Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 64, Issue 1, pp 331–358

Instream-Flow Needs for Anadromous Salmonids and Lamprey on the Pacific Coast, with Special Reference to the Pacific Southwest

  • Robert L. VadasJr.
Article

Abstract

This paper addresses differences in instream-flow needs (IFNs) of Pacific salmonids and lamprey across species, life stages, and stream sizes on the Pacific coast, with additional consideration of salmonid-IFN data from northern Europe. The Pacific Southwest data set was for various life stages of coho salmon and steelhead trout in small coastal streams of central and southern California. These data showed that younger life stages required less flow than adults. The Pacific Northwest data set was for spawning adults of all five salmon species and steelhead trout in Washington or northern California. These data showed that spawning salmonids required more flow, relative to mean annual flow, in smaller streams. Although these IFNs varied by species, all were much higher than IFNs to protect wetted perimeters (rearing habitat) and water quality in these streams. The high-flow guild included chinook, pink, and chum salmon, whereas the low-flow guild included coho and sockeye salmon. Steelhead were unique in showing relatively high spawning IFNs for creeks and small rivers, unlike large rivers, such that IFNs were more affected by stream size for this species than salmon.

anadromous salmon and trout migrations spawners water quality wetted perimeter younger life stages 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, P.B. et al.: 1996, Historical and current presence-absence data of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Central California Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Tiburon Lab. Admin. Rep. 96(01), U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., S.W. Fish. Sci. Ctr. 24pp.Google Scholar
  2. American Fisheries Society.: 1998, The science of restoration, California-Nevada Chapter, 32nd Annual Conference, Sacramento, CA, 32pp.Google Scholar
  3. American Fisheries Society.: 1999, A watershed approach to protecting and restoring a stream ecosystem, California-Nevada Chapter, 33rd Annual Conference, Redding, CA, 41pp.Google Scholar
  4. Alabaster, J.S.: 1970, ‘River flow and upstream movement and catch of migratory salmonids’ J. Fish Biol. 2, 1–13.Google Scholar
  5. Alley, D.W. et al.: 1992, Passage requirements for steelhead on San Simeon Creek, San Luis Obispo County, California, 1991, Prepared for the Cambria Community Services District, Cambria, CA, 40pp., + apendix.Google Scholar
  6. Alley, D.W. et al.: 1993, Passage requirements for steelhead in Santa Rosa Creek, San Luis Obispo County, California, 1993, Prepared for the Cambria Community Services District, Cambria, CA, 35pp., + appendix.Google Scholar
  7. Alley, D.W. et al.: 1997, Comparison of juvenile steelhead densities in 1981 and 1994–96 in the San Lorenzo River and tributaries, with an estimate of juvenile population size in the mainstem river and expected adult returns from that production, Santa Cruz County, CaliforniaPrepared for the City of San LorenzoWater Department and San Lorenzo ValleyWater District, San Lorenzo, CA, 77pp., + appendix.Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, K.R.: 1995, Astatus review of the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in California south of San Francisco BayCalifornia Department of Fish and Game, Region 3, Monterey, CA, 82pp.Google Scholar
  9. Barinaga, M.: 1996, ‘A recipe for river recovery?’ Science 273, 1648–1650.Google Scholar
  10. Barnhart, R.A.: 1986, Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest)-steelhead, U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.60), 21pp.Google Scholar
  11. Baxter, G.: 1961, ‘River utilization and the preservation of migratory fish life’ Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Lond. 18, 225–244.Google Scholar
  12. Baxter, G.: 1963, ‘Preservation of fish life, amenities and facilities for recreation’ in: Conservation of water resources in the United KingdomInstitution of Civil Engineers (ed.), London, England, pp. 59–65.Google Scholar
  13. Beauchamp, D.A., Shepard, M.F. and Pauley, G.B.: 1983, ‘Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest)-chinook salmon'U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.6), 15pp.Google Scholar
  14. Benson, N.G.: 1960, ‘Factors influencing production of immature cutthroat trout in Arnica Creek, Yellowstone Park’ Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 89, 168–175.Google Scholar
