| Background | Hypotheses | Bibliography | Maps | Home
 


Institute for Fisheries Resources Response to U.C. panel of scientists  Comments on KRIS Gualala

The University of California was invited to review the KRIS Gualala project to determine its usefulness for watershed assessment. Questions posed to reviewers by the review coordinator (Standiford, 2003) were:

The Institute for Fisheries Resources responded to all U.C. comments and made appropriate changes or qualifications in KRIS Gualala. The table below summarized comments, responses and revisions. See also, U.C. reviewer comments in full. 

Please note that Hypotheses #3 and #4 were switched in their order after review. Numbers in parentheses and italics  indicate the new number.

Response to Comment Table

Comment # Reviewer Comment Location Category Notes
1 1 lack of baseline data hypotheses 2-additional info Does not fault KRIS
2 1 KRIS Gualala includes many pertinent field studies and considerable historic information (including photographs, timber harvest histories, etc.) that will enable agencies, companies, and the public to quickly access what is known about the watershed. general 1-overall approach No revision necessary
3 1 I believe that the six hypotheses are reasonable and, given sufficient investigation, would be born out. hypotheses 1-overall approach No revision necessary
4 1 The listed “tests” of the six hypotheses also seem reasonable hypotheses 1-overall approach No revision necessary
5 1 unlikely scenarios; relies on no further human disturbances to monitor "recovery" hypotheses 3, 4, and 6 1-overall approach Policy question. Only hypothetical. 
6 1 insufficiently documented that riparian timber harvest has exacerbated water temperature problems hypothesis 5 2-additional info Agrees with hypothesis in general. Need more field measurements to verify.
7 1 poorly documented/substantiated that riparian timber harvest has further depleted the supply of large woody debris in several Gualala River tributaries” hypothesis 5 2-additional info Landsat images show most areas in industrial timberlands with very small average tree size and previous timber harvest.
8 1 Not well supported from data that flow limits coho, salmon, and steelhead hypothesis 6 2-additional info No detailed flow data or information on changes in hydrology related to vineyard development exists. Edited Hypothesis 6 to improve arguments.
9 1 more orthophotographs from USGS… the one 1996 photo included provides a remarkable glimpse of the clearcutting activities in a portion of the watershed sediment 2-additional info Orthophotos are available. Six draft KRIS Gualala Map project CDs with complete orthophotos sent to UC but this reviewer must not have had ArcView.
10 1 More photos would help settle the dispute between KRIS Gualala Hypothesis #3 (now #4) and NCWAPS first hypothesis (erosion is from "Natural Sources") hypotheses 1 and 3 (#4) 2-additional info See comment #10.
11 1 Large numbers of sculpin in downstream migrant traps do not necessarily suggest community shifts in response to logging. Large numbers of sculpin observed in Redwood National Park, in pristine streams (reviewer's personal observation). fish 2-additional info Qualified statements in Hypothesis#1, Cumulative Effects and Fish Popluation pages. While may be many sculpin in Prairie Creek traps, they are far out-numbered by salmonids. It is the ratio of these species that is the measure of community structure. See:  http://www.krisweb.com/krisredwood/krisdb/webbuilder/pc_c8.htm.
12 1 Comparing steelhead sizes in Gualala and Garcia estuaries does not suggest lack of upstream carrying capacity fish 2-additional info Will qualify. What is an alternative hypothesis in terms of small steelhead size in Gualala estuary?
13 2 I found it difficult to judge which areas do or do not hold up scientifically. hypotheses 1-overall approach Reviewer also notes "Few people understand all facets of this field of watershed health."
14 2 Little sense is provided of the adequacy (strength) of data general 1-overall approach Entire Metadata system within KRIS Gualala deals with caveats regarding use of data and how robust it is. Reviewer may not have known to look there. Hypotheses edited accordingly.
15 2 Presentation of hypotheses and their scientific support is muddled hypotheses 1-overall approach IFR used UC comments to improve presentation of Hypotheses.
16 2 Data are not clearly and fully presented where needed to make the evaluation general 1-overall approach Criticism is based on use of linking web pages and layout of arguments and website.
17 2 Slope stability is treated almost entirely using SHALSTAB, which is not an adequate treatment sediment 2-additional info No data was provided by California Geologic Survey despite over a year of requests. See note on Data Sharing and Metadata records. No electronic USGS data is available for Gualala. Soils at 1:24000 are available in KRIS Gualala Map project for Mendocino County only. Not available for Sonoma Co.
