Sonoma Creek Watershed Historic Salmonid Habitat and Abundance GIS Mapping Project

Final Report

Arthur Dawson, Director Sonoma Valley Historical Ecology Project Sonoma Ecology Center January 2005

This project was funded by the California Department of Fish and Game, Salmon and Steelhead Trout Restoration Program; and the Bella Vista Foundation.

CONTENTS

Overview and Methods 1

Interpretation and Findings 2

Restoration Goals Suggested by the Historic Data 4

Sources 5

TABLES 7

Comparison of Steelhead Trout Population Densities, 1966- 2002 Comparison of Total Steelhead Trout Population, 1966 and 2002

MAPS: 9

Combined Trout Population and Nursery Habitat, 1966 Combined Trout Population and Nursery Habitat, 1974-1977 Fish Passage Barriers, 1946-1977 Constructed Fish Passage Barriers, 1946-1977 Steelhead Spawning Habitat, 1966 Steelhead Spawning Habitat, 1974-1977 Trout Population Change, 1960s-1970s Steelhead Spawning Streams and Redd Locations, c. 1930-1977 Fishing Popularity, c. 1920-1970 Steelhead/Rainbow Trout Catch, 1948-1978 Summer Water Temperatures, 1946-1977 Sonoma Creek Watershed 2002 Fall Fish Census

OVERVIEW

Data from several historical sources was mapped in Arcview/GIS to track changes in steelhead trout population and habitat in the Sonoma Valley watershed between the 1920s and 2002. Maps and tables were created from the data to inform current restoration efforts underway in the watershed.

METHODS

Information from California Department of Fish and Game Stream Surveys between 1946 and 1977 was mapped using Arcview/GIS. This data included fish population, spawning and rearing habitat, flow, temperature, passage barriers, cover, land-use and other aspects. As the level of detail was low, and the area covered by early DFG surveys (1946 – 1961) was a small fraction of the watershed, maps were not created from this data. Data from the 1960s and ‘70s was substantial enough to allow comparison between those two periods, as well as with the most recent fish census done by the SEC in 2002.

Fish catch numbers from Jordan Basileu’s “Fishin’ and Huntin’” column in the Sonoma Index-Tribune (1948 – 1978) as well as information from the SEC’s Oral History Report (2002) was also mapped using Arcview/GIS. This information supplements the DFG data and extends the picture back to the 1920s. To map the information from the Oral History Report, the comments of the elders were given numerical values. Enthusiastic responses, such as “that creek always had fish,” received high scores, while less enthusiastic answers scored lower. First-hand observation was scored higher than second-hand information.

In some cases, information from several sources was combined into one map, as in first- hand observations of redds, which were made by both elders and DFG stream surveyors. In DFG surveys from the 1960s and ‘70s, some areas rated high as nursery habitat had low trout populations, suggesting that some aspect(s) of habitat were not being accounted for. It was decided to combine nursery habitat data with fish population data to create a more accurate picture of nursery habitat at those times.

INTERPRETATION & FINDINGS

Two major difficulties arose when comparing the historical data with modern data:

• Timing of the surveys: DFG surveys were made from spring through fall. Spring fish counts should yield higher numbers than fall counts. The 2002 census was done in October and November, at the very end of the dry season and thus representing the lowest numbers of the year. Thus a lower population in 2002 may not represent a true decline in numbers; it may just reflect seasonal variability.

• Sampling techniques: DFG surveys used visual, above-the-surface fish counts, the surveyors usually walking an entire tributary in a day. The 2002 census was done using both underwater snorkel counts and electrofishing. Electrofishing yielded counts as much as 4 times higher than snorkel counts (Pier, 2005). It’s likely that snorkel counts yield higher numbers than visual counts. Thus DFG surveys probably should be multiplied by some factor to accurately compare them with recent surveys.

Keeping the above limitations in mind, the following assessments can be made:

Habitat Stability: Some reaches and tributaries have apparently maintained habitat quality and population better than others (see Table 1 and maps). These include:

Bear Creek Calabazas Creek Graham Creek Carriger Creek, middle reach Sonoma Creek, Reach 4—Graham to Yulupa Reach 5—Yulupa upstream 4564 feet Reach 7—Fisher to Felton

Population Decline: Within the area covered in the 2002 census, population shows an apparent decrease 5-25%, since 1966. Using only those reaches with specific counts from 1966 yields a 20% decline. Because of the limitations delineated above, the actual drop may be greater than this (see Table 2).