  15. Bovee, K.D.: 1978, Probability-of-use criteria for the family Salmonidae, Instream Flow Info. Pap. 4 Off. Biol. Serv. 78(7), U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., 80pp.Google Scholar
  16. Briggs, R.O.: 1994, Effects of the earthquake on surface waters in Waddell ValleyU.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 1551(E), 21–30.Google Scholar
  17. Brown, B.: 1982, Mountain in the clouds: a search for the wild salmonSimon and Schuster, NY, 239pp.Google Scholar
  18. Bryant, G.J.: 1994, Status review of coho salmon populations in Scott and Waddell creeks, Santa Cruz County, CaliforniaU.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Protected Species Management Division. Santa Rosa, CA, 102pp.Google Scholar
  19. Bryant, G.J. and Lynch, J.: 1996, Factors for decline: a supplement to the notice of determination for West Coast steelhead under the Endangered Species ActU.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Protected Species Branch, Portland, OR and Protected Species Management Division, Long Beach, CA, 83pp.Google Scholar
  20. Bulkey, R.V. and Benson, N.G.: 1962, Predicting year class abundance of Yellowstone Lake cutthroat trout, U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Res. Rep. 5921pp.Google Scholar
  21. Burns, J.W.: 1971, ‘The carrying capacity for juvenile salmonids in some northern California streams’ Calif. Fish Game 57, 44–57.Google Scholar
  22. Burt, D.W. and Mundie, J.H.: 1986, Case histories of regulated stream flow and its effects on salmonid populationsCan. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1477, 98pp.Google Scholar
  23. Collings, M.R.: 1974, Generalization of spawning and rearing discharges for several Pacific salmon species in western WashingtonU.S. Geological Survey Open-File ReportTacoma, WA, 39pp.Google Scholar
  24. Davies, W.K.D.: 1984, Factorial ecologyGower, Hants (ed.), United Kingdom, 409pp.Google Scholar
  25. Dawson, T.E.: 1998, ‘Fog in the California redwood forest: ecosystem inputs and use by plants’ Oecologia 117, 476–485.Google Scholar
  26. Don Kelley (& Associates) and ENTRIX (Inc.): 1992, Habitat recommendations for Lagunitas CreekPrepared for the Marin Municipal Water District, Corte Madera, CA, unpublished.Google Scholar
  27. Emig, J.W.: 1984, Fish population survey, Walker Creek, Marin County, 1981Calif. Dept. Fish Game, Anadrom. Fish. Br. Admin. Rep. 84(2), 14pp.Google Scholar
  28. Emig, J.W.: 1985, Fish population survey, Lagunitas Creek, Marin County, 1982’ Anadrom. Fish. Br. Admin. Rep. 85(5), Calif. Dept. Fish Game, 26pp.Google Scholar
  29. Entrix (Inc.).: 1996, Results of fish passage monitoring at the Vern Freeman Diversion Facility, Santa Clara River, 1996, Prepared for the United Water Conservation District, Santa Paula, CA, unpublished.Google Scholar
  30. Estes, C.C. and Orsborn, J.F.: 1986, ‘Review and analysis of methods for quantifying instream flow requirements’ Wat. Resour. Bull. 22, 389–398.Google Scholar
  31. Fielden, R.J. and Holtby, L.B.: 1987, Standing crop and habitat characteristics of juvenile salmonids at sites in the Cowichan River system, Can. Manus. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1950, 65pp.Google Scholar
  32. Fong, D.: 1997, 1996 Outmigrant trapping program: Redwood Creek, Marin County (draft report)Prepared for the U.S. National Park Service and U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Fort Cronkhite and Santa Rosa, CA, 20pp.Google Scholar
  33. Ford, B.S. and seven coauthors.: 1995, Literature reviews of the life history, habitat requirements and mitigation/compensation strategies for thirteen sport fish species in the Peace, Liard and Columbia River drainages of British ColumbiaCan. Manus. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2321, 342pp.Google Scholar
  34. Freeman, L.A., Webster, M.D. and Friebel, M.F.: 1996, ‘Water resources data, California, water year 1996’ Volume 2: Pacific Slope basins from Arroyo Grande to Oregon state line except Central ValleyU.S. Geological Survey Water-Date Report CA-96-2, Sacramento, CA, 337pp.Google Scholar
  35. Gerstung, E.R.: 1997, ‘Status of coastal cuttroat trout in California’ in: Sea-run cuttroat trout: biology, management, and future conservationHall J.D., Bisson, P.A., and Gresswell, R.E. (eds.), American Fisheries Society, Oregon Chapter, Corvallis, OR, pp. 43–56.Google Scholar