18 2 The report would benefit from rigorous work on technical accuracy and clarity of expression. general 1-overall approach Specific suggestions in this regard more helpful. Edited to improve clarity.
19 2 Possible need for an added place in which to describe and illustrate relations among factors, so that descriptions of relations need not unnecessarily interrupt the text general 1-overall approach Will edit to limit digressions in Hypotheses. Cumulative Watershed Effects Background page deals with linkages.
20 2 Need for a single and accessible map or set of maps that shows gauges and sampling sites general 1-overall approach Many maps of gauge locations and sampling sites are captured as pictures in KRIS. Full spatial data available in ArcView KRIS Gualala Map project provided to UC as part of this review.
21 2 Need for a site map of the KRIS Gualala web site, so that the user can see all that is available and how to get to it general 1-overall approach KRIS website is under-going reorganization but will soon include a site map. Good suggestion.
22 2 Most interpretations in "Analysis" section are not clearly presented hypotheses 1-overall approach Working to improve.
23 2 There is a wealth of information assembled here, as well as good explanatory material that is of great help in leading the reader into this subject and into the Gualala watershed. All of this represents a great deal of work, and the authors are to be commended. general 1-overall approach No revision necessary
24 2 Captions and "background" likewise could use scrutiny for consistent accuracy and clarity; overall lack of focus general 1-overall approach Specific suggestions in this regard more helpful.
25 2 what degree of evidence is convincing, vs. suggestive, vs. within the range of background noise. i.e. how many D50 (or other) samples constitute convincing coverage of a stream reach, or of a watershed? Data seems piecemeal; general 1-overall approach Data in the Gualala watershed is piecemeal. KRIS can only work with existing data. If the samples are smaller than optimal, but it is the only data available, they are used with qualification. Much data to which IFR had access was in summary form and sampling regime and specifics not made available (i.e. GRI fines sediment data). See note on data sharing.
26 2 authors seem eager to describe interrelations at inopportune times in the text; suggests that an additional page or section devoted to interrelations might be useful general 1-overall approach Working to improve.
27 2 The header of printed pages reads "Hypothesis #1: The distribution and abundance of coho in the KRIS Big River project area has been diminished by historic and recent land use." The title of the same page reads "The distribution and abundance of coho salmon and steelhead trout in the Gualala River basin has been diminished." hypothesis 1 3-simple edit Title of old Big River Hypothesis #1 hidden in page and only displayed when printed. Will be correcting in website revision .
28 2 these hypotheses treats not just the decline in fish but also the reason for decline, i.e., "historic and recent land use." The argument presented in "support for the hypothesis" seems also to address both facets, and so goes beyond the simpler hypothesis of fish decline that seems to be intended. hypothesis 1 1-overall approach Will isolate discussion of decline of coho, while leaving reasons for decline to another hypothesis
29 2 "Support for the hypothesis from the literature" implies that the literature that follows was directed at the Gualala watershed; the heading might better be "background" or such, because what follows describes not Gualala but rather relations that may be useful in interpreting data from Gualala hypothesis 2 1-overall approach The structure of Hypotheses is explained on Analysis page, with literature from the entire Pacific Northwest serving as a basis. Further down, patterns in data in Gualala are assessed. The exception is Hypothesis #1, where decline of fish in the Gualala can only be proven with evidence  from the Gualala.
30 2 Section "Support ...from Gualala data" needs clean arguments, with each step clearly written and explained. For clarity, the appropriate charts and tables could be cited where they are referred to, as is done in most scientific publications, rather than leaving it up to the reader to figure out which of the illustrations are relevant to the specific point. hypothesis 2 1-overall approach Will improve linkage of discussions with graphics.
31 2 Lack of clarity about the information itself (Example: Are all D50 data from GRI, and so suspect?) hypothesis 2 2-additional info Access to Metadata system would have cleared up these questions for the reviewer.
32 2 Uncertainty about implications of data or other statements used in the argument (Examples: How does the sentence "Alternatively, adult steelhead..." fit into the argument? And how does "Fuller Creek is in recovery from past logging damage..." relate to the point of the caption?) hypothesis 2 2-additional info Will reduce digressions and tighten statements.
