DOCSLIB.ORG

(Oncorhynchus Mykiss) Resources of the Eel River Watershed, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(Oncorhynchus Mykiss) Resources of the Eel River Watershed, California Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Resources of the Eel River Watershed, California July 2009 Gordon S. Becker Isabelle J. Reining Cartography by David A. Asbury Prepared for California State Coastal Conservancy Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Resources of the Eel River Watershed, California Gordon S. Becker Isabelle J. Reining Cartography by David A. Asbury This report should be cited as: Becker, G.S. and Reining, I.J. 2009. Steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) resources of the Eel River watershed, California. Cartography by D.A. Asbury. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... p. 1 Methods .......................................................................................................................................................................................... p. 5 Results Steelhead resources of the Eel River watershed .................................................................................................................................. p. 9 Steelhead resources of the lower Eel River ......................................................................................................................................... p. 12 Steelhead resources of the Van Duzen River ...................................................................................................................................... p. 47 Steelhead resources of the South Fork Eel River ................................................................................................................................ p. 77 Steelhead resources of the middle Eel River ...................................................................................................................................... p. 177 Steelhead resources of the North Fork Eel River ............................................................................................................................... p. 201 Steelhead resources of the Middle Fork Eel River.............................................................................................................................. p. 221 Steelhead resources of the upper Eel River ........................................................................................................................................ p. 275 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................................................... p. 333 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................................... p. 339 Appendices A. Characterization of Water Year Types for Water Years 1911 – 2008 .............................................................................................. p. 341 B. Number of Steelhead Captured Annually at the Van Arsdale Fisheries Station Upstream Migrant Trap from 1933 – 2008 .......... p. 343 Index of stream names .................................................................................................................................................................... p. 345 i Tables Table 1. Distribution status and population features of O. mykiss in streams of the lower Eel River .................................................. p. 39 Table 2. Distribution status and population features of O. mykiss in streams of the Van Duzen River ............................................... p. 71 Table 3. Distribution status and population features of O. mykiss in streams of the South Fork Eel River ......................................... p. 163 Table 4. Distribution status and population features of O. mykiss in streams of the middle Eel River ................................................ p. 195 Table 5. Distribution status and population features of O. mykiss in streams of the North Fork Eel River ......................................... p. 215 Table 6. Distribution status and population features of O. mykiss in streams of the Middle Fork Eel River ....................................... p. 267 Table 7. Distribution status and population features of O. mykiss in streams of the upper Eel River.................................................. p. 325 Table 8. Summary of O. mykiss distribution and related features in the Eel River basin .................................................................... p. 333 Figures Figure 1. Study area .......................................................................................................................................................................... p. 3 Figure 2. Historical status of O. mykiss in streams of the lower Eel River, California ......................................................................... p. 43 Figure 3. Current status of O. mykiss in streams of the lower Eel River, California ............................................................................ p. 45 Figure 4. Historical status of O. mykiss in streams of the Van Duzen River, California ...................................................................... p. 73 Figure 5. Current status of O. mykiss in streams of the Van Duzen River, California ......................................................................... p. 75 Figure 6. Historical status of O. mykiss in streams of the South Fork Eel River (northern section) .................................................... p. 169 Figure 7. Current status of O. mykiss in streams of the South Fork Eel River (northern section) ....................................................... p. 171 Figure 8. Historical status of O. mykiss in streams of the South Fork Eel River (southern section)..................................................... p. 173 Figure 9. Current status of O. mykiss in streams of the South Fork Eel River (southern section) ....................................................... p. 175 Figure 10. Historical status of O. mykiss in streams of the middle Eel River ...................................................................................... p. 197 Figure 11. Current status of O. mykiss in streams of the middle Eel River ......................................................................................... p. 199 Figure 12. Historical status of O. mykiss in streams of the North Fork Eel River ............................................................................... p. 217 Figure 13. Current status of O. mykiss in streams of the North Fork Eel River .................................................................................. p. 219 Figure 14. Historical status of O. mykiss in streams of the Middle Fork Eel River ............................................................................. p. 271 Figure 15. Current status of O. mykiss in streams of the Middle Fork Eel River ................................................................................ p. 273 Figure 16. Historical status of O. mykiss in streams of the upper Eel River ........................................................................................ p. 329 Figure 17. Current status of O. mykiss in streams of the upper Eel River ........................................................................................... p. 331 ii INTRODUCTION Researchers characterizing the distribution of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) face a variety of challenges on a path to an inherently imperfect result. Most Eel River streams have not been systematically and consistently surveyed, and the historical survey record is dispersed and incomplete. There can be no doubt, however, that compiling a comprehensive set of historical references is a valuable step in any process of stream and steelhead restoration. This volume represents our attempt to synthesize available information to establish an authoritative record of steelhead distribution in streams of the Eel River watershed. These streams support the winter (ocean-maturing) and summer (stream-maturing) steelhead ecotypes as well as the non-anadromous, or resident, form of rainbow trout1. We conducted our analysis using the methods of Leidy et al. (2005), as this study (of San Francisco Estuary tributaries) has proven useful to resource agency staff, planners, consulting biologists, scientists, and interested members of the public. The method of Leidy et al. (2005) in turn was based on the approach of Titus et al. (in prep.) in examining coastal streams south of San Francisco. In short, this report presents a distillation of a substantial amount of readily available, reliable information regarding steelhead and steelhead habitat. As such, it is intended to serve as a comprehensive, stream-by-stream steelhead resources reference for the community of people working with these issues in the Eel River watershed. Our analysis describes presence/absence and other natural history and habitat features in specific streams to contribute to the understanding of how steelhead resources may have changed over time. Despite strong public interest in the conservation and restoration of anadromous salmonids in the Eel River, and substantial efforts toward improving habitat, these populations remain
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Upper Main Eel River and Tributaries (Including
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX FINAL Upper Main Eel River and Tributaries (including Tomki Creek, Outlet Creek and Lake Pillsbury) Total Maximum Daily Loads for Temperature and Sediment Approved by date Original signed December 29, 2004 Alexis Strauss Director, Water Division Note: For further information please contact Palma Risler at 415/972-3451 and [email protected] or Dan Pingaro at 415/977-4275 and [email protected] Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Overview - 1 1.2. Watershed Characteristics - 2 1.3. Endangered Species Act Consultation - 4 1.4. Organization - 4 CHAPTER 2: PROBLEM STATEMENT 2.1. Fish Population Problems - 5 2.2. Temperature Problems - 7 2.3. Sediment Problems - 14 2.4. Water Quality Standards - 17 CHAPTER 3: TEMPERATURE TMDL 3.1. Interpreting the Existing Water Quality Standards for Temperature - 18 3.2. Temperature Modeling - 20 3.2.1 Temperature and Solar Radiation Modeling - 21 3.2.2 Selection of Scenario Corresponding to Water Quality Standards - 24 3.3.1 Loading Capacity and TMDL – Solar Radiation for all stream reaches - 26 3.3.2 Shade Allocations - 26 3.3.3 Margin of Safety - 27 3.3.4 Seasonal Variation and Critical Conditions - 27 3.4 Instream Heat TMDL – Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek - 28 3.4.1 Selection of Scenario Corresponding to Water Quality Standards - 34 3.4.2 Water Quality Indicators – Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek - 34 3.4.3 Instream Heat Loading Capacity and TMDL - Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek- 34 3.4.4 Instream Heat Allocations – Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek - 35 3.4.5 Margin of Safety - 35 3.4.6 Seasonal Variation and Critical Conditions - 35 CHAPTER 4: SEDIMENT TMDL 4.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Geomorphometric Delineation of Floodplains and Terraces From
    Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 369–385, 2017 https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-369-2017 © Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Geomorphometric delineation of floodplains and terraces from objectively defined topographic thresholds Fiona J. Clubb1, Simon M. Mudd1, David T. Milodowski2, Declan A. Valters3, Louise J. Slater4, Martin D. Hurst5, and Ajay B. Limaye6 1School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9XP, UK 2School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Crew Building, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JN, UK 3School of Earth, Atmospheric, and Environmental Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK 4Department of Geography, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK 5School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, East Quadrangle, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK 6Department of Earth Sciences and St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA Correspondence to: Fiona J. Clubb ([email protected]) Received: 31 March 2017 – Discussion started: 12 April 2017 Revised: 26 May 2017 – Accepted: 9 June 2017 – Published: 10 July 2017 Abstract. Floodplain and terrace features can provide information about current and past fluvial processes, including channel response to varying discharge and sediment flux, sediment storage, and the climatic or tectonic history of a catchment. Previous methods of identifying floodplain and terraces from digital elevation models (DEMs) tend to be semi-automated, requiring the input of independent datasets or manual editing by the user. In this study we present a new method of identifying floodplain and terrace features based on two thresholds: local gradient, and elevation compared to the nearest channel.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Opens a New Window