  36. Gilliam, H.: 1962, Weather of the San Francisco Bay regionUniversity of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, 72pp.Google Scholar
  37. Gordon, N.D., McMahon, T.A. and Finlayson, B.L.: 1992, Stream hydrology: an Introduction for ecologists, John Wiley & Sons, New York City, NY, 526pp.Google Scholar
  38. Goodwin, P., Cuff, C.K., Nielsen, J.L., Light, T. and Heckel, M.: 1994, Russian River Estuary study, 1992–1993, Prepared for the Sonoma County Planning Department and California State Coastal Conservancy, Santa Rosa, CA, 186pp., + appendix.Google Scholar
  39. Griffith, R.P.: 1980, Microhabitat of stream salmonids and the design of natural rearing facilitiesBritish Columbia Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Fish Habitat Improvement Section, Victoria, BC, Canada, 45pp.Google Scholar
  40. Hamilton, R.E.: 1980, Hydrology, fisheries resource, and watershed development of Marble River, Vancouver Island, B.C, Can. Manus. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1558, 41pp.Google Scholar
  41. Hayes, F.R.: 1953, Artificial freshets and other factors controlling the ascent and population of Atlantic salmon in the LeHave River, Nova ScotiaBull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 99, 47pp.Google Scholar
  42. Hearn, W.E.: 1987, ‘Interspecific competition and habitat segregation among stream-dwelling trout and salmon: a review’ Fisheries 12(5), 24–31.Google Scholar
  43. Higgins, P.: 1991, Southern California steelhead recovery assessment: San Mateo Creek (and) Santa Margarita River, a wider role for TU in protection and recoveryPrepared for the South Coast Chapter of Trout Unlimited, San Diego, CA, 26pp.Google Scholar
  44. Holland, G.A.: 1961, Prediction of silver salmon abundance, Pac. Mar. Fish. Comm. Ann. Rep. 14, pp. 53–59.Google Scholar
  45. Huntsman, A.G.: 1945, ‘Freshets and fish’ Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 75, 257–266.Google Scholar
  46. Jager, H.I., Caldwell, H.E., Sale, M.J., Bevelhimer, M.S., Coutant, C.C. and Van Winkle, W.: 1997, ‘Modelling the linkages between flow management and salmon recruitment in rivers’ Ecological Modeling 103, 171–191.Google Scholar
  47. James, G.W.: 1994, ‘Surface water dynamics at the Carmel River lagoon: water years 1991 through 1994’ Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Technical Memorandum94–05, Monterey, CA, 26pp.Google Scholar
  48. Jennings, M.R. and Hayes, M.P. 1994, Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in CaliforniaPrepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA, 255pp.Google Scholar
  49. Johnson, O.W. and seven coauthors.: 1999, Status review of coastal cutthroat trout from Washington, Oregon, and California, N.W. Fish. Sci. Tech. Memo. 37, U.S. Natl. Ocean. Atmos. Admin., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., 292pp.Google Scholar
  50. Johnson, R.A and Wichern, D.W. 1982, Applied multivariate statistical analysisPrentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 594pp.Google Scholar
  51. Lettenmaier, D.P. and Gan, T.Y.: 1990, ‘Hydrologic sensitivities of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin, California, to global warming’ Wat. Resour. Res. 26, 69–86.Google Scholar
  52. Levy, D.A.: 1992, Potential impacts of global warming on salmon production in the Fraser River watershed, Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1889, 96pp.Google Scholar
  53. Levy, D.A.: 1994, Potential impacts of global warming on salmon production in the Fraser River watershed, Clim. Change Digest (Environ. Can.) 94(04), 15pp.Google Scholar
  54. Marston, D.: 1992, June-July 1992 stream survey report of lower Scott Creek, Santa Cruz CountyCalifornia Department of Fish and Game, Region 3, Monterey, CA, 53pp.Google Scholar
  55. May, K.W.: 1954, A biological survey of Redwood Creek, Muir National Monument, Mill Valley, CaliforniaU.S. National Park Service, Ft. Cronkhite, CA, 12pp.Google Scholar
  56. McBean, G.A., Slaymaker, O., Northcote, T., LeBlond, P. and Parsons, T.S.: 1992, ‘Review of models for climate change and impacts on hydrology, coastal currents and fisheries in B.C', Clim. Change Digest (Environ. Can.)94(2),15pp. Google Scholar
  57. McEwan, D., and T.A. Jackson.: 1996, Steelhead restoration and management plan for CaliforniaCalifornia Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Sacramento, CA, 234pp.Google Scholar
  58. Metzer, P.C. and Haverkamp, J.A.: 1984,Instream flow protection: adaptation to intensifying demandThe Conservation Foundation Report, Washington, DC, 33pp.Google Scholar
