DOCSLIB.ORG

Eel River Recovery Project P.O. Box 214 Loleta, CA 95551 707 839-4987 January 21, 2020 Mr. Jonathan Nelson Environmental Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eel River Recovery Project P.O. Box 214 Loleta, CA 95551 707 839-4987 January 21, 2020 Mr. Jonathan Nelson Environmental Program Eel River Recovery Project P.O. Box 214 Loleta, CA 95551 707 839-4987 January 21, 2020 Mr. Jonathan Nelson Environmental Program Manager I Anadromous Fishes Conservation and Management Program Fisheries Branch CA Department of Fish and Wildlife 830 S Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Re: Eel River Recovery Project (ERRP) Revised Application for Scientific Collectors Permit (SC# 190820002) Dear Jonathan, We very much appreciate your reaching out via email on November 19 regarding our application for a Scientific Collectors Permit (# SC 190820002) to take large adult Sacramento pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus grandis) in a key reach of the South Fork Eel River. You stated that “the Department would like to again extend an offer of assistance to the Eel River Recovery Project in developing a study that meets the needs of scientific rigor established in Fish and Game Code Section 1002 and the California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 650.” Toward that end, we have consulted Dr. Bret Harvey and Dr. Peter Moyle regarding the revision of our application to improve its scientific rigor. You are likely aware that these scientists are some of the foremost authorities on pikeminnow in the Eel River (Brown and Moyle 1991, 1997; Harvey and Nakamoto 1999, Harvey et al. 2002, 2004; Kinziger et al. 2014, Nakamoto and Harvey 2003, Reese and Harvey 2002, White and Harvey 2001). The revised study design is below and we are seeking feedback from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) scientists. Also, some new scientific information has emerged about Eel River steelhead genetics that has bearing on our application. The information below corresponds sequentially with CDFW reasons for permit denial in your email (in italics). 1) The SCP application lacked a sufficient description of a statistically defensible study design that will evaluate the impacts to the population structure of Sacramento Pikeminnow and the hypothesized response of the native fish community. After discussion of study design with Dr. Harvey, he shared a recently published paper (Christie et al. 2019) that compares the precision of results of various ecological study designs. Our original application for an SCP utilized a Before/After (BA) design, where we would simply compare the size distribution of pikeminnow before and after extraction in our entire 12-mile index reach. Christie et al. (2019) point out that utilizing a control reach for comparison with the treated reach, or a Before/After Control Impact (BACI) design, provides a much more powerful tool for judging impacts of treatments in Eel River Recovery Project Resubmission of SCP with Improved Study Design Page 1 ecological experiments. They found that the BACI designed studies performed 2.9–4.2 times better than BA studies. Therefore, ERRP is changing our study design to BACI from the previous BA design. The index reach of the South Fork Eel River from Rattlesnake Creek to Standish Hickey State Park is 12 miles long. Instead of extracting large adult pikeminnow from the entire 12 miles, we wish to leave the upper six-mile reach from Rattlesnake Creek to Cedar Creek (R1) as a control reach, and remove pikeminnow from the lower reach that extends from Cedar Creek to Standish Hickey State Park (R2). The BACI design lends itself to statistical analysis, which was a previously stated preference by CDFW. The full citation for Christie et al. (2019) is in the reference section and we are attaching a copy of the paper with this application. ERRP currently has four years of baseline data of high quality from volunteer dives that have included teams from the University of California Berkeley, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Arcata office, professional fisheries scientists and seasoned volunteers from seven years of previous ERRP dives, including for fall Chinook. There is some variability between R1 and R2 in terms of the number of pikeminnow supported annually (Table 1). The distribution of all size classes of pikeminnow greater than 4 inches in R1 versus R2 from 2016-2019 can be viewed as Figure 1. The proportion of larger pikeminnow greater than 12 inches in R1 and R2 from 2016 to 2019 varied more, with larger fish almost always more numerous in R2 (Figure 2), which is why R2 will be the treated reach and R1 will serve as the control reach. To reiterate from our SCP application, ERRP intends to continue trend monitoring for as long as our SCP extends to judge the impacts of large adult pikeminnow removal. If our SCP allows us to remove large pikeminnow in 2020, then the data collected in late June or early July 2021 for the 12-mile reach from Rattlesnake Creek to Standish Hickey State Park will be our first results. Dr. Harvey has volunteered to assist with the T-test we will be running to compare before and after data, similar to Taylor et al. (2006). We hope that our three-year SCP will be extended in 2023 and that we can continue this exercise for ten years, which is the life span of Sacramento pikeminnow. Table 1. ERRP pikeminnow data for South Fork Eel River from 2016-2019. Year R1 R2 Total Y2016 349 1067 1416 Y2017 399 774 1173 Y2018 807 662 1469 Y2019 263 351 614 2) Spearfishing is a lethal method and the Department concludes there is associated risk of lethal take of a CESA Candidate Species