33 2 Use of examples, such as lower Wheatfield, when no data is presented for lower Wheatfield. hypothesis 2 2-additional info Will add information from the Wheatfield.
34 2 confusion about what is real data (Example: Use of photo showing timber-harvest inspection team on Little North Fork Gualala River, in which the reader is expected to visually measure D50 of the gravel; this would be a good illustration if used properly, but it is currently presented almost as if a data point for the previous chart) hypothesis 2 2-additional info Will modify caption to deal with channel width which is more observable at the scale of the photo and still coroborates aggradation.
35 2 Most data are about specific reaches but hypothesis is for entire watershed; need to explain what is known about specific places hypothesis 2 1-overall approach Suites of problems tend to be associated with land use patterns. Will make geographic distinctions cleaner in revision of Hypotheses.
36 2 The question of adequacy of data, which is discussed earlier in this review. hypothesis 2 1-overall approach See comment #19
37 2 conclusions are muddled. The reader is impressed with abundant information but feels drowned in it and cannot see how it fits together into a tight argument hypothesis 2 1-overall approach Will improve clarity in final.
38 2 relates temperature to fish abundance; any data or references to sediment only serve to muddle the argument here.  hypothesis 3 (#4) 1-overall approach Will revise.
39 2 Support...from the literature gives one paragraph to temperature-fish relations and one to mechanisms for temperature elevation. hypothesis 3 (#4) 1-overall approach Will move mechanisms to Hypothesis #5.
40 2 "Support ...from the Gualala basin" focuses cleanly on temperature-fish relations, and so is on track toward effective support for the hypothesis. Hypothesis #3 (now #4) in general is presented more succinctly and effectively than #'s 1 and 2 because it focuses on the relation in question, between fish and temperature hypothesis 3 (#4) positive feedback, no response necesarry No revision necessary
41 2 arguments need to be organized and clarified. This hypothesis has two parts, 1) sediment from recent management is significant, and 2) is preventing recovery of habitat hypothesis 4 (#3) 1-overall approach Will revise.
42 2 Paragraphs in "support...from the literature" are out of this order, scrambled hypothesis 4 (#3) 3-simple edit Will revise.
43 2 use of D50 data, which seems central to the issue, is not explained here, leaving the reader in limbo regarding most of the data presented hypothesis 4 (#3) 1-overall approach Will revise.
44 2 it would help to refer in the text to the specific charts and photos, so that the disparate illustrations take on some order hypothesis 4 (#3) 1-overall approach Will revise.
45 2 the reader is left to discover that all supporting data comes from the North Fork subbasin hypothesis 4 (#3) 1-overall approach North Fork is well studied and has similar terrain and land use to lower Rockpile, Buckeye and the lower South Fork.
46 2 alternative hypotheses seem discounted; hypothesis #4 (now #3), the alternatives include some rather fanciful geologic arguments that could be refuted hypothesis 4 (#3) 1-overall approach They are supported by CGS, Dr. Matt O'Connor and NCWAP (except NCRWQCB).
47 2 This hypothesis consists of two parts, that recent riparian harvest in Gualala subbasins has 1) exacerbated water temperature problems, and 2) depleted LWD supply. hypothesis 5 1-overall approach Will revise.
48 2 LWD and debris torrent discussion: All of this is interesting, but here, once again, the discussion is hardly to the point. hypothesis 5 1-overall approach Will revise.
49 2 captions, here and elsewhere, appear to carry much of the information. They, like the text, should be worked over to focus the discussion on the hypothesis. hypothesis 5 1-overall approach Will revise.
50 2 Here and elsewhere, the section "Methods to support or refute the hypotheses" is helpful and an important contribution of the report. hypothesis 5 1-overall approach No revision necessary
50 2 Hypothesis as stated seems to be restricted to the Gualala River. Does it also address tributaries? Illustrations show tributaries. hypothesis 6 3-simple edit Used in an inclusive sense. Will explain.
51 2 Background pages appear helpful, but on closer inspection are uneven. background pages 1-overall approach Will follow specific suggestions offered.
52 2 showing a historical logging scene, is misleading ("Earliest logging") when date on photo shows it to be in a later period discussed in text. background cwe 1-overall approach Will revise.
53 2 These USGS streams constitute only a small fraction of the streams actually present, and so the analysis offers an incomplete picture, but this fact is not mentioned. stream order 1-overall approach Stream order page quotes from Leopold regarding how 1:24000 hydrology under-represents actual streams.