Lack of current data for reaches and tributaries below Madrone Road in Glen Ellen, make it impossible to evaluate population changes in the middle and lower watershed.

Data from oral histories and newspaper reports tends to corroborate DFG surveys and extends the picture back to the 1920s and ‘30s. For example, the reach of Sonoma Creek between Graham and Yulupa Creeks rates high in “Fishing popularity” according to oral histories, “Steelhead caught” according to newspaper accounts, and a high fish count in the DFG survey of the area.

Causes of population decline: A variety of possible causes for decreases in population have occurred on those streams showing a drop in steelhead trout numbers. These include: passage barriers created by culverts themselves and/or erosion below culverts, passage barriers created by dams, summer dewatering caused by diversion of springs or well drilling, human-caused channel changes, habitat degradation caused by sediment, landslides and floods, and spawning habitat degradation due to unknown causes.

One of the most significant causes was likely a dam constructed at the Sonoma Developmental Center. According to local elders, this created a complete passage barrier for several years in the early 1970s, cutting off steelhead from much of the watershed’s prime spawning and rearing habitat. Another dam on the main stem was constructed in the 1950s near the site of present-day Larson Park. While it is believed to have been a summer flashboard dam and not a complete barrier, its remaining concrete base still poses a partial barrier to upstream migration.

Timing of population decline: Anecdotal evidence indicates 1955 to 1977 as a period of decline for steelhead trout populations in Sonoma Valley streams. Rodgers Creek is said to have begun its decline in the 1950s, three other tributaries in the 1960s, three more in the 1970s, and the main stem of Sonoma Creek declined substantially between 1961 and 1971.

Rearing habitat: Some decline in rearing habitat is evident. The most obvious loss is the lower ¾ mile of Yulupa Creek, listed as fair to good summer rearing habitat in the 1960s and ‘70s. With the exception of a few isolated pools, this reach of Yulupa Creek is now a dry channel at that season. Further analysis of other reaches could be done with the historic data already input into Arcview/GIS and compared with recent habitat surveys.

Spawning habitat: Because there was little comparative data, no analysis was made directly from Stream Surveys. Oral histories suggest that small streams which were “off the radar” for DFG surveys, may have held some importance as spawning habitat. Specifically, Pythian Creek, at the very upstream end of the watershed, and a small unnamed tributary in Kenwood both were reported as spawning streams in the 1930s by local elders. These and other small streams (some probably ephemeral), may have been an important component of spawning habitat and may be worth consideration for restoration projects.

Temperature—no analysis made

RESTORATION GOALS SUGGESTED BY THE HISTORIC DATA

• Monitoring. Several tributaries and reaches appear to have maintained population levels and habitat quality since 1966. These may be close to their potential and thus may not respond as much as more degraded streams. Monitoring may be the best approach for these streams, which include:

*most of Sonoma Creek above Glen Ellen *Calabazas Creek—above passage barrier *Graham Creek—lower reach *Carriger Creek—middle reach (see census suggestion below) *Sonoma Creek in Agua Caliente area *Bear Creek

• Evaluate small and even ephemeral streams for spawning habitat restoration, especially if this is believed to be a limiting factor.

• Look into the possibility of “rewatering” lower Yulupa Creek.

• Stuart Creek—removal of passage barrier

• Graham Creek—removal of passage barrier(s)

• Rodgers Creek—removal of passage barrier

• Dowdall Creek—removal of passage barrier

• Conduct a fish census on Carriger Creek’s middle reach to see if its fish population has changed since the 1970s.

• On the upper mainstem, generally considered some of the best habitat in the watershed, Adobe Canyon has shown the highest population decline since 1966. Explore the possible causes and potential restoration projects.

