Groundbreaking Eel River Restoration Plan Released
Press release from CalTrout:
A report released today outlines ambitious plans for the restoration and conservation of one of California’s largest and wildest rivers, the Eel River. The comprehensive report pulls together the best available scientific information to plan for native fish recovery, riparian corridor restoration, and conservation across the watershed. The Eel River Watershed Restoration and Conservation Plan is authored by nonprofit research and conservation organization California Trout (CalTrout), UC Berkeley, Applied River Sciences, and Stillwater Sciences. The effort is funded by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The Plan recommends key recovery actions and an action prioritization framework across the seven major sub-watersheds of the Eel River basin. The Plan also proposes a management approach that is informed by a monitoring and assessment framework, all of which is built from existing restoration and monitoring efforts. The Plan concludes with a menu of recommendations and next steps needed to get this important work off the ground. The Plan is the first step in a new Eel River Restoration and Conservation Program and includes an interactive web map to share preliminary analyses to view landscape features across the watershed. An overview of the Plan can be viewed here.
“The Eel River is an incredibly large and diverse basin,” said Darren Mierau, CalTrout North Coast Regional Director. “If we want durable recovery of native fish in the watershed, a holistic, watershed-scale ecosystem restoration and conservation program is what’s needed to restore not just the habitats salmon rely on, but to promote the genetic diversity within populations needed to have resilient runs of wild fish in the face of a changing climate.”
Past and current land and water use practices have significantly impaired aquatic and riparian habitats in the Eel River. Dam construction, aggressive timber harvest, and road and railway construction, followed by large floods in the 1950s and 60s, resulted in extensive and long-lasting disturbances and impacts throughout the watershed.
Salmon and steelhead populations within the Eel River were once incredibly abundant, with combined runs reaching nearly a million adults in good years. However, these populations have substantially declined in response to land and water use practices. The drastic reduction in salmon, steelhead, and Pacific lamprey abundance has impacted communities in the north coast region by reducing access to food, cultural resources, and economic opportunity.
“Despite the many challenges in this watershed, we believe the Eel presents a unique opportunity and there is substantial optimism for recovery,” said Curtis Knight, Executive Director of CalTrout. “In conjunction with other restoration efforts in the watershed, like removal of the two Potter Valley Project dams that CalTrout and our partners are moving forward, this plan defines a pathway for the rehabilitation of the Eel River corridor for the benefit of communities now, and for future generations.”
The decommissioning and removal of the two PG&E-owned Potter Valley Project dams will restore anadromous fish access to hundreds of miles of high-quality habitat in the upper Eel River. Coupled with federal and state recovery plans, and a strong community of regional partners who are implementing restoration actions throughout the basin, the Eel River is poised for transformative change. The Eel River Restoration and Conservation Plan enhances existing efforts and creates a roadmap of actions for collaborative, long-term, and holistic restoration and conservation that can revitalize the Eel River watershed and restore its fisheries.
“We’re trying to do something big here because we believe this is a place where wild salmon have a real chance at recovery,” said Christine Davis, CalTrout Project Manager “This level of planning and collaboration is hard and takes time, but we firmly believe that it’s the best way to achieve results that benefit the fish and people that call the Eel River basin home.”
The Eel River Restoration and Conservation Plan was developed by CalTrout, Applied River Sciences, and Stillwater Sciences in partnership with the Round Valley Indian Tribes and the Wiyot Tribe fisheries programs. It was also supported by a technical advisory committee consisting of representatives from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Assocation (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), UC Berkeley, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Wiyot Tribe. The Project Team also expresses their appreciation to the Eel River Forum participants who supported the development and refinement of Eel River Program goals for the restoration and conservation future of this watershed.
A report released today outlines ambitious plans for the restoration and conservation of one of California’s largest and wildest rivers, the Eel River. The comprehensive report pulls together the best available scientific information to plan for native fish recovery, riparian corridor restoration, and conservation across the watershed. The
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
What they said was ” blah, blah, blah… Remove the two dams… Blah, blah, blah”.
