DOCSLIB.ORG

Shasta River Longitudinal Baseline Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shasta River Longitudinal Baseline Assessment Longitudinal Baseline Assessment of Salmonid Habitat Characteristics of the Shasta River, March through September, 2008 Jeffrey F. Mount, Peter B. Moyle, and Michael L. Deas, Principal Investigators Project Team: Carson A. Jeffres (Project Team Lead), Andrew L. Nichols, Ann D. Willis, Nicholas J. Corline, Aaron M. King, Robert A. Lusardi, Randy A. Dahlgren Report prepared for: United States Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Basin Area Office Center for Watershed Sciences University of California, Davis • One Shields Avenue • Davis, CA 95616 1 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary................................................................................................ 4 2.0 Introduction........................................................................................................... 13 3.0 Background........................................................................................................... 14 4.0 Project Area .......................................................................................................... 15 4.1 Study Sites ........................................................................................................ 18 5.0 Baseline Assessment Overview............................................................................ 20 6.0 Geomorphology .................................................................................................... 20 6.1 Methods............................................................................................................. 21 6.2 Channel Gradient .............................................................................................. 21 6.3 Channel Cross-section Morphology ................................................................. 23 6.4 Bed Material...................................................................................................... 27 6.5 Summary........................................................................................................... 28 7.0 Hydrology............................................................................................................. 28 7.1 Methods............................................................................................................. 29 7.2 Data Analysis.................................................................................................... 32 7.3 Summary........................................................................................................... 35 8.0 Water Temperature ............................................................................................... 36 8.1 Methods............................................................................................................. 36 8.2 Data Analysis.................................................................................................... 37 8.3 Summary........................................................................................................... 51 9.0 Water Quality........................................................................................................ 52 9.1 Methods............................................................................................................. 52 9.2 Data Analysis.................................................................................................... 52 9.3 Summary........................................................................................................... 61 10.0 Aquatic Vegetation ............................................................................................... 61 10.1 Methods............................................................................................................. 62 10.2 Filamentous Algae ............................................................................................ 62 10.3 Aquatic Macrophytes........................................................................................ 63 10.4 Summary........................................................................................................... 65 11.0 Benthic Macroinvertebrates.................................................................................. 65 11.1 Methods............................................................................................................. 66 11.2 Taxonomic Determination ................................................................................ 66 11.3 Invertebrate Abundance.................................................................................... 66 11.4 Functional Feeding Groups (FFG).................................................................... 67 11.5 Summary........................................................................................................... 70 12.0 Salmonid Habitat Usage ....................................................................................... 70 12.1 Methods............................................................................................................. 71 12.2 Steelhead........................................................................................................... 71 12.3 Chinook............................................................................................................. 73 12.4 Coho.................................................................................................................. 73 12.5 Summary........................................................................................................... 75 13.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 75 14.0 References............................................................................................................. 77 2 Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the following people who provided support, either directly or indirectly, to the Longitudinal Baseline Assessment of Salmonid Habitat Characteristics of the Shasta River. We would like to thank the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Basin Area Office for their support of this research. This project would not have been possible if not for private land owners granting permission for researchers to study the Shasta River on their property. For access we would like to thank Dave Fontius, The Nature Conservancy, California, the Freeman Family, Bob and Laurie Manley, and Dave Webb for facilitating access. Bill Chesney, and Chris Adams and the California Department of Fish and Game for sharing their expertise on coho sampling, habitat assessment, and general life history, and fish collection in the Shasta River. We would also like to thank Joe Kiernan and Sue Maurer for study design and data collection; Ben Lamb for sample collection and tireless laboratory work; Robyn Suddeth, Nickilou Krigbaum, and Bruce Hammock for field data collection. Finally, we also appreciate Stacy Tanaka for her valuable editing suggestions. Recommended Citation: Nichols, A.L., C.A Jeffres, A.D. Willis, N.J. Corline, A.M. King, R.A. Lusardi, M.L. Deas, J.F. Mount, and P.B. Moyle. 