SOURCES

California Department of Fish and Game. 1946. “Stream Survey. Graham Creek.” August 30. O.S. Curtis, Surveyor.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1946. “Stream Survey. Sonoma Creek.” August 14. Leo Shapovalov and Ray Bruer.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1957. “Stream Survey. Sonoma Creek.” February 4. R.F. Elwell.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1959. “Stream Survey. Graham Creek.” December 4. John S. Day.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1960. “Field Notes. Graham Creek.” January 11, February 9, and April 26. John S. Day.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1961. “Stream Survey. Calabazas Creek.” January 16 and 18. John S. Day.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1965. “Field Notes. Sonoma Creek.” George Nelson.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1965. “Field Notes. Calabazas Creek.” July 8. Chuck Culley.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1965. “File Note. Survey of Sonoma Creek and Tributaries.” July 6. Frederick Meyer, Fishery Biologist III. Includes data from Tolay, Sonoma, Nathanson, Carriger, and Rodgers Creeks.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1966. Field Maps of Sonoma Creek Watershed with Notations. June 21. No author given.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1966. “A Reconnaisance Report of Proposed Water Projects in the Sonoma Creek Drainage, Sonoma County.” Kevin Rockwood. Includes data from Agua Caliente, Asbury, Calabazas, Carriger, Graham, Hooker, Rodgers, Schell, Sonoma, Stuart and Yulupa Creeks.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1974. “Stream Survey. Nathanson Creek.” September 12. Barbara Lincoln, Seasonal Aide.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1975. “Stream Survey. Stuart Creek.” October 17. Charles Holstine and Ron Tyler.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1975. “Stream Survey. Calabazas Creek.” September 12. Mark Coleman and Ron Tyler.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1976. “Stream Survey. Arroyo Seco Creek.” June 15 and 28. Charles Pinkham, Seasonal Aide.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1976. “Stream Survey. Carriger Creek.” March 25. Curtis Steitz and Richard Johnson.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1976. “Stream Survey. Graham Creek.” August 13. Charles Pinkham, Seasonal Aide.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1976. “Stream Survey. Schell Creek.” June 24. Charles Pinkham, Seasonal Aide.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1976. “Stream Survey. Yulupa Creek.” July 23. Charles Pinkham, Seasonal Aide.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1977. “Field Note. Sonoma Creek.” March 1 and 7. Sally Spingla, Laboratory Assistant and Jane Webb, Seasonal Aide.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1977. “Stream Survey. Dowdall Creek.” August 25. Weldon E. Jones, Assistant Fishery Biologist.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1977. “Stream Survey. Haraszthy Creek.” June 16. Jane Webb, Seasonal Aide.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1977. “Stream Survey. Hooker Creek.” April 14. Jane Webb, Seasonal Aide, and Sally Spingla, Laboratory Assistant.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1977. “Stream Survey. Wilson Creek.” April 1 and 7. Sally Spingla, Laboratory Assistant, and Jane Webb, Seasonal Aide.

Pier, Will. 2005. Personal communication.

Poggetto, Dal. 2003. Unpublished interview. Related use of Yulupa Creek as steelhead spawning stream as reported by a friend.

Sonoma Ecology Center. 2002. “Oral History Report.”

Union of Concerned Anglers. c. 1990. “Report from the Union of Concerned Anglers.” Contains excerpts from Jordan Basileu’s “Fishin’ and Huntin’” column, Sonoma Index-Tribune, 1948-1978.

Table 1: Comparison of Steelhead Trout Population Densities, 1966- 2002 *general estimate for whole Glen Ellen to Kenwood reach **interpreted from table CREEK or REACH 1966 1974-77 2002 Possible Cause for decline Bold = little change DFG DFG SEC Average Trout/foot stream Agua Caliente— 0 -- lower -- Agua Caliente— present -- -- upper Arroyo Seco—lower 0 0 -- Arroyo Seco—upper present 0 -- Low summer flows—DFG report Asbury 0.03 0 -- Arnold Drive culvert BEAR 0.15 -- 0.14 CALABAZAS 0.19 0.2 0.15 average Calabazas--lower 0.1 (0.2) (0.15) Calabazas--middle 0.35 (0.2) (0.15) Calabazas--upper 0.02 (0.2) (0.15) Carriger—lower 0 0.1 -- CARRIGER— 0.3 0.27 -- middle Carriger—upper 0 0.1 -- Dowdall present 0 -- Diversion/passage GRAHAM--lower 0.08 0.5 0.15 GRAHAM—upper -- present 0.15 Hooker--lower present 0 -- ??? Nathanson—lower 0 0.27 -- Nathanson—upper present 0.27 -- Redwood present -- -- Rodgers—lower 0 -- -- Rodgers—lower 0.15 -- -- Barrier—old dam middle Rodgers—upper 0 -- -- Rodgers—upper present -- -- Barrier—old dam middle Sonoma 1 0.25** -- 0.14 Sonoma 2 0.25** -- 0.11 Sonoma 3 0.075 -- 0.04 Sediment/landslides, 1986 flood SONOMA 4 0.3 -- 0.26 SONOMA 5 0.25 – 0.6* -- 0.32 Sonoma 6 0.25 – 0.6* -- -- SONOMA 7 0.25 – 0.6* -- 0.5 Sonoma 8 0.25 – 0.6* -- 0 ??? Sonoma 9 0.4 -- 0.21 Adobe Canyon Sonoma—Boyes 0.125 -- Blvd to Agua -- Caliente Road Stuart—lower present 0.013 -- Barrier—Picchinini Bridge Stuart—upper 0.32 0.1 -- Barrier—Picchinini Bridge Wilson -- 0 -- Yulupa—lower 0.075 <0.1 0 Summer dewatering Yulupa—upper 0 0 0 Summer dewatering