Your eloquent English skills are needed again.
Restoration of the Eel depends on a lot more than removal of two antiquated dam – the big lie told by FOER is that all the ills besetting the Eel are traceable to the two dams.
Cal-Trout is a very credible organization that’s actively engaged in habitat and fisheries restoration as opposed to hand wringing and fund raising.
I didn’t see FOER mentioned in this article. Since you seem to be keen on accuracy and specificity, can you post a link to back up your claim of lies being told? Saw you admonishing another poster for using the word “lie” just a few minutes ago…
Remember Nadananda, the founder of FOER who started the grass roots campaign against the dams?
From the beginning FOER focused on the dams (that had been in place for decades) as being responsible for all the present day ills of the Eel.
They went so far as to claim Potter Valley was “fish emulsion green” as a result of all the salmon being ground up by the diversion.
The irony was the South Fork weed growers, who were the primary funders for FOER, were decimating the South Fork which was untouched by the diversion.
Diversions, reductions in flow, pollution, dewatering tribs, algae blooms and more that have impacted the South Fork were primarily caused by weed farmers and not at all by the PVP.
It’s not my obligation to do the research for people who don’t have a clue either because they came late to the party or slept through it.
But anyone seriously interested in restoration of the Eel River will support this plan instead of attacking or belittling it
It’s not accurate that FOER ever said the dams were the only problem.
I remember much of what you just said. I didn’t know Nadananda so can’t speak to whether she was growing big or whatever. Her voice was strong and true about the dams. It was the first I heard of the dams and I’m glad she started that attention to them. I was also on the South Fork all those years and I saw that river die before my own eyes. Those goddam greedrushers. Locals too went bigger and bigger and the greed destroyed our beautiful South Fork. I was lucky to have old time neighbors who also kept it small always, thinking of the fish and other critters. When “legalization” came around we were all unable to pay up as we never blew it up and so we are all now broke ass, gone or bad evil black market strugglers. Anyways…someday somebody might write the story of how our local environmental movement got riddled by selfish greed but not everybody did. That 5 year drought while everybody went massively big to make piles of cash and then got to buy the permits for their wonderful “Step Into The Light” legal goody-good farms? Disgusting that people are still patting themselves on the back for being “smart”. I’m finally getting less bitter but I will not forget what happened. I was right here and I saw it….
Thanks Farce. I’ll take that as confirmation.
The original back to the landers kept it small to avoid drawing the heat but unlike the successive waves of greenrushers they weren’t motivated primarily by greed – and they had a genuine community and environmental ethic that’s been all but lost..
You’re taking that as confirmation that FOER made claims that the dams were the only negative impact on eel river fish?
I’ve always heard that sediment from logging and diversion were a factor.
Bingo!
The claims by FOER were incomplete at best, false at worst.
In the 100+ years since Scott dam blocked prime habitat the Eel has been beset with a multitude of negative impacts from logging, weed growin, cattle, the devastating 1955 and 1964 floods and many more.
Hear hear! Thanks for putting my thoughts into words!
By “Nadananda”, you do mean Patricia Hamilton, yes?
If so, she was not the founder of FOER, she was the founding President and Director of FOER, which started in the Garberville Office of EPIC, conceived in 1994 at the Blue Sky Swimming Club at Alderpoint.
By the 2000’s, FOER had grown by leaps and bounds with large donations pouring in from Marin County and San Francisco, and as such, was making a nice compensation for herself of $76K per year as Director and in the end a $80K per year retirement package. Not bad for never removing one inch of either dam.
Patricia “Nadananda” Hamilton ~ ‘Child of the Great Cosmic Mother’
WOW!!! If true then I was certainly fooled by a maggot
My thought has always been that if the Main stem’s flow was higher then, because the south fork flows into it, the south fork would also have a higher flow. Because water always seeks it’s own level. I could be wrong.but that has always been my thought
Hmmm….not sure about that but I’m pretty sure diverting 150cfs at Van Arsdale out of 3,500 or 5,000 during high winter flows had no appreciable impact on flow, velocity, scour or anything else.