    3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section provides information regarding impacts of the proposed project on hydrology and water quality. The information used in this analysis is taken from: ► Water Supply Assessment for the Humboldt Wind Energy Project (Stantec 2019) (Appendix T); ► Humboldt County General Plan (Humboldt County 2017); ► North Coast Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (North Coast IRWMP) (North Coast Resource Partnership 2018); ► Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan) (North Coast RWQCB 2018); ► the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Mapping Program (2018); ► National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data; and ► California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater (DWR 2003). 3.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CLIMATE AND PRECIPITATION Weather in the project area is characterized by temperate, dry summers and cool, wet winters. In winter, precipitation is heavy. Average annual rainfall can be up to 47 inches in Scotia (WRCC 2019). The rainy season, which generally begins in October and lasts through April, includes most of the precipitation (e.g., 90 percent of the mean annual runoff of the Eel River occurs during winter). Precipitation data from water years 1981–2010 for Eureka, approximately 20 miles north of the project area, show a mean annual precipitation of 40 inches (NOAA and CNRFC 2019). Mean annual precipitation in the project area is lowest in the coastal zone area (40 inches per year) and highest in the upper elevations of the Upper Cape Mendocino and Eel River hydrologic units to the east (85 inches per year) (Cal-Atlas 1996). The dry season, generally May through September, is usually defined by morning fog and overcast conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Butte Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive River Management Plan Environmental Assessment
    Black Butte Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive River Management Plan Environmental Assessment Recreation & Visual Resource Report Prepared by: Shannon Pozas For: Covelo Ranger District Mendocino National Forest Service 1 August 2017 Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Purpose and Need................................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Overview of Issues & Issue Indicators ................................................................................... 4 1.4 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Mendocino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan – LRMP .............................. 5 1.6 Forest Niche ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Black Butte River and Cold Creek Segments .......................................................................... 6 2.2 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ...................................................................... 6 2.3 Visual Quality Objectives ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eel River Cooperative Cyanotoxin Analysis Summary 2013-2017
    Eel River Cooperative Cyanotoxin Analysis Summary 2013-2017 By: Eli Asarian and Patrick Higgins Edited by: Diane Higgins Performed for: The Eel River Recovery Project August 2018 Business Sponsors of ERRP Cyanotoxin Analysis Thanks to Individual Crowdfunding Donors and Those Who Contributed Off-line to Support ERRP Cyanotoxin Work: Barbara & David Sopjes Dr. Andrew Stubblefield Mary Power Ree Slocum Bill Dietrich Ben Middlemiss Dean & Sharon Edell Judy Schriebman Jack Crider Daron Pedroja Tim Talbert Gil Anda Ken Miller Will Parrish Dani Walthall Chris McBride Zane and Amanda Ruddy Christina Tran Brett Lovelace Sarah Ottley Ken Vance-Borland Karen & Scott Welsh Thomas Daugherty Pureum Kim Keith Bouma-Gregson Alex Christie Lee McClellan Matthew Amberg Charlie Liphart Eric Damon Walters April Mason Amy Collette Jason Hartwick Marissa Adams Kristin McDonald John Filce Carl Zichella Robert Leher Thanks also to experiment.com, our crowdfunding host that raises funds for scientific research throughout the World: https://experiment.com/projects/when-does-the-eel-river-turn-toxic- patterns-in-cyanotoxin-occurrence-2013-2016. This study was postponed a year so we could collect 2017 cyanotoxin data. Thanks for your patience. Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Background
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River
    A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored by Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting August 1996 Steiner Environmental Consulting Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Quality P. O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored By Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 August 1996 (707) 743-1815 (707) 743-1816 f«x [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Introduction This report gathers together the best available information to provide the historical and current status of chinook salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, and steelhead in the Russian River basin. Although the historical records are limited, all sources depict a river system where the once dominant salmonids have declined dramatically. The last 150 years of human activities have transformed the Russian River basin into a watershed heavily altered by agriculture and urban development. Flows in the main river channel river are heavily regulated. The result is a river system with significantly compromised biological functions. The anthropogenic factors contributing to the decline of salmonids are discussed. Study Area The 1,485 square mile Russian River watershed, roughly 80 miles long and 10 to 30 miles wide, lies in Mendocino, Sonoma, and Lake counties. The basin topography is characterized by a sequence of northwest/southeast trending fault-block ridges and alluvial valleys. Lying within a region of Mediterranean climate, the watershed is divided into a fog-influenced coastal region and an interior region of hot, dry summers.