Table 2: Comparison of Total Steelhead Trout Population, 1966 and 2002 REACH Length Density Estimated Density Estimated Comments on from 2002 (ft) 2002 Pop 1966 Pop 1966 data census (fish/foot) 2002 (fish/foot) 1966 Sonoma 1 4161 0.14 570 .25 1040 interpreted from table Sonoma 2 7811 0.11 844 .25 1953 interpreted from table Sonoma 3 6320 0.04 265 .075 474 count Sonoma 4 6391 0.26 1642 0.3 1917 count Sonoma 5 4564 0.32 1481 0.25 – 0.6 1140-2736 estimate Sonoma 6 5763 No data No data 0.25 – 0.6 (1441-3458) estimate Sonoma 7 10725 0.5 5355 0.25 -0.6 2681 - 6435 estimate Sonoma 8 3709 0.00 0 0.25 – 0.6 (927–2225) estimate Sonoma 9 8318 0.21 1731 0.4 3328 count Calabazas 1 20123 0.15 2978 0.19 3823 count Bear 1 2801 0.14 400 0.15 420 count Graham 1 11075 0.15 1629 0.075 831 Count. Was 0.5 in 1976 survey Totals 16896 17607- 5 – 25% 22957 decrease Counting only reaches with counts from 1966: Sonoma 3,4,9 3644 5719 35% decrease Calabazas, Bear & Graham 5007 5074 No change Totals 8651 10793 20% decrease

k e COMBINED TROUT POPULATION re C

r AND NURSERY HABITAT

S a

O e Sonoma Valley Watershed, 1966

N B

M compiled from California Department of Fish and Game

A Whole Watershed Report

C R

E E KENWOOD K s baza Creek Yu H ala Nursery Class Trout/100 feet stream lu W C pa Y Class 3 Unsuitable (Lethal) C 1 re 2 Class 1 or 2 No trout noted ek Class 1 or 2 Low numbers k ee Class 1 2-7.5 Cr art Class 1 or 2 10-15 Stu Class 1 30-40 k Class 1 or 2 25-60 generalized count e

e k r not surveyed e GLEN C re r Major Roads C e ELLEN k

m o

h k o k NURSERY CLASSES

e e

a e H r r e

G y C r Class 1 Adequate r C bu k Class 2 Marginal As A e r e Class 3 Unsuitable (Lethal) n r o e C t o l C d n c a n e e rr D li o ig r a s S e iv C n r/ e a o F a h y t o u o w g a r l r e A N r A C re e k

R o d g SONOMA e rs C re e k 16 1 k HW Y e Y 1 HW re 21 C lin p H m ha W

C Y

N T ol ay C re ek

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

S a AND NURSERY HABITAT

O e

N B Sonoma Valley Watershed, 1974-77

O M compiled from California Department of Fish and Game

A Stream Surveys

C R

E E K KENWOOD s k Nursery Class Trout/100 feet stream baza Cree Yu H Cala lu W Class 1 50 pa Y C 1 Class 1 15 - 40 re 2 ek No class given 15-40 k Class 2 20 ee Cr Class 1 10 - 15 art Stu No class given 5-10 k Class 1 or not given low numbers

e Surveyed no fish noted k GLEN r Not surveyed e C re r C e ELLEN k Major Roads

m o

a k o k h e e

a e H

r r e C r

G y r C bu k As A e r e n r o e C t o C l d n c a n e e rr D li o ig r a s S e i n r v C / e a o F a h y o t w u o g a r le r r A N C A re e k