Summer Steelhead. In addition, the Department informed you prior to submitting the application that spearfishing was not a supported methodology for this project. The Department proposed alternative methods of take that would be considered for this activity including, hook and line, electrofishing, trapping, and netting. Eel River Recovery Project Resubmission of SCP with Improved Study Design Page 2 ERRP SF Eel Total Pikeminnow by Reach 2016-2019 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Y2016 Y2017 Y2018 Y2019 R1 R2 Figure 1. Total number of pikeminnow over 4 inches in length from Rattlesnake Creek to Cedar Creek (R1) and Cedar Creek to Standish Hickey State Park (R2) from ERRP dives 2016-2019. Location of Large Pikeminnow in SF Eel Index Reaches 2016-2019 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Y2016 Y2017 Y2018 Y2019 R1 R2 Figure 2. Total number of pikeminnow over 12 inches in length from Rattlesnake Creek to Cedar Creek (R1) and Cedar Creek to Standish Hickey State Park (R2) from ERRP dives 2016-2019. Eel River Recovery Project Resubmission of SCP with Improved Study Design Page 3 In a presentation at Humboldt State University on December 4, 2019, Samantha Kannry shared her findings on Eel River basin-wide genetic analysis of 1600 steelhead juvenile tissue samples. She confirmed via email (1/20/20) that she did not find any summer steelhead alleles in South Fork Eel River samples, which “means it is very unlikely that there are any there.” Therefore, the Department’s concern that we might accidentally kill an adult summer steelhead is moot. Your concern about incidental take of non-target species is unwarranted in that ERRP has the ability to draw from an elite corps of divers from the Humboldt Skindivers Association that can use scuba gear. These highly experienced divers are extremely unlikely to harvest any species other than pikeminnow. HSA members are assisting ERRP with recruitment of divers, training, and with creating a dive team extraction plan. Reconnaissance scuba dives will take place before extraction of large adults to practice species identification and to study how adult pikeminnow react to a team of scuba divers, including capturing video imagery with Go Pro cameras. While the original SCP called for use of Hawaiian slings, HSA members recommend the use of pole spears. These present less risk in terms of divers potentially spearing each other, which was previously a major concern for ERRP. Dr. Harvey highly recommends the use of block nets above and below pools and said that pikeminnow may leap over nets when agitated, so extraction teams need to be ready for such contingencies. CDFW wardens and biologists are welcome to oversee harvest activities. In our experience, hook and line methods for capture of the numbers of large adult pikeminnow needed for this study are not effective, and smaller, less piscivorous pikeminnow are often first to be caught. Furthermore, once one pikeminnow is hooked, it releases a pheromone that makes other pikeminnow less likely to bite. Work by Stillwater Sciences for the Wiyot Tribe in 2019 showed that baited traps are effective for capturing pikeminnow (Figure 3), but only smaller size classes (Abel Brumo, personal communication). Electrofishing would be ineffective and have potential undesirable side effects. Large adult pikeminnow in our 12-mile index reach are concentrated in just four pools greater than 25 feet deep that would be inaccessible to any electrofishing craft. In addition, electrofishing has a maximum depth effectiveness of about 10 feet, leaving any fish swimming deeper than that undisturbed. Also, electrofishing could have detrimental effect on native Sacramento suckers. The depth of the pools would also confound use of nets to capture large adult pikeminnow. Again, selective removal of large adult pikeminnow in these settings can only be carried out using scuba and spears, in conjunction with block nets at the top and bottom of the pool. 3) The issue of compensatory predation by smaller Sacramento pikeminnow, and other predatory animals, not targeted by spearfishing may have unintended consequences. A strong relationship between the size of pikeminnow and their prey limits the potential for “compensatory” predation by small pikeminnow when larger fish are removed (Nakamoto and Harvey 2003). There are also no robust data showing a negative relation between the abundance of large pikeminnow and intermediate-sized pikeminnow.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus Kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report
    Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission in partnership with the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Humboldt Redwood Company Summary Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Restoration Grant Program Grantee Agreement: P1210516 Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report Prepared by: David Lam and Sharon Powers December 2016 Abstract Monitoring of coho salmon population spatial structure was conducted, as a component of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Coastal Salmonid Monitoring Program, in the lower Eel River and its tributaries, inclusive of the Van Duzen River, in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Potential coho salmon habitat within the lower Eel River and Van Duzen River study areas was segmented into a sample frame of 204 one-to-three kilometer stream survey reaches. Annually, a randomly selected subset of sample frame stream reaches was monitored by direct observation. Using mask and snorkel, surveyors conducted two independent pass dive observations to estimate fish species presence and numbers. A total of 211 surveys were conducted on 163 reaches, with 2,755 pools surveyed during the summers of 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Coho salmon were observed in 13.5% of reaches and 7.5% of pools surveyed, and the percent of the study area occupied by coho salmon juveniles was estimated at 7% in 2013 and 2014, 3% in 2015, and 4% in 2016. i Table of Contents Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork Eel River & Tributaries PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC
    Management Agency: South Fork Eel River & Tributaries Bureau of Land Management ~ BLM Arcata Field Office PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC RIVERS University of California ~ Angelo Coast Range Reserve These proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers support threatened Location: Mendocino County and endangered populations of salmon and steelhead and CA 2nd Congressional District rare plants. They also provide outstanding research Watershed: opportunities of nearly pristine undeveloped watersheds. South Fork Eel River Wild & Scenic River Miles: South Fork Eel River – 12.3 miles South Fork Eel River—12.3 The South Fork Eel River supports the largest concentration Elder Creek—7 of naturally reproducing anadromous fish in the region. East Branch South Fork Eel River—23.1 Cedar Creek—9.6 Federal officials recently identified the river as essential for the recovery of threatened salmon and steelhead. The Outstanding Values: upper portion of this segment is located on the Angelo Anadromous fisheries, ecological, Biosphere Reserve, hydrological, wildlife, recreation Preserve managed for wild lands research by the University of California. Angelo Reserve access roads are open to For More Information: public hiking. The lower portion flows through the existing Steve Evans—CalWild [email protected] South Fork Wilderness managed by the BLM. The river (916) 708-3155 offers class IV-V whitewater boating opportunities. The river would be administered through a cooperative management agreement between the BLM and the State of California. Elder Creek – 7 miles This nearly pristine stream is a National Natural Landmark, Hydrologic Benchmark, and a UN-recognized Biosphere Reserve. A tributary of the South Fork Eel River, the creek is an important contributor to the South Fork’s anadromous Front Photo: South Fork Eel River fishery.
    [Show full text]
  • Thirsty Eel Oct. 11-Corrections
    1 THE THIRSTY EEL: SUMMER AND WINTER FLOW THRESHOLDS THAT TILT THE EEL 2 RIVER OF NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA FROM SALMON-SUPPORTING TO 3 CYANOBACTERIALLY-DEGRADED STATES 4 5 In press, Special Volume, Copeia: Fish out of Water Symposium 6 Mary E. Power1, 7 Keith Bouma-Gregson 2,3 8 Patrick Higgins3, 9 Stephanie M. Carlson4 10 11 12 13 14 1. Department of Integrative Biology, Univ. California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720; Email: 15 [email protected] 16 17 2. Department of Integrative Biology, Univ. California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720; Email: 18 [email protected]> 19 20 3. Eel River Recovery Project, Garberville CA 95542 www.eelriverrecovery.org; Email: 21 [email protected] 22 23 4. Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 24 94720; Email: [email protected] 25 26 27 Running head: Discharge-mediated food web states 28 29 Key words: cyanobacteria, discharge extremes, drought, food webs, salmonids, tipping points 30 31 Although it flows through regions of Northwestern California that are thought to be relatively well- 32 watered, the Eel River is increasingly stressed by drought and water withdrawals. We discuss how critical 33 threshold changes in summer discharge can potentially tilt the Eel from a recovering salmon-supporting 34 ecosystem toward a cyanobacterially-degraded one. To maintain food webs and habitats that support 35 salmonids and suppress harmful cyanobacteria, summer discharge must be sufficient to connect mainstem 36 pools hydrologically with gently moving, cool base flow. Rearing salmon and steelhead can survive even 37 in pools that become isolated during summer low flows if hyporheic exchange is sufficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Eureka Area Humboldt County, California
    Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Eureka Area Humboldt County, California By R, E. EVENSON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1470 Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1959 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. S EATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U. S. Geological Survey Library has cataloged this publication as follows: Evenson, Robert Edward, 1924- Geology and ground-water features of the Eureka area, Humboldt County, California. Prepared in cooperation with the California Dept. of Water Eesources. Washing­ ton, U. S. Govt. Print. Off., 1959 iv, 80 p. maps, diagrs., tables. 25 cm. (U. S. Geological Survey Water-supply paper 1470) Part of illustrative matter fold. col. in pocket. Bibliography: p. 77. 1. Water-supply California Humboldt Co. 2. Water, Under­ ground California Humboldt Co. i. Title: Eureka area, Hum­ boldt County, California. (Series) TC801.U2 no. 1470 551.490979412 GS 59-169 copy 2. GB1025.C2E9 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. CONTENTS Page Abstract___-_____-__--_--_-_-_________-__--_--_-_-______ ___ 1 Introduction._____________________________________________________ 2 Purpose and scope of the work________ _________________________ 2 Location and extent of the area_______________-_-__-__--________ 3 Previous work_______________________________________________ 3 Well-numbering system________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Eel River Recovery Project Rose Grassroots 2018 Final Report Lower Eel River Salmon Parkway: Restoration, Recreation and Education