54 2 "damage just east of the airstrip which is right of center of photo" leaves this reader unclear of which area is the WWII damage tour: NF WWII logging 3-simple edit Will revise.
55 2 caption for flow of Gualala River at Annapolis, caption refers to X axis when Y is intended flow 3-simple edit Will revise.
56 2 Problem with much-used D50 chart by Knopp. Enigmatic headings on chart are not explained in explanation; sediment 2-additional info This seems to refer to following InfoLinks from Chart.
57 2 (In reference to Knopp's D50 chart) reader is shuffled off to separate note on another page, breaking much hope of understanding. sediment 1-overall approach Will re-organize.
58 2 The note on Knopp's D50 data describes how Knopp made a point of using the term "index" rather than "control" for streams having minimal management impact. Then in at least one caption (D50s for Buckeye Creek basin) you use the term "control" for the Knopp data. sediment 3-simple edit Will revise.
59 2 Paragraph on measurement of permeability describes its importance but does not describe its measurement; rather, measurement of dissolved oxygen is described to some degree. sediment 3-simple edit Will revise.
60 2 Measurement of embeddedness is described well, especially the qualifications about its use, the fact that it is more subjective than other measures. habitat 1-overall approach No revision necessary
61 2 Good, appropriate level of "background" information. geology 1-overall approach No revision necessary
62 2 Highly instructive and readable summary of current understanding. I find the clarity, tone, and level of presentation of this and similar background items to be an especially valuable contribution of this work. temperature 1-overall approach No revision necessary
63 2 CDFG habitat-type map does not seem to fit with caption, in part at least habitat 2-additional info Not sure what "map" refers to.
64 2 Second caption for Hypothesis #3 (now #4) (temperature map with vegetation) lacks logic. hypothesis 3 (#4) 2-additional info Will revise.
65 2 The third illustration, a map, is confusing and difficult to discern the stations and temperatures. hypothesis 3 (#4) 2-additional info NCRWQCB Map. Cannot revise.
66 2 The user in many cases cannot view the illustrations and captions at the same time and can never view the text and illustrations together. web pages 1-overall approach This comment is not directed at a specific topic.
67 2 Not all images are available, for North Fork at least. tours? Maps? 2-additional info not sure what "images" refers to.
68 2 It is difficult to carefully study relations among mapped factors because one can't view them simultaneously. Different base maps (shaded relief vs. USGS topo sheet) adds to this difficulty, though in other respects this difference is helpful in providing different images of the ground flow, LWD, climate 1-overall approach Complete Arc View KRIS Gualala Map project provided for UC review but not available to this reviewer?
69 2 Language glitches -- for example, "extremely invaluable", "quarried" for "queried", "hire" for "higher". general 3-simple edit Will revise. Need to query on words described
70 2 in note on "regional baseline values for fine sediment", the geology of Freshwater Creek is noted to be "especially erodible." This is disputable, to my knowledge, and so should be referenced sediment 2-additional info Will provide citation. PALCO Freshwater Creek Watershed Analysis. Half the watershed is in Wildcat Terrain, a highly erodible sandstone.
71 2 The added habitat typing data from 1994 strengthen the arguments of Hypothesis #4 (#3) and are a significant addition. hypothesis 4 (#3) 2-additional info Noted
72 3 You NEED to say that the pages are your response to a given question (and what that question is), and that literature is associated, referenced and not necessarily all correct or all driving your final recommendations.  general 1-overall approach  
73 3 Are these areas presently the same in size and delivery rate? "Many major sediment sources that are active today were also active in 1942 as shown by comparisons of 1942 aerial photos with those taken in 1999/2000." NCWAP 2-additional info Reviewer is actually commenting on North Coast Watershed Assessment hypotheses that were linked from IFR Hypothesis page.
74 3 I think the IMPORTANT consideration here is one of marginality.  In the pre-peopled environment, the sediment was at a rate, x.  Now it is greater, x + h.  Whether h is larger than x (thus a new dominant force) is not important... Is h reducing the capacity of the stream relative to fisheries and other values?  In a marginal situation, a small h could result in signficant population loss.  Consider the V* data... there is no 'zero' point, but increasing impacts to and beyond 50%.  NCWAP hypotheses NCWAP NCWAP.
75 3 drolleries' logs? NCWAP hypotheses NCWAP NCWAP.