2010. Longitudinal Baseline Assessment of Salmonid Habitat Characteristics of the Shasta River, March to September, 2008. Report prepared for: United States Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Basin Area Office. 3 1.0 Executive Summary Introduction The Shasta River in Siskiyou County, California may be one of the Klamath River’s more exceptional tributaries (CDFG 2004, Deas 2004, NRC 2004) with regards to salmonid fish production. The river receives more than half of its annual flow from spring complexes that sustains year-round baseflow, and in summer provides cold water to support over-summering lifestages for coho salmon. These springs, fed by groundwater recharge from rainfall and snowmelt on Mount Shasta, are unique in that they are nutrient-rich and fuel highly productive aquatic food webs (Jeffres et al. 2009). These naturally occurring conditions provide a level of resilience to the Shasta River, suggesting a high potential for significant and immediate response to restoration and conservation actions supporting salmonids. Beginning in 2007, the University of California, Davis Center for Watershed Sciences (UC Davis), in cooperation with Watercourse Engineering, Inc. (Watercourse), completed a Year-In-The-Life physical and biological assessment of the Shasta River on The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) Nelson Ranch (Jeffres et al. 2008). While this study concluded that the Shasta River had high potential to support salmonid populations, its observations were limited to a single, 8 kilometer river reach. This limited spatial assessment provided little indication of whether additional river reaches could also function as viable salmonid habitat, nor could it identify the potential range of underlying causes regarding the key impairment in the system: elevated water temperatures. This report extends the aforementioned baseline study of the Shasta River on the Nelson Ranch to five additional stream sites (Figure 1), including the principal cold-water, spring-fed tributary, Big Springs Creek. Findings are presented from data gathered over the 2008 field season (March through September). With two sites above and three sites below Nelson Ranch, this study presents the longitudinal physical and biological characteristics of the Shasta River and is the most comprehensive study to date of one of the more resilient tributaries in the Klamath River basin. The goal of this study was to provide the baseline information necessary to guide and evaluate restoration
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mainstem Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Redd Survey 2012
    1,839U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arcata Fisheries Data Series Report DS 2014-39 Mainstem Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Redd Survey 2012 Mark Magneson and Philip Colombano U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 882-7201 November 2014 Disclaimers Funding for this study was provided by the Klamath River Habitat Assessment Study administered by the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office. Disclaimer: The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal government. The Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Program reports its study findings through two publication series. The Arcata Fisheries Data Series was established to provide timely dissemination of data to local managers and for inclusion in agency databases. The Arcata Fisheries Technical Reports publishes scientific findings from single and multi-year studies that have undergone more extensive peer review and statistical testing. Additionally, some study results are published in a variety of professional fisheries journals. Key words: Chinook salmon, Klamath River, redd, escapement, spawning survey. The correct citation for this report is: Magneson, M.D., and P. Colombano. 2014. Mainstem Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Redd Survey 2012. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata Fisheries Data Series Report Number DS 2014-39, Arcata, California. ii Table of Contents page Introduction ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UKTR Chinook Biological Review Team
    Upper Klamath and Trinity River Chinook Salmon Biological Review Team Report Williams1, T. H., J. C. Garza1, N. Hetrick2, S. T. Lindley1, M. S. Mohr1, J. M. Myers3, M. R. O’Farrell1, R. M. Quiñones4, and D. J. Teel3 1 National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, California. 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California. 3 National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington. 4 U.S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California. December 2011 ii Table of Contents List of Figures.................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v 1. Background..................................................................................................................... 1 2. ESU Configuration.......................................................................................................... 2 3. Biological Status of Upper Klamath and Trinity River Chinook Salmon ESU............ 11 4. Conclusions................................................................................................................... 25 5. References..................................................................................................................... 27 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Two generalized patterns of evolution of life-history
    [Show full text]
  • Estimation of Stream Conditions in Tributaries of the Klamath River, Northern California
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arcata Fisheries Technical Report TR 2018-32 Estimation of Stream Conditions in Tributaries of the Klamath River, Northern California Christopher V. Manhard, Nicholas A. Som, Edward C. Jones, Russell W. Perry U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-7201 January 2018 Funding for this study was provided by a variety of sources including the Klamath River Fish Habitat Assessment Program administered by the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls Area Office. Disclaimer: The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Program reports its study findings through two publication series. The Arcata Fisheries Data Series was established to provide timely dissemination of data to local managers and for inclusion in agency databases. Arcata Fisheries Technical Reports publish scientific findings from single and multi- year studies that have undergone more extensive peer review and statistical testing. Additionally, some study results are published in a variety of professional fisheries aquatic habitat conservation journals. To ensure consistency with Service policy relating to its online peer-reviewed journals, Arcata Fisheries Data Series and Technical Reports are distributed electronically and made available in the public domain. Paper copies are no longer circulated.
