HISTORICAL REVIEW OF EEL RIVER ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS, WITH EMPHASIS ON CHINOOK SALMON, COHO SALMON AND STEELHEAD A Report Commissioned by California Trout, 2010 Ronald M. Yoshiyama and Peter B. Moyle Center for Watershed Sciences University of California, Davis Davis, CA 95616 February 1, 2010 R. M. Yoshiyama Page - 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was made possible by the many people—past and present—who have held an interest in the Eel River system and its salmonid fishes. We greatly appreciate the support we received from numerous individuals and organizations in conducting our review. Our colleagues in the public agencies, academic institutions and private sector generously gave their time and information that contributed to this report. They are acknowledged in the text as personal communications. We especially thank S. Downie, B. Jong, M. Gilroy, S. Harris, S. Cannata, P. Higgins and B. Kier who collectively provided volumes of data and documents. In addition, we thank Scott Feierabend and the staff of California Trout for their constant support, high enthusiasm and enduring patience in seeing this project to its end. California Trout enabled funding of this project from the Friends of the Eel and anonymous donors. R. M. Yoshiyama Page - 3 HISTORICAL REVIEW OF EEL RIVER ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS, WITH EMPHASIS ON CHINOOK SALMON, COHO SALMON AND STEELHEAD Ronald M. Yoshiyama and Peter B. Moyle Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Eel River basin once possessed significant populations of at least five distinct kinds of anadromous salmonids, including fall-run Chinook salmon, coho salmon, winter and summer steelhead, and coastal cutthroat trout. In addition, there were small populations of chum and pink salmon and possibly spring Chinook salmon. It is likely that an even greater number of seasonal runs or life-history variants within some species previously co-existed in the Eel River system. The historical plenitude of salmon in the Eel River motivated the establishment of a commercial salmon fishery as early as 1854, along with associated canning operations. Salmon canneries operated on the Eel River during the late-19th and early-20th centuries, producing a peak output of 15,000 cases of canned salmon during 1883. The cannery data can be roughly translated into minimal population estimates which average about 93,000 fish per year during the period 1857-1921 and evidently approached 600,000 fish in the peak year 1877, mostly Chinook salmon. Given that the cannery records result in a very conservative estimate of Chinook numbers, the records suggest that historic runs of Chinook salmon probably ranged between 100,000 and 800,000 fish per year, declining to roughly 50,000-100,000 fish per year in the first half of the 20th century. Probably the most realistic points of reference for past population levels of Eel River salmonids are the abundance estimates reported during the mid-1960s in the California Fish and Wildlife Plan and updated through the 1970s. While the salmonid populations at that time had already experienced more than a half-century of commercial harvest and decades of increasingly disruptive habitat alteration, their numbers still were at fairly high levels—e.g., tens of thousands of spawners in the South Fork Eel River alone. In the 1960s Chinook salmon were estimated to have averaged 56,000 spawners annually in the entire Eel River basin and coho salmon averaged 14,000 spawners annually. Steelhead numbers during the early-1960s were estimated to have been 82,000 spawners for the entire Eel River system. Counts of up-migrating (adult) steelhead at the Van Arsdale Fish Facility in the upper mainstem Eel River during the period 1967-1977 ranged from 2 fish (1976) to 1,863 fish (1970), averaging about 725 fish annually. R. M. Yoshiyama Page - 4 After the great floods of 1955 and 1964, annual Chinook salmon runs were generally considerably less than 10,000 fish. The most recent numbers suggest that less than 1,000 wild adults per year have returned to the Eel River basin in recent years. The listing of the California coast Chinook salmon ESU as a threatened species by NMFS indicates that the decline is continuing For coho salmon, historic numbers of spawning adults were probably in the 50,000- 100,000 fish per year range. There still may have been runs of 20,000-40,000 fish in the first half of the 20th century, based on angler reports. By the 1960s, the number of spawners was likely less than 15,000 fish, with numbers dropping by about 5-10% of spawners per year in subsequent years. Coho salmon thus appeared headed for extirpation from the Eel River basin by 2025 if not sooner. Both winter and summer steelhead have also undergone severe declines in the basin. Based on habitat availability and the few population estimates that exist, historic numbers were likely 100,000-150,000 