76 3 "The Assessment found that sediment mobilized by the 1964 flood event caused significant change in habitat conditions that has had a lasting impact on aquatic habitat."  Your data records show the 1955 flood as much greater in volume (25k cfs) - why was 64 so much a greater impact? NCWAP hypotheses NCWAP NCWAP.
78 3 How can you identify natural erosion as the dominant source if you haven't quantified the human induced erosion? NCWAP hypotheses NCWAP NCWAP.
79 3 the hypothesis is a reflection on the data record... that's not a good hypothesis.  A more acceptable one would be 'Increased temperatures, as reflected in the data record, limit the growth and productivity of salmon and steelhead in the Gualala'. hypothesis 3 (#4)   No suitable baseline data for actual comparison.
80 3 –Your literature notes the effect of air cooling on streams. The change in forest influences in the Gualala, particularly in places like Wheatfield, has no doubt been profound.  The concept of forest influences, going from old-growth to no-growth deserves mention. hypothesis 3 (#4) 2-additional info Longer term changes are profound and mentioned in Cumulative Effects in the Gualala Basin Background page.
81 3 –Sediment residence time is important, but I suspect you will find that, like in a bank account, it is the impact of average balances rather than the identification of given grains that is important.  I suspect that stream banks (ouch!) use a LIFO system rather than FIFO, thus tracing grains is a waste of time. hypothesis #4 (#3) 2-additional info Last In First Out? First in Last Out?
82 3 Why is this important?  Logging in 1985 was not substatially different than today.  Environmental drivers that move sediment in massive amounts, (e.g. the 1964 storms) happen infrequently;  the amount of 'healing' which a watershed can manage - sequestration of sediment in stable areas;  growth of roots; recovery of bare areas; re-development of big wood, etc. are insignificant to this fine line in time. hypothesis #5 1-overall approach Clarify in regards to time period
83 3 I'm concerned that the use of airphotos as a dominant comparison scheme for watershed analysis is missing much of the action on the ground.  Consider that a new road produces much more sediment than an old one, though both appear similarly on airphotos. NCWAP hypotheses NCWAP NCWAP.
84 3 the upper South Fork appears unlogged in the 1940's, for instance, sounds plain wrong.  I would bet that the doug-fir was relatively intact, but there was plenty of settlement and conversion to cattle / sheep land.  Check with historical sources, such as old-timers (a book by George Charles, *Memories of the Sonoma Coast* is available) and the So Co Library. NCWAP hypotheses NCWAP NCWAP.
85 3 Walters Ridge and other places - logging roads are a source, yes, and so are driveways.  The S Fk and Wheatfield (to my knowledge) have become subdivisions.  Good road mgt is just coming in... but DUST from these roads has been and will be a problem for a long time. NCWAP hypotheses NCWAP NCWAP.
86 3 the ShalStab references need to include Rice et al. and their first approximation of this model - a factor analysis of landlsliding in timber harvest lands of the north coast mass wasting 2-additional info Will revise.
87 3 See Janda et al. 1976? 78? re: redwood ck, humboldt co.: landsliding and bank erosion, from whatever source, is a key in feedback mechanisms leading to more sedimentation, landsliding and bank erosion Cumulative Impacts 2-additional info See Cumulative Effects in the Gualala Basin Background page.
88 3 The selection in this section of 'things that affect fish' may be missing the point for cumpact effects because it does not recognize drivers and relative destabization regimes.  See also the Washington Cumpact protocols re:flow charts (or cause-effect diagrams). NCWAP hypotheses NCWAP NCWAP.
89 3 On examination, your matrices appear to be flow charts. The nomenclature is important. Cumulative Impacts 3-simple edit Will revise.
90 3 Flow chart for water supply is an argument against flow charts. water supply 3-simple edit  
91 3 Need some winnowing of info and results of analysis. So what if Bartholow is right... do we need to maintain headwater forests to manage the cold air drainage? temperature 2-additional info Policy question.
92 3 You've got a good explanation of uplift.  I'd point out the many uplifted formations in the area, such as the marine terraces N and S of the Gualala mouth, and the Ohlsen Ranch formation. geology 2-additional info Will revise.
93 3 you discuss the interrelationship bet. uplift, deposition and sedimentation.  I'd included flux in sea level (you do too..) to build a model for the reader.  Land up, water up, water down, erosion and deposition, land up... etc.  This accounts for the deep-filled very flat valleys of the Gualala. background - geology 2-additional info Good suggestion but not within budget for this project.
94 3 Sure, the P went down in Ft Ross.. but it remained even in H'bug and up in Ukiah.  I think you need more than one point to make this point. precipitation 2-additional info No point made because rain gauge at Ft. Ross changed in 1939.
