good spawn grounds at any stage of water on river, and the suggestion I gather from this two days is that at least 2 fish chutes be cut thru so there is plenty of White Water and with 2 or 3 second feet flowing and 2 or 3 landing pools in chute. Water would have to be 1.0’ to 1.3’ deeper than spill is now. And if there is a confined flow of White Water to a point 25’ to 35’ ahead of Dam it will stop the useless jumping I saw to-day on way home when I again stopped at Dam. There is more Salmon there to-day and if Rain raises River .1” to .3” there will be hundreds where there is now 1. Rained off and on all day. I saw 34 jumps in 10 minutes ...”

Another 1937 Army Corps report on salmon contains several references to the imminent construction of the Upper Narrows Dam, which was later named Englebright. The report states that it is “Problematical that fish ways would be warranted as dam heights excessive... Dams would probably be very deleterious to fish life.” Indeed, the construction of Englebright Dam marked the end of all fish passage into the South, Middle, and North Forks of the Yuba, preventing salmon from reaching any of the spawning grounds above the dam. The report goes on to conclude “The Narrows Dam too high for way – hatchery the answer.” Evidently a hatchery was not their answer in the end, as the salmon runs on the Yuba have never been supplemented by hatchery-raised fish and, as such, are among the few wild runs remaining in California. However, the extent of salmon in the Yuba today – in the main stem as far as Englebright Dam – is considerably less than their historical range.

Extent of Historic Populations

“Salmon, at least in some numbers, went considerable distances up certain drainages such as the North Fork Feather and North Fork Yuba Rivers; within the territory of the Nisenan people…salmon in most streams were said to have ranged 'above the limit of permanent habitation' – i.e., 3000 to 4000 feet.” (Yoshiyama, 1999)

Yoshiyama, Gerstung, Fisher, and Moyle (2001) compiled both scientific and historical evidence to come up with an estimate of the historical distribution of chinook salmon populations in Central Valley rivers. Their results for the Yuba, along with some of the evidence used to draw these conclusions, are as follows:

South Fork Yuba: Records are scarce for the South Yuba. Access to this fork was already blocked by dams when surveys were conducted by the Department of Fish and Game in the 1930s. However, DFG records indicate both salmon and steelhead occurring at least one to two miles upstream from the mouth. A photo taken at Bridgeport shows a young girl holding two salmon caught nearby (attached). A 12-foot drop 1/2 mile below Humbug Creek would have presented a significant obstacle, and was probably the upper limit for salmon in most years. It is possible that salmon got further in years of particularly high water; steelhead are known to have gotten as far as Poorman Creek near the town of Washington, and spring-run salmon may also have done so (Yoshiyama et al, 2001).

Middle Fork Yuba: Both salmon and steelhead were seen in the lower part of the Middle Yuba in the 1938 Fish and Game survey. Salmon traveled at least as far as a ten-foot falls in the lower part of the river, about 1.5 miles above the mouth; no records indicate whether salmon got beyond this point. There are no significant obstacles beyond the falls, so if salmon were able to pass the falls they would have had access to a long stretch of river. Steelhead were found as far as the mouth of Bloody Run Creek. (Yoshiyama et al, 2001)

North Fork Yuba: Salmon were caught in the Bullards Bar area from 1898 to 1911, during the operation of the Yuba Powerhouse Project. Coleman’s history of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (1952) relates the following story. “Life at the Yuba Powerhouse was not without its compensations. During the fishing season…the ditch tenders at the diversion dam on the North Yuba, 20 miles higher in the mountains, would share their catches of salmon with the powerhouse boys by using a novel means of fresh fish delivery. They would nail two or three salmon on boards, place them body down in the ice-cold ditch stream, and ten hours later the night's dinner would come floating down to the trash rack in the ditch above the powerhouse, where waiting hands would lift the fish out and hurry them to the camp cook.” Salmon were still present in this area during the period of construction of Bullards Dam from 1921 to 1924, as Sumner and Smith (1940) report that “so many salmon congregated and died below it that they had to be burned.” Salmon and steelhead both were known to reach Downieville; the California Fish Commission (1875) stated that in 1850 and 1851, “large quantities [of salmon] were taken by the miners and by Indians…as far up as Downieville on the Yuba.” As there were no natural barriers between Downieville and Sierra City, spring-run salmon probably reached the mouth of Salmon Creek near Sierra City. Deep pools throughout the North Fork would have provided prime habitat for spring-run salmon. It is probable that both spring-run salmon and steelhead continued beyond Sierra City into the higher gradient reach above Salmon Creek; the absolute limit would have Loves Falls. (Yoshiyama et al, 2001)