adults per year (both runs combined), declining to 10,000-15,000 by the 1960s. Present numbers are probably considerably less than 1,000 fish in both runs. The causes of the Eel River salmonid declines are multiple. The Eel River system has undergone profound changes—in physical and biological aspects--over the century and a half since the start of Euro-American settlement in the region. In the 19th century, the primary cause was probably over harvest of fish migrating up the river but degradation of the landscape from logging and grazing undoubtedly was also degrading spawning and rearing habitat in the river. Logging debris caused stream blockages that impeded or prevented the movements of salmonids. Denuded watersheds resulted in abnormal levels of erosion and sedimentation that filled in pools, reduced spawning areas, smothered benthic stream organisms that served as salmonid food, and hastened the closing of stream mouths during low-water periods. The denuded areas also promoted quick runoff of storm water, thus causing floods during the wet season and abnormally low water levels during the dry season. This degradation intensified again with post-WW II logging and was greatly exacerbated by the great floods of 1955 and 1964, which acted on a naturally fragile landscape. At the same time dams provided complete (Scott Dam) or partial (Cape Horn) barriers to migration, as did reduced flows from the Potter Valley Project diversions. However, accurate quantification of the degree of salmonid population limitation due to the dams and associated features remains elusive even to the present time. An additional major blow came from the introduction of Sacramento pikeminnow around 1980, a salmon predator whose population exploded through the watershed, becoming extremely abundant in the main stems of the Eel and all its forks. Pikeminnow predation and competition has increased the difficulty of detecting recovery of salmon and steelhead populations that should be occurring as the watershed recovers, albeit R. M. Yoshiyama Page - 5 slowly, from the effects of the great floods. All of these factors had incrementally negative effects on the salmonids and most factors had synergistic (i.e., compounded) interactions with the other factors; e.g., logging effects created good habitat for pikeminnow. However, the lack of study and complexity of change make it difficult to understand the relative importance of each factor. The distribution of salmon and steelhead in the Eel River basin has not changed as much as their abundance, although many populations are now missing. Remnant populations, especially of winter steelhead, remain in much of the historic habitat. We conclude that coho salmon, Chinook salmon, and steelhead are all on a trajectory towards extinction in the Eel River basin, with only winter steelhead being widely enough distributed and abundant enough to persist beyond the next 50 years. Historically, it is likely that in wet periods with good ocean conditions, the Eel River support runs of well over a million salmon and steelhead (800,000 Chinook, 100,000 coho, and 150,000 steelhead), with about half that number being present in less favorable years. At present, the numbers seem to be, on average, about 3,500 fish total (+/-1,000) per year (1,000 Chinook, 500 coho, and 2,000 steelhead). These numbers are very approximate, but they are the best that can be supported by existing information. Regardless, they represent a 99% decline in numbers. Considering the historic importance of the Eel River in supporting both commercial and sport fisheries for salmon and steelhead, it is astonishing both that we know so little about what is going on in the watershed or why salmon and steelhead are headed towards extinction. The Eel River system has been largely ignored in terms of fisheries management during recent decades; there have been no significant management activities since the late-1930s to 1940s. This lack of attention for the Eel River appears to have been largely due to its relatively isolated location, the lack of any urban centers in the basin, and the rapidity and completeness of loss of fish resources. This state of affairs is entirely due to human actions. Accomplishing even a partial recovery will be extraordinarily difficult and require the focused energy of many people and organizations, as well as a genuine commitment of governmental agencies to a major restoration program. The Eel River is considered “lost” by many; finding it again, however, could produce many ecological and economic rewards. R. M. Yoshiyama Page - 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments Executive Summary I. Introduction II. Methods III. The Eel River and its fishes A. Introduction B. Environment--geology and vegetation C. Human history D. Fishes IV. Major salmonids: diversity, distribution, abundance A. General summary of the salmonids B. Chinook salmon C. Coho salmon D. Steelhead E.