    [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]
  • Sedimentation of Lake Pillsbury Lake County California
    Sedimentation of Lake Pillsbury Lake County California GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1619-EE Prepared in cooperation with the State of California Department of fFater Resources Sedimentation of Lake Pillsbury Lake County California By G. PORTERFIELD and C. A. DUNNAM CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1619-EE Prepared in cooperation with the State of California Department of fFater Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1964 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Paw Abstract___________________________________________ EEl Introduction._____________________________________________________ 2 Location and general features--___-__-____-_-_-_---__--_--_---_- 2 Purpose and scope_____________________________________________ 2 Acknowledgments ________________'__________________--_-_______ 2 Drainage basin.___________________________________________________ 3 Physiography and soils.._______________________________________ 3 Climate ______________________________________________________ 4 Vegetation__ _--_-_____________-_-___---___-----__-_-_-_-____ 5 Dam and reservoir_____-__-__-_____________-______-___-_-__-_-_-_ 5 Dam_________________________________________________________ 5 Datum.______________________________________________________ 7 Reservoir___________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural and Historic Resources Assessment and Management Plan Analysis Report (R2018050800003)
    1 Cultural and Historic Resources Assessment and Management Plan Analysis Report (R2018050800003) Black Butte River and Cold Creek Segments Black Butte River Wild and Scenic River Mendocino National Forest November 2017 Purpose The comprehensive Management Plan for the Black Butte and Cold Creek Wild and Scenic River (WSR) establishes programmatic management direction for the WSR corridor. It has been developed to implement the direction of the Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968 as amended in the 2006 Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act (Public Law 109-362) to include 19.5 miles of the Black Butte River and 1.5 miles of Cold Creek. The WSR Act established a system for preserving outstanding free-flowing rivers. A defined section in Section 1(b) of the WSR Act: “certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreations, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations” (PL 90-542, 1968). The WSR Act requires the Forest Service to develop a comprehensive WSR Management Plan for the Black Butte and Cold Creek to protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable fish and cultural/historic values. The WSR Management Plan will guide all development, management, and restoration activities within the WSR corridor. It includes standards and guidelines from the Proposed Action Alternative, an Implementation Plan with a list of possible projects, and a Monitoring Plan. The standards and guidelines are a statement of the WSR Management Plan’s management direction; however, the potential projects from the implementation plan are estimates and depend on site-specific NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) analysis and the agency’s budgeting process.
    [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]
  • An Estimation of Potential Salmonid Habitat Capacity in the Upper Mainstem Eel River, California
    AN ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL SALMONID HABITAT CAPACITY IN THE UPPER MAINSTEM EEL RIVER, CALIFORNIA By Emily Jeanne Cooper A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Natural Resources: Environmental and Natural Resource Science Committee Membership Dr. Alison O’Dowd, Committee Chair Dr. James Graham, Committee Member Dr. Darren Ward, Committee Member Dr. Alison O’Dowd, Graduate Coordinator May 2017 ABSTRACT AN ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL SALMONID HABITAT CAPACITY IN THE UPPER MAINSTEM EEL RIVER, CALIFORNIA Emily Jeanne Cooper In Northern California’s Eel River watershed, the two dams that make up the Potter Valley Project (PVP) restrict the distribution and production of anadromous salmonids, and current populations of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead trout (O. mykiss) in the upper mainstem Eel River are in need of recovery. In anticipation of the upcoming FERC relicensing of the PVP, this project provides an estimation of the extent of potential salmonid habitat and its capacity for steelhead trout and Chinook Salmon in the upper mainstem Eel River watershed above the impassable Scott Dam. Using three fish passage scenarios, potential Chinook Salmon habitat was estimated between 89-127 km (55-79 mi) for spawning and rearing; potential steelhead trout habitat was estimated between 318-463 km (198-288 mi) for spawning and between 179-291 km (111-181 mi) for rearing. Rearing habitat capacity was modeled with the Unit Characteristic Method, which used surrogate fish density values specific to habitat units (i.e. pools, riffles, runs) that were adjusted by measured habitat conditions.
    [Show full text]