    Eel River Recovery Project Rose Grassroots 2018 Final Report Lower Eel River Salmon Parkway: Restoration, Recreation and Education By Pat Higgins and Sal Steinberg for ERRP April 30, 2019 Eel River Recovery Project Rose Grassroots 2018 Final Report Lower Eel River Salmon Parkway: Restoration, Recreation and Education The Rose Foundation awarded the Eel River Recovery project a Grassroots grant: Lower Eel River Salmon Parkway - Restoration, Recreation and Education in June 2018. This grant was performed from August 2018 through January 2019 and tremendous strides were made towards achieving goals in terms of planning for adult Chinook salmon habitat improvement, promoting a river-side trail, and in connecting with Native American youth and sparking their interest in science and ecology. Accomplishments are reported by key deliverable. Restoration: Fostering Collaboration for Lower Eel River Habitat Improvement Eric Stockwell is a river and ocean kayak guide and a long-time Eel River Recovery Project (ERRP) volunteer. As a native of the lower Eel River, he has seen the river’s decline and feels passionate about restoring the area so that it can once again safely support the early run of the magnificent fall Chinook salmon. Eric began floating the river in a kayak and on stand-up paddleboard (SUP) in late August and visited the river daily until Thanksgiving. What he discovered was that half of the lower Eel River had been diverted around an island in the previous winter high water leaving only one salmon holding pool in a four-mile reach, and long, shallow riffles where salmon could strand when moving upstream.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.10 Eel Planning Unit Action Plan, Humboldt County CWPP Final
    HUMBOLDT COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN, 2019 EEL PLANNING UNIT ACTION PLAN Eel River. Photo: A River’s Last Chance (documentary, 2017). Chapter 4.10: Eel Planning Unit Action Plan HUMBOLDT COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN, 2019 Table of Contents – Eel Planning Unit Action Plan 4.10 Eel Planning Unit Action Plan 4.10.1 Eel Planning Unit Description ............................................................................................ 4.10-1 4.10.2 Eel Assets and Values at Risk ............................................................................................. 4.10-1 4.10.3 Eel Wildfire Environment .................................................................................................. 4.10-3 4.10.4 Eel Fire Protection Capabilities.......................................................................................... 4.10-6 4.10.5 Eel Evacuation ................................................................................................................... 4.10-8 4.10.6 Eel Community Preparedness ........................................................................................... 4.10-9 4.10.7 Eel Local Wildfire Prevention Plans ................................................................................. 4.10-10 4.10.8 Eel Community Identified Potential Projects .................................................................. 4.10-13 4.10.9 Eel Action Plan ................................................................................................................. 4.10-15
    [Show full text]
  • Eel River CCA Factsheet 2019
    CCA #6 Eel River Critical Coastal Area DESCRIPTION The Eel River flows from southeastern Mendocino County through southern Humboldt County to the Eel River Delta, 10 miles south of Humboldt Bay, with approximately 8 river miles within the coastal zone. Municipal, agricultural, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for threatened or endangered salmonids), and recreational uses are among the significant uses of this coastal watershed. Activities that may impair water quality in this Critical Mouth of the Eel River Coastal Area (CCA) watershed include illegal waste (Copyright © 2013 Kenneth & disposal; vehicle and railroad maintenance yard Gabrielle Adelman, California operations; herbicide application; gravel extraction; timber Coastal Records Project). harvesting; road building, operation, and maintenance For more photos, see the activities; dairy operations; automotive wrecking yard California Coastal Records activities; wood treatment facilities; publicly owned Project. treatment works; grazing; and failing septic systems. Waterbodies in this CCA that are listed as impaired on the current (2016) Clean Water Act 303(d) list are the Lower Eel River and Eel River Delta (impaired by sedimentation/siltation, water temperature, and aluminum); McNulty Slough in the Lower Eel River (impaired by dissolved oxygen); and Van Duzen River (impaired by sedimentation/siltation). Potential sources of these pollutants, organized by Source Categories, are listed as Agriculture (riparian and/or upland range grading); Silviculture (silviculture, harvesting/restoration/residue management, logging road construction/maintenance, and silvicultural point sources); Hydromodification (flow alteration/regulation/ modification, channel erosion, and streambank modification/destabilization); Habitat Modification (habitat modification, removal of riparian vegetation, and erosion/siltation); Construction/Land Development (construction/land development); Unspecified Nonpoint Source (nonpoint source); Natural Sources; and Source Unknown.