Only 25% of the fish in the Eel system ever spawned above those dams.
Removal is just a money thing. Pigs at the trough.
Not sure about your stats but if they’re true it means 25% of the fish were spawning in about 8-10% of the watershed – including the highest value habitat in the vast Eel River system.
Removing the dams is huge for increasing the odds of restoring the Eel River fisheries.
Dam removal is also a money thing on several levels – it’s going to cost someone – probably PG&E ratepayers – a ton of money.
And the contractor and subs will be making a ton.
And the workers will have to spend that dough somewhere.
Hopper’s corner will be hoppin’, Coyote Valley Casino will be poppin’, hookers will be hookin’, Ukiah motels and restaurants will be rakin’ in the dough, and it’ll be Ho, Ho, Ho for drug dealers and pimps all year long!
You’ve been around a while. Have any ideas about how to control the pike minnow?
I haven’t heard a peep on the subject out of any of the carpetbaggers pushing dam removal as a panacea.
Those fish are the real gorilla in the room
I’ve always found it odd that a fishing permit was required to catch pike minnow.
Anybody should be able to catch as many as they like whenever they like.
You’re aware the pike minnow are pervasive throughout the Eel River system and Pillsbury functions as a breeding ground?
You’re also aware warm water is ideal habitat for pike minnow?
And the habitat ABOVE Pillsbury, which has been blocked to salmonids for over 100 years, is fed by spring and summer snow melt, making it the coldest and best habitat in the Eel for salmonids and the worst for pike minnow?
Dam removal will remove a huge pike minnow breeding ground while opening up prime salmon spawning grounds that are less hospitable to the pike minnow which should increase salmonids survival rates.
There’s also a pike minnow removal pilot program on the South Fork which if it proves successful could be replicated in other areas.
If you don’t already know these things you might broaden your sources of info beyond the RHBB comment section.
“There’s also a pike minnow removal pilot program on the South Fork which if it proves successful could be replicated in other areas.”
No, I am not familiar with that program, could you please share that information?
It’s described by CalTrout in “The Pikeminnow Problem”
Are you talking about this:
https://caltrout.org/current-article/north-coast-science-and-monitoring-program
Yeah. I know all that stuff and more. It’s the “more” stuff that’s hardest to fix. The details aside from the science.
The pilot projects are full of theory, great food for thought.
I might have an idea…
(I was hoping that it might be utilized on the Fish Creek Fish passage/culvert, if it was reasonable, because it would suck if the Pike Minnow will be able to easily follow the anadromous species through the fish passage into the newly re-accessible spawning grounds……
It might be a bit controversial, though, and would need some fine tuning by some fishery experts…
As far as I know, pike minnow don’t jump falls like, or quite like, anadromous fish do…
Would it be possible, at the mouths of spawning tributaries, to incorporate a “set of falls”, sufficient to dissuade the Pike Minnow, but wide enough and moderate enough for the anadromous species to easily pass by jumping…???
It’s possible and/or even probable that this might have serious disadvantages, like making the salmon easy prey for predators…
It might not be a great idea, but at least it’s an idea…
?♂️
One of the theories that I’ve heard is that they have to reach a certain size before they breed. Possibly they could be gill netted in the off season. Once you get rid of the breeders you solve the problem. It would be a continuous effort. The challenge would be to eliminate the problem to the point that other fish could survive.
Other states have a bounty on them, and a contest to see who could catch the most, and also for the largest. I don’t know how successful that is but at least they are doing something.
Obviously, I am no expert. But, if they put me in charge I would make a difference.
I wish you were in charge. We haven’t had a common sense Supervisor since Rodoni (and no I didn’t always agree w/him but he was decent)
Funny, I never saw that in Roger. I had allot of words with Roger over many years (RIP), in person, in public and in writing, He came across to me as a “cowboy way” decision maker and a champion for local resource extraction companies like instream gravel or logging/timber and of course, cattle.