95 3 There's a lot of data and a lot of hypotheses about why the Gualala is in poor shape.  I find particularly telling the background forest of the 19th century photos.... the forest influence implication is tremendous.  general 1-overall approach No revision necessary
96 4 Overall, I think that the Institute for Fishery Resources has done a good job of organizing a massive amount of information on watershed conditions and aquatic resources in the Gualala River basin.  general 1-overall approach No revision necessary
97 4 KRIS Gualala could become a useful toolbox for land managers, enabling them to produce better site-specific plans for individual projects.  general 1-overall approach No revision necessary
98 4 Background Pages incorporate and use well the body of literature on forestry-watershed-fisheries relationships.  general 1-overall approach No revision necessary
99 4 the statement that the convective transfer of heat from air to water is more important than direct solar radiation.  This is contrary to a number of studies, among them the study (cited in the KRIS bibliography) of Sinokrot and Stefan (1993). temperature 1-overall approach Sinokrot and Stefan (1994) ranked direct sun light as the most important parameter for predicting water temperature in their model, but noted that air temperature was also an important driver. Their work is based on five streams in Minnesota, while the work of Bartholow (1989) and Chen (1991) are based on data from the West and Pacific Northwest, respectively.
100 4 The first paragraph under “Factors that Influence Water Temperature” should be revised. hypothesis #5 2-additional info see previous comment
101 4 Thermally-stratified cold pools, where up-welling groundwater enters the channel, have been shown to be important refugia in some north coast rivers. temperature 2-additional info While these types of habitats no doubt exist in the Gualala, there is no documentation from stream surveys. These refugia are small, isolated pockets of habitat so are likely to provide limited habitat.
102 4 The presence of such pools might make survival possible even where average stream temperatures (measured at riffles) are lethal, and the temperature data that are available might not well-characterize the conditions. temperature 2-additional info See response above (101). There are sufficient data in the Gualala to characterize reaches. Seven water temperature gauges on the lower ten miles of the North Fork Gualala River provide ample data on which to judge water temperture and suitability for salmonids. Habitat typing surveys of this reach did not note stratification of pools or hyporheic connection. The Wheatfield Fork was also extensively surveyed and has sufficient temperature data to know that it does not have substantial summer refuge areas.
103 4 I could not find a discussion of migration barriers.  fish 2-additional info No data available from CDFG or others.
104 4 “Recent regional studies of flood effects have demonstrated that existing riparian protection under CFPRs are (sic) insufficient”.  Only one study (gray literature at that) is cited to support this statement.  It may be true that existing protections are insufficient to protect aquatic resources, but if the authors want to take on the CFPR, they need better documentation than this. The results of the Board of Forestry’s on-going monitoring study should be cited.  Specific suggestions on how to improve the rules would be useful.  Some critics will probably find the statement inflammatory.  riparian 1-overall approach Will re-phrase to specifically state that finding is from Ligon et al. (1999) specifically.
105 4 The “Tree Size and Vegetation Types from Landsat Imagery” data do not seem to be utilized very effectively.  Some illustrative maps are shown in “Stream Conditions: Riparian Areas”, but some quantitative analysis based on these maps would be useful.  Perhaps a table of km of adjacent vegetation/seral stage by stream class could be developed. vegetation types 2-additional info Have quantitative breakdwon in Vegetation Type Topics, which reviewer must have missed.
106 4 It might also be useful to incorporate the old soil-vegetation survey information from the 1950s and ‘60s, and analyze changes.  Paul Zinke has digitized many of the old maps, some of which (I think) include the Gualala.  This would be a big enough project to require some additional funding.  vegetation types 2-additional info Good suggestion but not within budget for this project.
107 4 The road density threshold of 3 mi/mi2 is mentioned in several places.  This seems too simple.  It’s not road density by itself, but rather where the roads are located that is important (inner gorge slopes, mid-slope or ridge-tops, unstable terrain, etc), the hydrologic connectivity of the roads with the stream system, the design of stream crossings, the design of road drainage (out-sloped or in-sloped), etc. road density 2-additional info The association of high road densities and increased sediment in streams is demonstrated in numerous northern California basins. Matthews and Associates (1999) found that timber harvest in the South Fork Ten Mile from 1990 to 1999 did not trigger many landslides as prior entries, but that high road densities were linked to increased sediment yield to streams.