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork Eel River
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of the South Fork Eel River South Fork Eel River The South Fork Eel River is tributary to the Eel River and consists of about 104 stream miles. It flows north from headwaters about five miles south of Laytonville, through Mendocino and Humboldt Counties, entering the Eel River about 40.5 miles upstream from the Pacific Ocean. The river drains an area of about 689 square miles (DFG 1997a). Benbow Dam is located on the South Fork Eel River near the town of Benbow, about 40 miles upstream from the Eel River confluence. A fish ladder is in operation on the dam. Steelhead were planted in the South Fork Eel River as early as 1938. Stocking records from DFG indicate that 50,000 steelhead were stocked in the river on one date in 1938 (DFG 1938a). A hatchery that operated on Cedar Creek was responsible for several years of plantings that contributed significantly to the South Fork Eel River steelhead run. In 1958 and 1959 planted fish contributed 10.8 and 10.4 percent of the steelhead run over Benbow Dam, respectively (DWR 1974). A 1998 report on the impacts of the Potter Valley Project noted that most of the steelhead planting that took place in the Eel River drainage between 1956 and 1965 was done in the South Fork, and steelhead planting continued in the South Fork until 1995 (PG&E 1998). Staff from DFG surveyed several areas of the South Fork Eel River from 1938 through 1941. “Good” spawning areas and “excellent” pools and shelter were noted in several areas during these surveys and juvenile steelhead were present (DFG 1938b, DFG 1938c).
    [Show full text]
  • Sean Mitchell the Demise of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Charles R. Barnum History Award Entry
    Sean Mitchell The Demise of The Northwestern Pacific Railroad Charles R. Barnum History Award Entry 1 The Demise of The Northwestern Pacific Railroad Sean Mitchell Sitting on the outskirts of Old Town Eureka, between Waterfront Drive, and 2nd street, the sad remains of five diesel locomotives are slowly rusting away. They are covered in moss, graffiti and suffering from broken glass and boarded windows. The grass below them is growing high and the railroad tracks heading north to Arcata and south toward the bay area are paved over at road crossings. The railroad depot with the "Eureka" herald is boarded up and also covered in graffiti. Weeds and grass litter the parking lot, and the whole area is surrounded by chain link fence. It is a scene of desolation. The broken down depot, the sad looking locomotives, are all the indications of a failed infrastructure. These five engines weigh 240,000 pounds each, and are worth nearly $250,000 each in operating condition. Why would these expensive steel machines be left to rot? This was not a choice by the owners, nor was it a story without a struggle. What events led to the closure of this railroad? These tracks are the remains of the once great and vastly important Northwestern Pacific Railroad, known as the "Redwood Empire Route." The northern end of this railroad has not operated since 1998 and has since fallen into disrepair, particularly the 100 mile maintenance headache that is the Eel River corridor. Suffering from monetary issues, multiple private owners and finally an emergence into public ownership, the Northwestern Pacific has seen many phases.