  59. Milhous, R.T., Updike, M.A. and Schneider, D.M.: 1989, Physical habitat simulation system reference manual—version II, Instream Flow Info. Pap. 26, U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 89(16), vp.Google Scholar
  60. Modde, T. and. Hardy, T.B.: 1992, ‘Influence of different microhabitat criteria on salmonid habitat simulation’ Rivers 3, 37–44.Google Scholar
  61. Morhardt, J.E.: 1986, Instream flow methodologies, Electric Power Research Institute, Energy Analysis and Environment Division, Energy Resources Program, EPRI Report EA-4819, Palo Alto, CA, vp.Google Scholar
  62. Moyle, P., Marchetti, M.P., Baldridge, J. and Taylor, T.L.: 1998, ‘Fish health and diversity: justifying flows for a California stream’ Fisheries 23(7), 6–15.Google Scholar
  63. National Marine Fisheries Service.: 1998, ‘Endangered and threatened species: west coast chinook salmon; listing status change; proposed rule’ Fed. Regist. 63(45), 11482–11520.Google Scholar
  64. Nawa, R.K., Frissell, C.A. and Liss, W.J.: 1988, Life history and persistence of anadromous fish (salmonid) stocks in relation to stream habitats and watershed classificationOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Annual Progress Report, Portland, OR, 37pp.Google Scholar
  65. Nelson, J.: 1993, Salmonid downmigrant trapping results for April-May, Scott Creek, Santa Cruz CountyCalifornia Department of Fish and Game, Region 3, Inland Fisheries, Monterey, CA, 7pp.Google Scholar
  66. Nelson, J.: 1994, Coho salmon and steelhead habitat and population surveys of Scott Creek, Santa Cruz County, 1993, California Department of Fish and Game, Region 3, Inland Fisheries, Monterey, CA, 42pp., + appendix.Google Scholar
  67. Netboy, A.: 1980, The Columbia River salmon and steelhead trout-their fight for survivalUniversity of Washington Press, Seattle, 180pp.Google Scholar
  68. Orth, D.J.: 1995, ‘Food web influences on fish population responses to instream flow’ Bull. Fr. Peche Piscic.pp. 337–339, 317–328.Google Scholar
  69. Pauley, G.B., Bowers, K.L. and Thomas, G.L.: 1988, Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest)-chum salmon', U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.81), 17pp.Google Scholar
  70. Pauley, G.B., Oshima, K, Bowers, K.L. and Thomas, G.L.: 1989, Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest)-sea-run cutthroat trout, U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.86), 21pp.Google Scholar
  71. Philip William (& Associates), Habitat Restoration Group, Prunske Chatham, Inc. and Callander Associates.: 1996, Pilarcitos Creek Restoration PlanPrepared for the Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Department of Fish and Game, San Francisco, CA, 161pp.,+ appendix.Google Scholar
  72. Phillips, S., (ed.).: 1994, Vital habitat concernsPacific Fishery Management Council, Habitat Committee, Portland, OR, 17pp.Google Scholar
  73. Pister, E.P.: 1991, Environmental water ethics in the Eastern SierraBull. S. Calif. Acad. Sci. 90 (Suppl.), pp. 20–26.Google Scholar
  74. Prager, M.H. and MacCall, A.D.: 1987, An environmental data base describing coastal southern California in the years 1920–1984. Part I: procedures and summaries (revised version), S.W. Fish. Ctr., La Jolla Admin. Rep. 86(31), U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., 50pp.Google Scholar
  75. Rantz, S.E.: 1964, Stream hydrology related to the optimum discharge for king salmon spawning on the northern California Coast Ranges, U.S. Geol. Surv. Water-Supply Pap. 1779(AA), 16pp.Google Scholar
  76. Regnart, J.R.: 1991, Physical parameters associated with coho salmon redds in northwest California, Master's thesis, Humboldt State University, Humboldt, CA, 35pp.Google Scholar
  77. Rockwell, G.L., Hayes, P.D. and Agajanian, J.: 1996b, ‘Water resources data, California, water year 1996’ Volume 1: Southern Great Basin from Mexican border to Mono Lake basin, and Pacific Slope basins from Tijuana River to Santa Maria River, U.S. Geological SurveyWater-Date Report CA-96-1, Sacramento, CA, 422pp.Google Scholar
  78. Salo, E.O. and Cundy, T.W., (eds).: 1987, Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactionsUniversity of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources Contribution 57, Seattle, WA, 471 ppGoogle Scholar
  79. SAS (Statistical Analysis System).: 1985, SAS user's guide: basicsVersion 5 ed., SAS Institute, Cary, NC, 1290pp.Google Scholar