108 4  Links to 3 figures called “Matrices”.  They are actually diagrams showing chains of causation that link forestry activities with fish. These could be made a lot clearer and easier to follow by making each box either a process (e.g. surface soil erosion) or a watershed attribute (e.g. suspended sediment concentration), without indicating in the box either an increase or decrease.  Cumulative Impacts 3-simple edit Good suggestion but not within budget for this project.
109 4 The last sentence in the “Cumulative Watershed Effects” section is garbled. Cumulative Impacts 3-simple edit Will revise.
110 4 the statement that “(w)ater quality monitoring is discussed in Chapter 5".  It looks like this was lifted directly from another document; I don’t see a “Chapter 5" insects - bioassessment 3-simple edit The entire Background page is taken from and credited to: Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997.
111 4 KRIS Gualala has not done a very good job of incorporating hydrologic data rainfall 2-additional info Additional gauge data added.
112 4 The six hypotheses are supported by the data presented, but the clarity and strength of the argument is marred by the way in which the hypotheses are formulated.  The hypotheses represent a chain of causation, and this section would be clearer if the individual links in the chain were addressed separately hypotheses 2-additional info Will revise.
113 4 Hypothesis #1, as stated, addresses only the decrease in the abundance and distribution of coho and steelhead in the basin.  The data are pretty clear on this, and I doubt if there could be much dispute. hypothesis #1 1-overall approach No revision necessary
114 4 The hypothesis really is: “human activity in the basin has, through a number of mechanism, caused a decline in the populations of coho and steelhead”.  This could be defined as the underlying hypothesis of the entire project, and then broken down into individual links addressed with individual hypotheses. hypothesis #1 1-overall approach Will revise.
115 4 Flood history (1964) is mentioned, but does not seem to be documented in the hydrology data base. hypothesis #1 2-additional info Will revise.
116 4 I don’t think that ocean fishing and ocean temperatures can be so readily dismissed as factors in the decline.  On a decadal scale, surface sea temperatures (SST) in the Gulf of Alaska are strongly correlated with the sockeye salmon escapement (Finney, et al., 2000). hypothesis #2 2-additional info Discussion of ocean conditions is outside KRIS IFR funded scope. Will add reference to ocean variability.
117 4 Hypothesis #2 (Elevated levels of sediment...limits coho and steelhead production) seems well supported, even in the lack of good data on sediment transport. The photos showing effects of aggradation, and channels that look like gravel roads, are pretty convincing by themselves. hypothesis #2 1-overall approach No revision necessary
118   Hypothesis #3 (now #4)(Elevated water temperatures limit coho and steelhead production) presents a large amount of temperature data, and documents the temperature problems for salmonids.  hypothesis #3 (#4) 1-overall approach No revision necessary
119 4 As with Hypothesis #1, the discussion starts to get into the issue of causes of temperature problems.  hypothesis #3 (#4) 1-overall approach Will revise.
120 4 The image of Buckeye Creek shows predominance of small vegetation, but the quantitative data are used only qualitatively.  I am not sure what is meant by “substantial amount of small diameter trees”. hypothesis #3 (#4) 2-additional info Access to quantitative data in KRIS Gualala Veg Topics. Map was an image from North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
121 4 It would be more useful if the available information could be applied quantitatively.  For example, the sediment size might be contrasted with estimates of transport capacity (or competence), for some selected reaches at Q1.5 (slope, roughness, channel cross-section would be needed).  As I recall, the Dietrich et al. paper cited in the first paragraph outlines an approach.  Did the TMDL provide any information on sediment supply rates? hypothesis #4 (#3) 2-additional info Beyond the scope of KRIS project funding. TMDL is linked from KRIS Gualala.
122 4 (Recent riparian timber harvest has exacerbated water temperature problems and further depleted large wood supply...) is really two hypotheses.  Apparently they are treated as one because the logging affects both habitat variables.  But the solution might be different for each problem, so they should be treated separately. hypothesis #5 1-overall approach Will revise.