Tributary streams

Dry Creek: Salmon traveled at least five to six miles upstream, and continue to do so occasionally in years of especially high flows (Yoshiyama et al, 2001).

Deer Creek: An impassable falls 1/4 mile upstream from the mouth is believed to be the upper limit (Yoshiyama et al, 2001).

According to an assessment by the California Department of Fish and Game, the Yuba River “historically supported up to 15% of the annual run of fall-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River system” (Yoshiyama et al, 2001). The present range of both salmon and steelhead is restricted to the main stem of the river below Englebright Dam. Along with this reduction in available habitat has come a dramatic decline in population size.

Current Action

It may seem that we in the Yuba watershed have only recently become aware of how our actions affect the health of the ecosystem and its other inhabitants. The historical record, however, indicates that citizens in the area have been conscious of and concerned about salmon and steelhead populations for decades. From the days of the Gold Rush, when residents lamented the decline in both the region’s water quality and its salmon runs in their memoirs, to the era of dam building when citizens fought to have fish ladders installed, awareness has been growing. Today both governmental agencies and citizen groups count restoration of the Yuba’s salmon and steelhead runs among the items on their agendas. The plight of the Yuba’s anadromous fish population was officially recognized in 1990s, when chinook salmon and steelhead in the Sacramento River and its tributaries were listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. Winter-run chinook are listed as endangered (since January, 1994), spring-run chinook as threatened (since September, 1999) and steelhead as threatened (since March, 1998).

In an attempt to address this situation, the Upper Yuba River Studies Program was formed in 1999 as part of the CalFed Bay-Delta Program. CalFed is a working group composed of state and federal agencies and many interest groups, all of which have joined together to develop a comprehensive long-term plan to improve ecosystem health and water management in the Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta and the San Francisco Bay. In December 2000, the Bay-Delta Policy Group approved $6.7 million to fund the efforts of the Upper Yuba River Studies Program. The mission of the UYRSP is “to determine if the introduction of wild chinook salmon and steelhead trout to the Upper Yuba River watershed is biologically, environmentally, and socio-economically feasible over the long-term.” Members of the group represent local, state, and federal management agencies, business and property owners, water agencies, and environmental organizations. The group is currently overseeing a series of studies to investigate issues of flood control, water supply and hydropower, habitat, sediment control, water quality, and economics. These studies will provide information need to weigh various options for allowing salmon and steelhead to get around Englebright Dam, from decommissioning or retrofitting the dam to creating alternative channels for fish passage.

The Yuba River is the focus of this ambitious restoration project because, despite its long history of alteration by mining, logging, dams and diversions, and other disturbances, it continues to support some of the last wild runs of chinook salmon and steelhead in California. In other rivers salmon and steelhead runs are supported by hatcheries, which have served to successfully maintain populations where otherwise they may have disappeared altogether. However, hatchery-raised fish lack the genetic diversity and vigor of wild stocks. Restoring wild populations is the key to bringing back the awe-inspiring salmon runs that so many settlers marveled over when they first arrived in the area. The Yuba has provided many miles of spawning habitat throughout its length in the past, and the potential remains if habitat in the main stem is maintained and anadromous fish passage can be restored into the upper watershed.

References

Bates, D.B. 1857. Incidents on land and water, or four years on the Pacific Coast. James French, Boston.

Beals, Ralph L. 1933. Ethnology of the Nisenan. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Swezey, Sean L. and Robert F. Heizer. 1993. “Ritual Management of Salmonid Fish Resources in California.” In Blackburn, Thomas C. and Kat Anderson, eds. Before the Wilderness: Environmental Management by Native Californians. Ballena Press, Menlo Park.