Maybe I stand corrected? I was almost fully in Mendocino at that time. Maybe I should have said “I’ve NEVER seen a commonsense supervisor in Humboldt”?! Ha ha!
Wait, I thought all we needed was to remove the two dams – weren’t they the cause of all the problems with the Eel?
Why do we need a restoration plan?
Some plants do not have their papers in order and the fear of these plants overrun
the care for the environment; on the coast, these “restorations” have nightmarish results; good luck on the rivers.
Read the article. All your questioning is answered in the article.
My questions were rhetorical.
Yay! I can hardly wait until they start taking those dams out!
Dams create renewable energy. So what’s more important steelhead that have never been past the dam or climate change?
The PVP is a small scale hydro project with high maintenance costs.
The real value, at least in recent decades, has been the water diversion.
But the death knell for the dams was documentation of the seismic vulnerability of Scott Dam.
All arguments in favor of retaining the dams collapsed under the threat of catastrophic failure.
They aren’t producing any power and haven’t for a few years. How much power did they generate? Not that much. Plenty of empty roofs begging for solar panels.
No more PG&E subsidies for solar. That business has been decimated by an 85% drop in sales….
Stoping water diversion to sonoma county will help.
Grapes, growth, and greed is what the diversion means. They have plenty of water in lake Sonoma. Stop stealing the eel river!
That is the big story hear the EPIC has been silent on.
More total b.s. and control of electricity and the Eel River. They NEVER do anything for the benefit of the rivers or fish just do a lot of talking while they are removing our electricity and regulating us more more. It’s not about restoration, it’s about CONTROL OF RESOURCES. They want us out of rural areas and in smart city control grids. Agenda 2030. Total B.S.
Federalist Society much?
Repeating the lies of their fearless leader is a llulaby for that ilk
Dams replaced by pumping stations… to fuel the continued growth of the Russian Valley.
—
The dams weren’t really the issue with the Eel River Salmon. Big issue was the creation of the Coyote Reservoir which enabled massive diversion of the Eel… was then coupled with the periodic droughts over the last 50 years.
—
Of course, can’t forget the introduction of the Pike Minnow either. Now spread over most of the Pacific Northwest. British Columbia has a $10 bounty for them. Folks are making a living out of the bounty.
—
Oh well.
The dams were a huge issue for Eel River salmon because Scott Dam blocked access to hundreds of miles of high quality spawning grounds – but that impact took place more than 100 years ago – which means there are many more things besides the dams which are negatively impacting Eel River fisheries.
That said, removal of the dams has the potential to play a huge role in restoration of the Eel.
Except, Lake and Humboldt Counites will have no seat at the table or any say about who, what, why, when and where anything happens in this watershed restoration and conservation plan…
Ah, ever the optimist!
Well, during the last 100 years… up till the droughts ensued, the Eel had some good spawning runs. Maybe not a ‘million fish’ but maybe a hundred thousand.
People were lined up at the 12th st hole (Fortuna)… catching huge, blackened, pre-spawn fish. I remember the photos of anglers showing a 60+ lb fish. Somebody might have a photo around.
Only thing the caught fish were ‘good for’ was being taken home and buried in the garden. I thought it was a shame back then.
If it rains… there will be fish. (But it needs years of ‘normal’ rain.)
Future generations will see what happens.
The fact there were healthy runs after the dams went in is further proof the Eel has been negatively impacted by multiple factors.
The maps are cool. I didn’t know they had such comprehensive info on the presence of coho and steelhead so far up the South Fork tributaries. Is that based on observations or just wishing? If it’s based on observation then that would make trash out of the criticisms levelled at the logjam removals of the 70’s…I saw some of those old logjams and there were definitely no fish getting above them
I was doing logjam removals in 1980 when I was in the CCC. Years later I heard the C’s were putting logs back in the creeks to create spawning pools for salmon and steelhead
I hope Stillwater Sciences is better with this River watershed restoration and conservation plan than what they are planning for the Southern Humboldt Community Park, on the South Fork Eel River. Which is neither watershed restoration or conservation planning, but development for a BMX track, football field, driveway with gravel surfaced parking area, and a small graded flat for pickleball courts.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aLY-TgoHTfNrfzs155WBXSl-bbthU_KZ/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T4ISzp13rnpC64dhNtG3_47YC3sEVYRb/view?usp=sharing
‘The Eel River Watershed restoration and conservation program’
“A report released today outlines ambitious plans for the restoration and conservation of one of California’s largest and wildest rivers, the Eel River.”