R o d g SONOMA e rs C re e k 16 1 k H Y e WY W re 121 H C in pl m H ha W

C Y

2 N 1

T ol ay C re ek

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

S a in California Department of Fish and Game

O e

N B

O % Stream Surveys, 1946-1977

A with information from the Oral History Report

C R

E E Barrier Type K KENWOOD s ek baza Cre S# Culvert; Partial H ala ##$$$ %[ Y W C % Dam; Complete ulup a C Y % Dam; Flashboard re 1 # ek 2 % Dam; Partial %[ % 0# Fish Ladder; Partial % ek #%$ Cre $ Logjam % rt # tua %[ Road Crossing; Complete % S %[ % k Road Crossing; Unspecified $ e # Waterfall; Complete e k $% r e $%%% GLEN # Waterfall; Partial e $%$% % C r r C % e ELLEN k Major Roads m #$$

a % o

h k o k Dates refer to complete passage barrier

a e e

r e H and year of mention r e

G y C r r C bu k s e A A % r e n r o e C t o l C d n # c a n e e rr D li o ig r a s S e iv % C n r/ e a o F # a h y o # t $ u o w g a r l % r e A N r A C % re e %[ k S#0 % A R M o O$ d N % g O e S rs C % re e k

16 1 k HW Y e Y 1 HW re 21 C in pl m H ha W

C Y

2 N 1 T ol ay C re ek

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

r CONSTRUCTED FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS

S a

O e (Culverts, Dams, etc.)

N B

O # by Date of First Record M

A Sonoma Valley Watershed C

R compiled from E California Department of Fish and Game Y E u K KENWOOD lu Stream Surveys, 1946-1977 pa zas Creek C aba # r H Cal ee W k Y 1 2 # # # k # ree # rt C First Year of Record # ua # St # k # 1946 - 1959 e

e # r # ### GLEN 1965 - 1966 ## # C r # e # 1974 - 1977 ELLEN k

o # k

k k e e

e e H Major Roads e r e

r y C r C r C bu k s e m A A a # e h r r a n r o te C o l G c d n n

C e e a D li o r r a s S r i n ig v # C e e a o r a h y / t F u o o g a r w # r A N le A r C # re ## e # R k # o d g e rs # C SONOMA re e k #

H 6 k WY 11 e 121 Y re W C H lin p H

m W ha C Y

2 N 1 T ol ay C re ek

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

S a 1966

O e

N B

O Sonoma Valley Watershed

A C compiled from

R California Department of Fish and Game E Stream Surveys E KENWOOD K s k baza Cree Yu H ala lu W C pa Y C 1 re 2 ek Spawning Class ek Cre Class I: Good (20% spawning gravels or more) rt Class I to II ua St Class II: Fair (5-20% spawning gravels) k Class II to III e

e Class III: Poor (less than 5% spawning gravels) r k GLEN above barrier e C e r r not surveyed C e ELLEN k

m o

a k o k Major Roads h e e

e H

ra r e C r

G y r C bu k As A e r e n r o e C t o C l d n c a n e e rr D li o ig r a s S e iv C n r/ e a o F a h y o t w u o g a r le r r A N C A re e k

R o d g SONOMA e rs C re e k 16 1 k HW Y e Y 1 HW re 21 C lin p H m ha W

C Y

T N ol ay C re ek

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

S a

O e 1974-1977

N B

O Sonoma Valley Watershed M A

C compiled from R California Department of Fish and Game E E Stream Surveys K KENWOOD s ek Yu baza Cre lu H Cala pa W C Y re 1 ek 2 eek Cr % gravels Spawning class art Stu 1 - 4: Class III Poor k e 5 - 9: e Class II Fair k GLEN r 9 - 20 e C re r 21 - 30 C e Class I Excellent ELLEN k 31 - 60

m o

a k o k h e e

e H

ra r e not surveyed C r

G y r C bu k As A e Major Roads r e n r o e C t o C l d n c a n e e rr D li o ig r a s S i n e v C r/ e a o F a h y o t w u o g a r le r r A N C A re e k S R O o d N g O e rs M C A re e k 16 1 k HW Y e Y 1 HW re 21 C lin p H m ha W