CFC (California State Board of Fish Commissioners). 1880. (6th) Rep. Comm. Fish. of the state of California for 1880. Sacramento, California.

Chamberlain, W.H. and H.L. Wells. 1879. History of Sutter County, California. Thompson and West, Oakland, California. Reprinted by Howell-North Books, Berkeley, California. 1974.

Chatterjee, Pratap. 1997. “Gold, Greed, and Genocide.” A Project Underground report. http://www.1849.org/ggg/mining.html

Coleman, Charles M. 1952. P.G.&E. of California: The centennial story of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Dixon, Roland. 1905. The Northern Maidu. AMS Press, New York. Originally published in the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History.

Downie, Major William. 1893. Hunting For Gold. American West Publishing. Reprinted 1971.

Kelly, William. 1950. A Stroll through the Diggings of California. Biobooks.

Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, New York. Reprinted 1976.

Meals, Hank. 2001. Yuba Trails 2. Nevada City, CA.

Olmsted, Roger R. 1962. Scenes of Wonder and Curiosity from Hutchings California Magazine. Howell-North, Berkeley, California. Excerpt: “Salmon Fishery on the Sacramento River.” Vol. IV, No. 12.

Palmer, T. and A. Vileisis. 1993. The South Yuba: A Wild and Scenic River Report. South Yuba River Citizens League, Nevada City, CA.

Sacramento Bee, July 12, 1924. “Fishway To Be Installed In Yuba River.”

Sinnott, James J. 1983. Downieville: Gold Town on the Yuba. MID-CAL Publishers, Fresno, CA.

Stevenson, E. A. 1853. Special Indian Agent, San Francisco, CA., in Robert Heizer, ed. 1993. The Destruction of the California Indians. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Sumner, Francis and Osgood Smith. 1940. “Hydraulic mining and debris dams in relation to fish life in the American and Yuba rivers of California.” California Fish and Game, Vol. 26 No. 1 pp. 2-22.

Wells, Harry L. 1880. History of Nevada County, California. Thompson and West, Oakland, CA.

Yoshiyama, R., F. Fisher, P. Moyle. 1998. "Historical Abundance and Decline of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Region of California." North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 18: 487-521.

Yoshiyama, R.M. 1999. "A History of Salmon and People in the Central Valley Region of California." Reviews in Fisheries Science, 7(3&4) p. 197-239.

Yoshiyama, R., E. Gerstung, F. Fisher, P. Moyle. 2000. "Chinook Salmon in the California Central Valley: An Assessment." Fisheries Management, Vol. 25, No. 2.

Yoshiyama, R., E. Gerstung, F. Fisher, and P. Moyle. 2001. “Historical and present distribution of chinook salmon in the Central Valley.” CDFG Fish Bulletin 179. Earlier version published in 1996 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Vol. III. University of CA, Davis, Centers for Water and Wildland Research.

Unpublished Documents

From the National Archives in San Bruno, California, Record Group 77

Letter from the Comptroller of the Treasury, Washington, D.C. to the War Department, U.S. Engineer Office, February 10, 1908, regarding Barrier No. 1.

Letter from Asa Fippin of Smartsville to W.H. Shebley, Fish and Game Commission, Feb. 4, 1920.

Letter from W.H. Shebley to the San Francisco District Engineers Office of the War Department, Feb.18, 1920.

Letter from the War Dept. Chief of Engineers to the President of the CA Debris Commission, April 21, 1924.

Letter from the California Debris Commission to the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers, May 5, 1924.

Letter from the Fish and Game Commission to U.S. Grant, Army Chief of Engineers, May 20, 1924.

Letter from Asa Fippin to Major U.S. Grant, Army Chief of Engineers, June 3, 1924.

Report on Salmon at Daguerre Point, May 17 to June 12, 1937.

“Daily Report from U.S. Engineer Office, Sacramento District” from J.H. Wygant, Inspector. Nov. 10-11, 1937.