  80. Schantz, R., Williams, P., Oakden, J., Smith, J., Roberts, J. and Horner, N.: 1994, A preliminary environmental assessment of wetland restoration alternatives for Big Lagoon at Muir Beach, Marin CountyPrepared for the California Department of Transportation, District IV, San Francisco, CA, 127pp., + appendix.Google Scholar
  81. Schmidt, E.: 1994, Oncorhynchus kisutch and a threatened ecosystem: the disappearance of coho salmon in Santa Cruz County, CaliforniaUniversity of Colorado, Master's thesis, Boulder, CO, 85pp.Google Scholar
  82. Schulman, N.: 1993, Protecting instream flows: a resource file for river activistsPrepared for River Network, Portland, OR, 105pp.Google Scholar
  83. Schwiebert, E., ed.: 1977, Columbia River salmon and steelhead, Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 10214pp.Google Scholar
  84. Scott, D. and Shirvell, C.S.: 1987, ‘A critique of the instream flow incremental methodology and observations on flow determination in New Zealand’ in: Regulated streams: advances in ecologyCraig, J.F. and Kemper J.B. (eds.), Plenum Press, New York City, NY, pp. 27–43Google Scholar
  85. Shapovalov, L. and Taft, A.C.: 1954, The life histories of the steelhead rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) and silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) with special reference to Waddell Creek, California, and recommendations regarding their management, Calif. Dept. Fish Game Fish Bull. 98375pp.Google Scholar
  86. Smith, D.E.: 1986, Instream flow requirements, anadromous salmonids spawning and rearing: Lagunitas Creek, Marin County, California Department of Fish and Game, Stream Evaluation Report 86-2, Sacramento, CA, 37pp., + appendix.Google Scholar
  87. Smith, F.E.: 1980, The Public Trust Doctrine: instream flows and resourcesU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California-Nevada Area Office, California Water Policy Center, Sacramento, CA, 36pp.Google Scholar
  88. Smith, J.J.: 1988, Fish resources ofWaddell CreekSan Jose State University, Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose, CA, 14pp.Google Scholar
  89. Smith, J.J.: 1994, Status of steelhead in central CaliforniaSan Jose State University, Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose, CA, 14pp.Google Scholar
  90. Smith, J.J.: 1998, Distribution and abundance of juvenile coho and steelhead in Gazos, Waddell and Scott creeks in 1997 and the implications for status of southern cohoSan Jose State University, Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose, CA, 23pp.Google Scholar
  91. Smith, J.J. and Robinson, M.A.: 1988, ‘Effects of inflows on water quality and habitat conditions in small central California estuary/lagoon systems’ in: Managing inflows to California's bays and estuariesBISF (ed.), The Bay Institute of San Francisco, Sausalito, CA, pp. 133–136.Google Scholar
  92. Smoker, W.A.: 1953, ‘Stream flow and siver salmon production in western Washington’ Wash. Dept. Fish. Fish. Res. Rep. 1(1), 5–12.Google Scholar
  93. Snider, B., K.A.F. Urquhart and D. Marston.: 1995, The relationship between instream flow and coho salmon and steelhead habitat availability in Scott Creek, Santa Cruz CountyCalifornia, California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division, Stream Flow and Habitat Evaluation Program, Sacramento, CA, 48pp., + appendix.Google Scholar
  94. Snider, W.M.: 1984, An assessment of coho salmon and steelhead trout resource requirements in Redwood Creek, Marin County, California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Branch Administrative Report 84–1, Sacramento, CA, 19pp.Google Scholar
  95. Snider, W.M.: 1985, Instream flow requirements of anadromous salmonids, Brush Creek, Mendocino County, California, California Department of Fish and Game, Stream Evaluation Report 85–1, Sacramento, CA, 33pp.Google Scholar
  96. Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J.: 1981, Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research2nd ed., W.H. Freeman, New York City, NY, 859pp.Google Scholar
  97. Sommani, P.: 1972, ‘A study on the population dynamics of striped bass (Morone saxatilisWalbaum)’ in: The San Francisco Bay estuary, Ph.D. dissertationUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, 133pp.Google Scholar
  98. Stalnaker, C., Lamb, B.L., Henriksen, J., Bovee, K. and Bartholow, J.: 1995, The instream flow incremental methodology: a primer for IFIM, U.S. Natl. Biol. Serv. Biol. Rep. 2945pp.Google Scholar