C Y

T ol ay N C re ek

1 0 1 2 3 4 Miles

S a

O e Sonoma Valley Watershed

N B

O 1960s - 1970s M

C compiled from 1 R

9 California Department of Fish and Game E 7

1 E Stream Surveys K KENWOOD zas Creek Yu H laba lup Ca 19 a W 77 Cre or ek Y la 1 ter 2 Severe decline (70 - 99%) k Moderate decline (33% or less) ree rt C No change ua 7 St 96 Modest increase (up to 100%) 1 k 5 e 7 High increase (more than 100%) k e e GLEN r 9 1 e C Not surveyed in both periods r r C e ELLEN k m

a o Major Roads

h k o k a e e

r re H

C 3 e 6 r

G ury 19 b C As k e A r e n r Dates indicate year of decline o e C t o C l 1 d n n c as reported by local residents a 7 e e r D i o r l 9 i s S g r a 1 e i n r v C / e a o F a h y o t w u o g a r le r D A N r ow A C dall C re reek e 1968 k

R o d SONOMA g e 1 rs 9 5 C 5 re e k 16 1 k H Y e WY W re 121 H C in pl m H ha W

C Y

N 2

T ol ay C re ek 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

S AND REDD LOCATIONS

P a

O e y

t # N B Sonoma Valley Watershed h

i a M n A c. 1930 - 1977

C compiled from r e California Department of Fish and Game e

k Stream Surveys

C and the Oral History Report R # KENWOOD Sonoma Ecology Center, 2002 E # E s k baza Cree Yu K H Cala lu W pa Y

Cr 1 ee 2 k #

ek Spawning Rating (see below)

Cre rt no record Increa^ sing

ua Evidence

St 1.00 ^

k 2.00 - 2.50 # e ^ e 2.51 - 3.00 r k GLEN # C 3.50 - 4.00 e r e r e C ELLEN k # Redd location, first-hand observation

m o

a k o k Major Roads e e

h e H a r e

r y C r G r C bu # k As A e r e n r o e C t o l C d n c a n e e rr D li o ig r a s S i n e v C r/ e a o F a h y t o u o w g a r l r e A N r A C re e k

R o d g SONOMA e rs C re e k

16 1 k HW N Y e Y 1 HW re 21 C lin p H m ha W

C Y

2 1 0 1 2 3 4 1

T ol Miles ay C re ek

Data from the Oral History Report and Department of Fish and Game surveys were scored as follows:

4 = First-hand observation as spawning stream with identified redd 3 = First-hand observation as spawning stream 2 = First-hand observation of steelhead 1 = Second-hand observation of steelhead

Responses for a tributary or reach were averaged to create the rating used in the legend, except where a first-hand observation was made Copyright 2005 Sonoma Ecology Center. of a redd. In such cases, a 4.0 rating was given without averaging. Cartography by Arthur Dawson k FISHING POPULARITY e re c. 1920-1970 C

S a Sonoma Valley Watershed

O e

N B

O Main Stem and Tributaries

A C compiled from the Oral History Report

R Sonoma Ecology Center, 2002 E E K KENWOOD s baza Creek Yu H ala lu W C pa Y Rating (see below) C 1 re 2 ek 0 (no mention) k ee Cr 1.00 - 1.50 LOW art Stu 2.00 k

e 2.25 - 2.50

e k r e GLEN 2.51 - 3.00 C e r r 3.50 - 4.00 C e HIGH ELLEN k

m o

h k o k Major Roads e e

a e H r r e

G y C r r C bu k As A e r e n r e C o t o l C d n c a n e e rr D li o ig r a s S e iv C n r/ e a o F a h y t o u o w g a r l r e A N r A C re e k

R o d g SONOMA e rs C re e N k

16 1 k HW Y e Y 1 HW re 21 C in pl m H ha W 1 0 1 2 3 4 C Y

2 Miles 1

T ol ay C Elders' responses were scored as follows: re ek 4 = Very enthusiastic, "great fishing," "always got fish" etc. 3 = Positive, "good fishing," "went there often," etc. 2 = Fished it, first-hand observation or "friends caught lots of fish." 1 = Second-hand observation, "friends fished it," etc. 0 = no mention