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15
    Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15: Final 2019 Water Quality Monitoring Study Plan Prepared: January 16, 2019 KHSA IM15 2019 STUDY PLAN Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................. 1 2. Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 3 3. Monitoring Components ................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 4 3.2 Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ....................................... 4 4. Quality Assurance, Data Management, and Dissemination ............................................ 5 4.1 KHSA Program Quality Assurance Strategy for 2019 ............................................. 5 5. Sampling Constituents and Frequency............................................................................ 7 5.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 7 5.2 Comprehensive Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ............. 9 6.0 References ................................................................................................................... 13 List of Figures Figure 1. 2019 KHSA IM 15 monitoring stations .............................................................. 2 List of Tables
    [Show full text]
  • Little Shasta River 2017-2019: Pre-Project Assessment of the Proposition 1 Ecosystem Restoration Grant Activities
    Little Shasta River 2017-2019: Pre-Project Assessment of the Proposition 1 Ecosystem Restoration Grant Activities Authors: Amber Lukk, Priscilla Vasquez-Housley, Robert Lusardi, Ann Willis Report prepared for: California Trout and California Wildlife Conservation Board December 2019 Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods........................................................................................................................................... 4 Hydrologic Year Type ................................................................................................................. 4 Discharge ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Water Temperature ...................................................................................................................... 5 Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 5 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates ........................................................................................................ 6 Fish Presence/Absence ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Age-Specific Escapement, River Harvest, and Run Size Estimates, 2020 Run
    1 Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Age-Specific Escapement, River Harvest, and Run Size Estimates, 2020 Run Klamath River Technical Team 15 February 2021 Summary The number of Klamath River fall Chinook Salmon returning to the Klamath River Basin (Basin) in 2020 was estimated to be: Run Size Age Number Proportion 2 9,077 0.17 3 37,820 0.69 4 7,579 0.14 5 8 0.00 Total 54,484 1.00 Preseason forecasts of the number of fall Chinook Salmon adults returning to the Basin and the corresponding post-season estimates are: Adults Preseason Postseason Sector Forecast Estimate Pre / Post Run Size 59,100 45,400 1.30 Fishery Mortality Tribal Harvest 8,600 5,200 1.65 Recreational Harvest 1,300 5,100 0.25 Drop-off Mortality 800 600 1.33 10,700 10,900 0.98 Escapement Hatchery Spawners 12,200 8,300 1.47 Natural Area Spawners 36,200 26,200 1.38 48,400 34,500 1.40 2 Introduction This report describes the data and methods used by the Klamath River Technical Team (KRTT) to estimate age-specific numbers of fall Chinook Salmon returning to the Basin in 2020. The estimates provided in this report are consistent with the Klamath Basin Megatable (CDFW 2021) and with the 2021 forecast of ocean stock abundance (KRTT 2021). Age-specific escapement estimates for 2020 and previous years, coupled with the coded-wire tag (CWT) recovery data from Basin hatchery stocks, allow for a cohort reconstruction of the hatchery and natural components of Klamath River fall Chinook Salmon (Goldwasser et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nelson Ranch Located Along the Shasta River Has Two Flow Gaging