 

References

Bisson, P.A., J.L. Nielsen, R.A. Palmason and L.E. Grove. 1981. A system of naming habitat in small streams, with examples of habitat utilization by salmonids during low streamflow. In N.B. Armantrout ed. Acquisition and Utilization of Aquatic Habitat Inventory Information. Proceedings of a symposium,  Oct. 28-30, 1981, Portland, Oregon. Hagen Publishing Co., Billings, Montana. pp. 62-73. Portland, Oregon.

Boydstun, L. B. 1974a. Project Progress Report CoastaI Steelhead Study. June 1, 1972 to June 30, 1973. California Department of Fish and Game Project No. AFS-16-2.32 p.

Boydstun, L. B. 1974b. Coastal Steelhead Study. June 1, 1973 to June 30, 1974. California Department of Fish and Game Project No. AFS-16-1.32 p.

Boydstun, L. B. 1976a. Coastal Steelhead Study. July 1,1974 to June 30,1975. California Department of Fish and Game Project No. AFS-16-3. 8 p.

Boydstun, L. B. 1976b. Coastal Steelhead Study. July 1, 1975 to June 30, 1976. California Department of Fish and Game Project No. AFS-164. 12 p.

Brown, Charles. 1986. An Account of the Fishes Caught In The Lower GuaIaIa River, California, 1984 Through 1986. California Department of Fish and Game. Bay-Delta Fisheries Project. October 1986. 13 pp., appendices, data sheets.

Bruer, RR 1953. Field correspondence to Inland Fisheries Branch, Region III recommending GuaIaIa River be opened to sport fishing after closure for five years. 

Cox, W 1994.Letter to Jim Berry regarding distribution and habitat conditions of coho salmon with table showing current and historical distribution of coho within Gualala River and other streams in Sonoma and Mendocino CountyCalifornia Department of Fish and Game, Region 3, Yountville, CA. 2 p.

Groot, C. and L. Margolis (eds.). 1991. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. Printed by University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, B.C. 564 p.

Kelly, E.A., A. MacDonald, T. Tally and N.J. Merrit. 1995. Effects of Large Organic Debris on Channel Morphology and Sediment Storage in Selected Tributaries of Redwood Creek, Northwestern, California. U.S. Geologic Survey Professional Paper 1454-P, Menlo Park, CA. 29 p.

Larson, Z.S. and M.R. Belchik. 1998. A preliminary status review of eulachon and Pacific lamprey in the Klamath River Basin. Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program. Klamath CA. 24 p.

Parke, C.W. and R R Klamt. 1970a.  South Fork Fuller Creek Stream Survey.  South Fork Fuller Creek from mouth to upper fish limit 3 miles upstream on foot (hand drawn map, description and dimensions of log jams). June 18, 1970. California Department of Fish and Game, Region 3, Yountville, CA. 2 p. 

Parke, C.W and R R Klamt. 1970b. Fuller Creek Stream Survey. Fuller Creek from mouth to forks 2.8 miles upstream on foot (hand drawn map, description and dimensions of log jams).June22, 197O. California Department of Fish and Game, Region 3, Yountville, CA. 2 p. Stream Surveys (Cont.)

Parke, C.W. and R R Klamt. 1970c. Haupt Creek Stream Survey, personal observations. Boyd Creek surveyed on foot from mouth to upper fish limit 6 miles upstream. June 24, 197O. California Department of Fish and Game, Region 3, Yountville, CA. 2 pp.

Parke, C.W. and R R Klamt. 1971a. North Fork Fuller Creek Stream Survey. North Fork Fuller Creek from mouth to upper fish limit two miles upstream on foot. Survey on June 19, 1971. California Department of Fish and Game, Region 3, Yountville, CA. 1 p.

Welsh, H.H. and L.M. Ollivier. 1998. Stream amphibians as indicators of ecosystem stress: a case study from California's redwoods. Ecological Applications 8(4):1118-1132.

Welsh, H. H., Roelofs, T. D., Frissel, C. A., 2000. Aquatic Ecosystems of the Redwood Region. in The Redwood Forest. Eds. R. Noss. Island Press. Chapter 6.