18
Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review

Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Page 2: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Challenges to steelhead

• Duration of flows (à la “good days”)

• Migration impediments

• High growth rearing habitat

• Ocean survivorship

Page 3: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Juvenile O. mykiss

Page 4: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Steelhead smolt

Page 5: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Elevated sedimentation impacts

• Spawning area degradation

• Migration hinderance

• Reduced rearing capacity

Page 6: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)
Page 7: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)
Page 8: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Migration impediments

Direct: Migrating salmonids avoid waters with high silt loads, or cease migration when such loads are unavoidable (Cordone and Kelley 1961)

Likely indirect: Silt dominated substrate of lower Alameda Creek may provide a lesser-defined thalweg and fewer velocity refugia than “natural” bedload channel

Page 9: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Alameda Ck near lower inflatable dam, u/s view

Page 10: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Ladder efficiency?

Arroyo las Positas fishway

Page 11: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Spawning areas

In an OR stream, only about 8 percent of total area suitable for coho spawning (Bjornn and Reiser 1991)

In an Eel River tributary, only 2.2 percent of the channel bed provided spawnable habitat-- largely tails of plunge pools and glides (Trush 1991)

Page 12: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Spawning areas (2)

Scour: “Increased sediment transport as a result of…greater sediment supply should increase the average depth of scour…in channels” (Montgomery et al. 1998)

Smothering: Intrusion and accumulation of fine sediments into redds reduces embryo survival through decreased dissolved oxygen and water exchange and impeded emergence (Swanson et al. 1987; Chapman 1988)

Page 13: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Reduced rearing capacity

Thermal refugia: Reduction of pool area or volume in a small ID stream resulted in a reduction of summer [rearing] capacity proportional to the percentage area or volume lost (Bjornn et al. 1977)

Page 14: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Little Yosemite

pool

Page 15: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Reduced rearing capacity (2)

Foraging efficiency: Juvenile coho salmon… exhibited significant avoidance when turbidity exceeded a threshold that was relatively high (>70 NTU) (Bisson and Bilby 1982)

Velocity refugia: Recent LFAs suggest juveniles “blown out” of San Francisquito and San Geronimo Creeks (J&S 2004; Stillwater 2004)

Page 16: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Stonybrook Creek, u/s view

Page 17: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Reduced rearing capacity (3)

“As interstitial refuges and prey declined, steelhead spent less time sheltering behind or under cobbles and more time actively swimming (Power 2003)”

“…steelhead confined to channels with higher levels of sediment experienced lower food availability… (Power 2003)”

Page 18: Sediment and steelhead in the Alameda Creek basin: a review Gordon Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR)

Sedimentation rates are key to steelhead recovery in AC