    Baseline Assessment of Salmonid Habitat and Aquatic Ecology of the Nelson Ranch, Shasta River, California Water Year 2007 Jeffrey Mount, Peter Moyle, and Michael Deas, Principal Investigators Report prepared by: Carson Jeffres (Project lead), Evan Buckland, Bruce Hammock, Joseph Kiernan, Aaron King, Nickilou Krigbaum, Andrew Nichols, Sarah Null Report prepared for: United States Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Area Office Center for Watershed Sciences University of California, Davis • One Shields Avenue • Davis, CA 95616-8527 Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................2 2. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................6 3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................6 4. SITE DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................................................................7 5. HYDROLOGY.....................................................................................................................................................8 5.1. STAGE-DISCHARGE RATING CURVES .......................................................................................................9 5.2. PRECIPITATION........................................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Yurok Final Brief
    Case 3:16-cv-06863-WHO Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 22 JEFFREY H. WOOD, Acting Assistant Attorney General 1 Environment & Natural Resources Division 2 SETH M. BARSKY, Chief S. JAY GOVINDAN, Assistant Chief 3 ROBERT P. WILLIAMS, Sr. Trial Attorney KAITLYN POIRIER, Trial Attorney 4 U.S. Department of Justice 5 Environment & Natural Resources Division Wildlife & Marine Resources Section 6 Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7611 7 Washington, D.C. 20044-7611 Tel: 202-307-6623; Fax: 202-305-0275 8 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 9 10 Attorneys for Federal Defendants 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 YUROK TRIBE, et al., ) 15 Case No. 3:16-cv-06863-WHO ) 16 Plaintiff, ) ) 17 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE v. ) TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ 18 ) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, et al., ) JUDGMENT AND/OR STAY OF 19 ) ENFORCEMENT (ECF No. 101) Defendants, ) 20 ) 21 and ) ) 22 KLAMATH WATER USERS ) ASSOCIATION, et al., ) 23 ) 24 Defendant-Intervenors. ) 25 26 27 28 1 Federal Defendants’ Response to Intervenors’ Motion for Relief 3:16-cv-6863-WHO Case 3:16-cv-06863-WHO Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 22 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5 4 A. Hydrologic Conditions In Water Year 2018 5 5 B. 2013 Biological Opinion Requirements for Suckers 5 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 7 A. Given Hydrologic Conditions, Guidance Measures 1 8 and 4 Cannot Both Be Implemented As They Were Designed Without Impermissibly Interfering With 9 Conditions Necessary to Protect Endangered Suckers 7 10 1.
    [Show full text]
  • SHASTA REPORT Final Cannon
    Removal of Dwinnell Dam and Alternatives Draft Concepts Report Prepared by Thomas Cannon Prepared for Karuk Tribe December 2011 1 Abstract Passage of salmon and steelhead to the upper Shasta River was blocked by the construction of Dwinnell Dam in 1928. Approximately 22 percent of the salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing habitat of the Shasta River was lost with the construction of the dam and reservoir. Spring run Chinook salmon that depended more on the upper watershed became extinct, while fall run Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead suffered severe declines in numbers from the loss of the upper watershed and long-term degradation of lower watershed habitats. Passage to the upper river could be restored by installing a fish ladder on the dam, trapping and hauling fish around the reservoir, dam removal, or providing a bypass route around the reservoir. These four alternatives are evaluated in this report. All four alternatives would require substantial habitat restoration including development of water supplies and improvements to spawning and rearing habitat and fish passage both above and below the Dam to achieve all the potential benefits. There are approximately 12 miles of accessible habitats to salmon and steelhead above Dwinnell Dam in the mainstem Shasta River, plus a similar amount in tributary creeks. There are approximately 16 miles of accessible habitat in Parks Creek. Dam removal would allow access to all of these habitats, including 4 miles in the reservoir reach, plus improve access and habitat to the six miles of Shasta River below the Dam. Ladder and Trap-and-Haul alternatives would allow access to only 8 additional miles of the upper Shasta River.