    [Show full text]
  • THE EEL RIVER ACTION PLAN Beneficial Uses
    Eel River Forum The mission of the Eel River Forum is to coordinate and integrate conservation and recovery efforts in the Eel River watershed to conserve its ecological resilience, restore its native fish populations, and protect other watershed THE EEL RIVER ACTION PLAN beneficial uses. These actions are also intended to enhance the economic vitality and A COMPILATION OF INFORMATION sustainability of human communities in the Eel River AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS basin. PREPARED FOR Charter Members THE EEL RIVER FORUM California Trout CA Department of Fish and Wildlife PREPARED BY CA State Parks Coastal Conservancy EEL RIVER FORUM MEMBERS Eel River Recovery Project Eel River Watershed Improvement Group FINAL REPORT Environmental Protection Information Center MAY 2016 Friends of the Eel River Friends of the Van Duzen River Humboldt County Resource Conservation District Mendocino County Resource Conservation District National Marine Fisheries Service North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Pacific Gas and Electric Company Potter Valley Irrigation District Round Valley Indian Tribe Salmonid Restoration Federation Sonoma County Water Agency US Bureau of Land Management US Fish and Wildlife Service US Forest Service Wiyot Tribe Some Text Here. EEL RIVER ACTION PLAN FINAL REPORT 2016 2 | P a g e EEL RIVER ACTION PLAN FINAL REPORT 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 6 1: INTRODUCTION: THE EEL RIVER AND THE EEL RIVER
    [Show full text]
  • Sharp in the South Fork Eel River: the Next Step for Recovery Implementation
    SHaRP in the South Fork Eel River: The next step for Recovery Implementation Julie Weeder Recovery Coordinator NOAA Fisheries Bayside, CA NOAA NATIONAL MARINE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT Redway, CA 8/31/2017 FISHERIES SERVICE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 8/31/2017 1 ►A process to identify effective restoration within priority areas of salmon strongholds Salmon Habitat ►Opportunistic versus focused Restoration site selection Priorities ►Focus on certain creeks within a stronghold so resources will do the most good Bayside, CA NOAA NATIONAL MARINE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT Redway, CA LOCATION8/31/2017 FISHERIES SERVICE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 8/31/2017DATE 2 2 Existing Recovery Plans ►Recovery Plans for the area were released in 2014 and 2016. ►Different scale –watershed scale vs. tributary level ►Both short- and long-term actions vs. actions that will benefit immediately ►Single-species focus vs. all three species ►This effort builds on existing recovery plans. Bayside, CA NOAA NATIONAL MARINE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT Redway, CA 8/31/2017 FISHERIES SERVICE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 8/31/2017 3 Why the South Fork Eel River? ►Highest numbers of salmon in Eel River ►Most intact salmon and steelhead populations Bayside, CA NOAA NATIONAL MARINE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT Redway, CA 8/31/2017 FISHERIES SERVICE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 8/31/2017 4 ►Insert map of SF Eel showing subwatersheds Why SHaRP in the South ►Active Fork Eel? restoration community ►Large area ►Show results Bayside, CA NOAA NATIONAL MARINE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT Redway, CA 8/31/2017 FISHERIES SERVICE OF FISH AND
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecology and Distribution of Steelhead in the Eel River
    The Ecology and Distribution of Steelhead in the Eel River Samantha Kannry Master’s Student Ecology Graduate Group University of California, Davis The Van Duzen River has a small remnant run of summer steelhead. In California there are two distinct runs of steelhead, winter and summer. Summer steelhead in the Middle Fork Eel The Eel River is currently the southernmost extent of summer steelhead in California. The Eel River is extremely erosive and characterized by many large, complex stretches of “roughs”. Historic Counts of summer steelhead in the Van Duzen averaged an order of magnitude lower than what we have observed. Van Duzen River Summer Steelhead Counts 300 250 200 150 100 Number Number of Individuals 50 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year Many questions have remained unanswered regarding current and historic distribution of steelhead in the Eel River. • Are Van Duzen summer steelhead an independent population? • Is Eaton Falls a complete barrier to anadromy? • Do summer and winter-run fish spawn and rear in different locations? • Would the resident trout population above Scott Dam be a good restoration source if the dam were to be removed? Dip-netting proved to be the most effective method to obtain sufficient samples. Total number of Basin Number of Sites samples • High spatial distribution Van Duzen 29 480 • Young of the year sampling • 2 years of sampling Middle Fork 13 183 Upper Eel 8 173 Total = 836 Genetic analyses provide useful tools for addressing ecological questions. • Laboratory preparation • Rapture • Overall differentiation, OMY5 and GREB1L Many questions have remained unanswered regarding current and historic distribution of steelhead in the Eel River.
    [Show full text]