S a

O e Sonoma Valley Watershed

N B

O M compiled from Department of Fish and Game

A Stream Surveys

C R

E E K KENWOOD s k baza Cree Trout/100 feet stream Yu H Cala lu W pa Y low numbers, no count C 1 re 2 ek 8 - 13 eek 20 - 27 Cr art 50 Stu k

e surveyed, no fish noted

e k r e GLEN C not surveyed re r C e ELLEN k

m o

h k o k Major Roads e e

a e H r r e

G y C r r C bu k As A e r e n r o e C t o l C d n c a n e e rr D li o ig r a s S i n e v C r/ e a o F a h y t o u o w g a r l r e A N r A C re e k

R o d g SONOMA e rs C re e k

16 1 k HW Y e Y 1 HW re 21 C lin p H m ha W

C Y

N T ol ay C re ek

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

r STEELHEAD/RAINBOW TROUT CATCH

S a

O e Sonoma Valley Watershed

N B

O as reported by Jordan Basileu

A in the Sonoma Index-Tribune

C 1948-1978 R

E E K KENWOOD s baza Creek Yu H Cala lu W pa Y C 1 re 2 Total Number Trout Caught ek 1948-1978 k ee Cr no mention art Stu mentioned/assumed* k 25 - 35 e

e 73 k r e GLEN C 139 - 141 re r C e 209 - 211 ELLEN k m o

h k o k Major Roads

e e

a e H r r e

G y C r *Creek noted for having steelhead/rainbow trout, r C but with no specific count, or presence u k b assumed from non-specific "Sonoma Creek" tally. As A e r e n r o e C t o l C d n c a n e e rr D li o ig r a s S i n e v C r/ e a o F a h y t o u o w g a r le r r A N C A re e k

R o d g SONOMA e rs C re e k

16 1 k HW Y e Y 1 HW re 21 C in pl m H ha W C Y

T N ol ay C re ek

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

S a

O e Sonoma Valley Watershed

N B

O # compiled from M

A # C California Department of Fish and Game

R # Stream Surveys

E E K KENWOOD s k baza Cree Yu H ala # # lu W C pa Y # Temperature Suitability for Rearing C 1 (F) (from MWAT) re 2 # ek # 56 - 59: ideal k # # ree 60 - 63: good # t C # 64 - 66: fair; growth reduced uar St # 67 - 74: poor; growth significantly reduced k # e 75 + : potentially lethal # e # GLEN r k # C e # r Major Roads re e C ELLEN k

# o

m k o k

a e e

e H h r e

ra y C r r C G bu k As A e r e n r o e C t o C l d n c a n # e # e rr D # li o ig r # a s S # n e iv C r/ e a o F a h y o t w u o g a r l r e # A N r # A C # re e # # k # # #

R o d # g SONOMA e rs C # re # e k 16 1 k # HW Y e Y 1 HW re 21 C lin p H m ha W

C Y

T ol ay N C re ek

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

Sources: stream locations: USGS 1:24000

and SEC; slope: USGS 10m DEM; fish population census: SEC and Entrix, 2002-2003;

fish sightings: SEC

e k ee r r C 34 C r a n e

o t B l

30 31

Sonom a C eek k r ree C 32 a k m e e o r n C o

S r e h 28 is F ek re C y e r

An na d e l k C e r 26 e e r ek C s Y a R ul z edwood C upa C a reek re b e a k l

reek C

t r

24 a u 23 t S

k e k e e

r 22 e C r

r C n e ler k e ek h C o Z e e r o r e o H e ek C k e K r C

a r h e Sampling Sites 21 l

a t r k k k

G e u e Method re e re

B C e C ry r an u E-fish b C tm s n i A 20 o h ls W i Snorkel Mill Creek k W e e ek r Snorkel/E-fish re rone C C Ma d C o te r n Fish Density (#/ft) ee e n k 19 u ie

l q Electrofish Only e a

0.0 - 0.1 P a C Agu 0.1 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.3 Winkle 18 C 0.3 - 0.4 r k e e e e 0.4 - 0.5 k r C C Stations (every mile) a n

r o s r n i Major Roads a h g 17 t e a r Cr ee N k owdall D Cr eek