    [Show full text]
  • Shasta River Chinook and Coho Salmon Observations in 2013 Siskiyou County, CA
    California Department of Fish and Wildlife Final Report Klamath River Project August 14, 2014 Shasta River Chinook and Coho Salmon Observations in 2013 Siskiyou County, CA Prepared by: Diana Chesney and Morgan Knechtle California Department of Fish and Wildlife Klamath River Project 1625 S. Main Street Yreka, CA 96097 (530) 841-1176 1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Final Report Klamath River Project August 14, 2014 Shasta River Fish Counting Facility, Chinook and Coho Salmon Observations in 2013 Siskiyou County, CA ABSTRACT A total of 8,021 fall run Chinook salmon (Chinook, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) were estimated to have entered the Shasta River during the 2013 spawning season. An underwater video camera was operated in the flume of the Shasta River Fish Counting Facility (SRFCF) twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, from August 28, 2013 until December 9, 2013, when the weir sustained structural damage from ice build-up and was removed. The first Chinook was observed on September 9, 2013 and the last Chinook on December 3, 2013. KRP staff also processed a total of 512 Chinook carcasses during spawning ground surveys (of which 469 were used in fork length histograms), 65 Chinook carcasses as wash backs against the SRFCF weir (a systematic 1:10 sample), and 45 live Chinook in a trap immediately upstream of the video flume during the season. Chinook carcasses sampled in the spawning ground surveys ranged in fork length (FL) from 43 cm to 100 cm and grilse were determined to be < 59 cm in FL. Males ranged in FL from 43 to100 cm.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 10/01/2020 to 12/31/2020 Klamath National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 10/01/2020 to 12/31/2020 Klamath National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring Nationwide Locatable Mining Rule - 36 CFR - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2021 12/2021 Nancy Rusho 228, subpart A. Orders DEIS NOA in Federal Register 202-731-9196 EIS 09/13/2018 [email protected] Est. FEIS NOA in Federal Register 11/2021 Description: The U.S. Department of Agriculture proposes revisions to its regulations at 36 CFR 228, Subpart A governing locatable minerals operations on National Forest System lands.A draft EIS & proposed rule should be available for review/comment in late 2020 Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=57214 Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. These regulations apply to all NFS lands open to mineral entry under the US mining laws. More Information is available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/geology/minerals/locatable-minerals/current-revisions. R5 - Pacific Southwest Region, Occurring in more than one Forest (excluding Regionwide) Six Rivers Hazardous Fuels and - Wildlife, Fish, Rare plants Developing Proposal Expected:06/2021 09/2021 Carol Spinos Fire Management Project - Vegetation management Est. Scoping Start 11/2020 707-441-3561 EA (other than forest products) [email protected] *UPDATED* - Fuels management Description: The Fuels & Fire Project would authorize a set of manual and mechanical land management tools to prepare our landscapes for up to 8,000 acres of prescribed burning every year.
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Age-Specific Escapement, River Harvest, and Run Size Estimates, 2018 Run
    Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Age-Specific Escapement, River Harvest, and Run Size Estimates, 2018 Run Klamath River Technical Team 14 February 2019 Summary The number of Klamath River fall Chinook Salmon returning to the Klamath River Basin (Basin) in 2018 was estimated to be: Run Size Age Number Proportion 2 11,114 0.11 3 86,717 0.84 4 5,567 0.05 5 9 0.00 Total 103,407 1.00 Preseason forecasts of the number of fall Chinook Salmon adults returning to the Basin and the corresponding post-season estimates are: Adults Preseason Postseason Sector Forecast Estimate Pre / Post Run Size 91,900 92,300 1.00 Fishery Mortality Tribal Harvest 18,100 14,800 1.22 Recreational Harvest 3,500 4,100 0.85 Drop-off Mortality 1,600 1,300 1.23 23,200 20,200 1.15 Escapement Hatchery Spawners 27,900 18,600 1.50 Natural Area Spawners 40,700 53,600 0.76 68,600 72,200 0.95 Introduction This report describes the data and methods used by the Klamath River Technical Team (KRTT) to estimate age-specific numbers of fall Chinook Salmon returning to the Basin in 2018. The estimates provided in this report are consistent with the Klamath Basin Megatable (CDFW 2019) and with the 2019 forecast of ocean stock abundance (KRTT 2019). Age-specific escapement estimates for 2018 and previous years, coupled with the coded-wire tag (CWT) recovery data from Basin hatchery stocks, allow for a cohort reconstruction of the hatchery and natural components of Klamath River fall Chinook Salmon (Goldwasser et al.
    [Show full text]