“The Plan recommends key recovery actions and an action prioritization framework across the seven major sub-watersheds of the Eel River basin.”
“The Eel River is an incredibly large and diverse basin,” …
“Past and current land and water use practices have significantly impaired aquatic and riparian habitats in the Eel River.”
“”This level of planning and collaboration is hard and takes time, but we firmly believe that it’s the best way to achieve results that benefit the fish and people that call the Eel River basin home.” ”
………….
Hmmm…they call it simply The Eel River, over and over, without EVER mentioning even one “FORK”…
The nerve of some people…!!!
Maybe you need to call them and straighten them out, Ed…!!!???
?♂️??
Please oh please don’t you two do that again (insert emoji for headache)
Nah, I’ll let you do that…
Good, then neither of us will…
Hey, wait a minute…!!!
You just abbreviated it to, “River watershed restoration and conservation plan”…
But it’s officially it’s, “The [Eel] River watershed and conservation [program]”…
“Wye” the abbreviation to just, “River…”,…???
I thought that was your pet peeve…
Leaving off ,”The South Fork”, is one thing, but leaving off, “The Eel”, is entirely something else…!!!
?♂️??
Did I, or did it look like I did, sorry, I cannot remember.
Maybe I misunderstood you…???
What, “…River watershed restoration and conservation plan…”, were you referring to…???
I assumed it was the one being featured in this article…
Hmm….so California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife is funding (with OUR tax money) this program partially put together by the same firm who made the plan for Southern Humboldt Community Park? I don’t know who Stillwater Sciences is but I am immediately suspect of their findings. Massive water withdrawal for that park must be pre-justified in this plan is what I’m guessing…and that is not science that is a scam using scientific words….
Ding, ding, ding, winner winner, chicken dinner. I/m glad someone is paying attention…
…”Which is neither watershed restoration or conservation planning, but development for a BMX track, football field, driveway with gravel surfaced parking area, and a small graded flat for pickleball courts…”
To be fair, Ed
It’s being headlined a, “GROUNDBREAKING EEL RIVER RESTORATION PLAN…”
?♂️
And what is so “Groundbreaking” about it?
I believe that the point is that Humboldt County is the
most sloven in the state. There is nothing “restorative” about it.
If you have the stomach, check out what we are doing on the coast.
“a BMX track, football field, driveway with gravel surfaced parking area, and a small graded flat for pickleball courts…”
All broken ground…
But I honestly don’t think much of that will actually EVER happen..
Blah, blah, blah. None of the restoration to date has increased runs. Anglers have been paying fees for that for twenty years now. Its all studies and mini projects. And our water is still going to go down south courtesy of the evil Huffman.
Oh but I was told that corporate-friendly “legalization” would save the fish? All we had to do was vote for it and destroy our local economy, turn south county and northern Mendocino into ghost towns, allow wealthy investors to take all that money by blowing up massive permit grows in So Cal and then we could save the fish…Yay!!! But…that didn’t happen either did it?
Yet another plan for the Eel to arise over the past decades. We have recovery plans, watershed analyses and a host of advocacy groups. What do we have to show for it?
Be real, there are two things destroying this river, Squaw Fish and all the fertilizer and chemicals from pot grows the last 30 years. Environmentalists, enjoy a river where dogs, horses and children are advised not to get in the water because they die. Way to go environmentalists that turned a blind eye to canibus the past decades.
Pretty much every environmentalist I knew ended up jumping on that greedrush train. It was sad to see….But not all did! See who is still poor and living small. They might be the ones with solid principles…