  99. Stanley, J.T., Smith, J.J., Morgan, R.A. and Alley, D.W.: 1983, Pajaro River habitat management study: detailed field study reportPrepared for the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, Monterey, CA, 368pp., + appendix.Google Scholar
  100. State Water Resources Control Board.: 1998, Report of investigation on the Navarro River watershed complaint in Mendocino CountyDivision of Water Rights, Complaint Unit, Sacramento, CA, 18pp., + appendix.Google Scholar
  101. Steiner (Environmental Consulting).: 1996, A history of the salmonid decline in the Russian RiverPrepared for the Sonoma CountyWater Agency and California State Coastal Conservancy, Potter Valley, CA, unpublished.Google Scholar
  102. Swanson, R.H.: 1978. Increasing water supply through watershed management’ Can. Wat. Resour. J. 3(1), 85–93.Google Scholar
  103. Swift, C.H. III.: 1976, Estimation of stream discharges preferred by steelhead trout for spawning and rearing in western Washington, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep. 75(155), 50pp.Google Scholar
  104. Swift, C.H. III.: 1979, Preferred stream discharges for salmon spawning and rearing in Washington, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep. 77(422), 51pp.Google Scholar
  105. Taylor, T.L., R.E. Geary and L.E. Week, (eds.): 1992, The Eel River: a symposium-workshop proceedingsCalifornia-Nevada Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, California Trout, and Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Redding, CA, 42pp.Google Scholar
  106. Tennant, D.L.: 1976, ‘Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation and related environmental resources’ Fisheries 1(4), 6–10.Google Scholar
  107. Thelander, C.G., ed.: 1994, Life on the edge, a guide to California's endangered natural resources, Volume I: Wildlife, BioSystems Books, Santa Cruz, CA, 550pp.Google Scholar
  108. U.S. Geological Survey.: 1999, NWIS homepage web site, [http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis-w/US].Google Scholar
  109. Vadas, R.L. Jr.: 1998, ‘Human impact on aquatic and riparian ecosystems in two streams of the Thompson River drainage, British Columbia’ in: Forest-fish conference: land management practices affecting aquatic ecosystems, Natural Resources Canada, Forest ServiceNorthern Forestry Center Information Report NOR-X-356, Brewin, M.K. and Monita, D.M.A. (eds.), Edmonton, AB, pp. 13–30.Google Scholar
  110. Vadas, R.L. Jr. 1999, ‘Ecohydrologic assessment in coastal streams of central California: salmonid instream-flow needs, sandbar dynamics and lotic classification (abstract)’ in: The EMAP Symposium on Western Ecological Systems: Status, Issues and New ApproachesU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ed.), San Francisco, CA, 111 pp.Google Scholar
  111. Vadas, R.L.Jr. and Orth, D.J.: 1997, ‘Species associations and habitat use of stream fishes: the effects of unaggregated-data analysis’ J. Freshw. Ecol. 12, 27–37.Google Scholar
  112. Vadas, R.L. Jr. and Weigmann, D.L.: 1993, The concept of instream flow and its relevance to drought management in the James River basin, Va. Wat. Resour. Res. Ctr. Bull. 17878pp.Google Scholar
  113. Vernon, E.H.: 1958, An examination of factors affecting the abundance of pink salmon in the Fraser River, Int. Pac. Salmon Fish. Comm. Prog. Rep. 349pp.Google Scholar
  114. Waite, I.R. and Barnhart, R.A.: 1992, ‘Habitat criteria for rearing steelhead: a comparison of site-specific and standard curves for use in the instream flow incremental methodology’ N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 12, 40–46.Google Scholar
  115. Warner, K.: 1963, ‘Natural spawning success of landlocked salmon, Salmo salar’ Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 92, 161–164.Google Scholar
  116. Wesche, T.A. and Rechard, P.A.: 1980, A summary of instream flow methods for fisheries and related research needs, Eisenhower Consort. Bull. 9122pp.Google Scholar
  117. Williamson, S. and Taylor, J.: 1993, ‘Trinity River, California, research and development project’ Hab. Eval. Notes & Instream Flow Chron. 3(1), 1–2.Google Scholar
  118. Zillges, G.: 1977, Methodology for determining Puget Sound coho escapement goals, escapement estimates, 1977 pre-season run size prediction and in-season run assessmentWash. Dept. Fish. Tech. Rep. 28, 65pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert L. VadasJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.EnviResource Consulting Ltd.CalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations