FC TTS Report 2017
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Opens a New Window
3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section provides information regarding impacts of the proposed project on hydrology and water quality. The information used in this analysis is taken from: ► Water Supply Assessment for the Humboldt Wind Energy Project (Stantec 2019) (Appendix T); ► Humboldt County General Plan (Humboldt County 2017); ► North Coast Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (North Coast IRWMP) (North Coast Resource Partnership 2018); ► Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan) (North Coast RWQCB 2018); ► the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Mapping Program (2018); ► National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data; and ► California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater (DWR 2003). 3.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CLIMATE AND PRECIPITATION Weather in the project area is characterized by temperate, dry summers and cool, wet winters. In winter, precipitation is heavy. Average annual rainfall can be up to 47 inches in Scotia (WRCC 2019). The rainy season, which generally begins in October and lasts through April, includes most of the precipitation (e.g., 90 percent of the mean annual runoff of the Eel River occurs during winter). Precipitation data from water years 1981–2010 for Eureka, approximately 20 miles north of the project area, show a mean annual precipitation of 40 inches (NOAA and CNRFC 2019). Mean annual precipitation in the project area is lowest in the coastal zone area (40 inches per year) and highest in the upper elevations of the Upper Cape Mendocino and Eel River hydrologic units to the east (85 inches per year) (Cal-Atlas 1996). The dry season, generally May through September, is usually defined by morning fog and overcast conditions. -
Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Eureka Area Humboldt County, California
Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Eureka Area Humboldt County, California By R, E. EVENSON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1470 Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1959 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. S EATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U. S. Geological Survey Library has cataloged this publication as follows: Evenson, Robert Edward, 1924- Geology and ground-water features of the Eureka area, Humboldt County, California. Prepared in cooperation with the California Dept. of Water Eesources. Washing ton, U. S. Govt. Print. Off., 1959 iv, 80 p. maps, diagrs., tables. 25 cm. (U. S. Geological Survey Water-supply paper 1470) Part of illustrative matter fold. col. in pocket. Bibliography: p. 77. 1. Water-supply California Humboldt Co. 2. Water, Under ground California Humboldt Co. i. Title: Eureka area, Hum boldt County, California. (Series) TC801.U2 no. 1470 551.490979412 GS 59-169 copy 2. GB1025.C2E9 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. CONTENTS Page Abstract___-_____-__--_--_-_-_________-__--_--_-_-______ ___ 1 Introduction._____________________________________________________ 2 Purpose and scope of the work________ _________________________ 2 Location and extent of the area_______________-_-__-__--________ 3 Previous work_______________________________________________ 3 Well-numbering system________________________________________ -
Geology of Eel River Valley Area, Humboldt
TN 24 C3 :7u>.;fe4-. STATE OF CALIFOBina DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY OF EEL RIVER VALLEY AREA HUMBOLDT COUNTY. CALtFOBNIA BULLETIN 164 IS53 DIVISION OF MINES FEBHY BUILDING, SftN FRANCISCO THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS STATE OF CALIFORNIA EARL WARREN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WARREN T. HANNUM, Director DIVISION OF MINES FERRY BUILDING, SAN FRANCISCO 11 OLAF P. JENKINS. Chief SAN FRANCISCO BULLETIN 164 NOVEMBER 1953 GEOLOGY OF EEL RIVER VALLEY AREA HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By BURDETTE A. OGLE LIBRARY UNIVERSll Y OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To His Exccllencij The Honorable Earl Warren Governor of the State of California Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith Bulletin 164, Geology of Eel River Valley Area, Humholdt County, California, prepared under the direction of Olaf P. Jenkins, Chief of the Division of Mines, Depart- ment of Natural Resources. The report is accompanied by a detailed geologic map covering the Fernclale and Fortuna quadrangles and the northern part of the Scotia quadrangle, scale 1 : 62,500. The author, Bur- dette Ogle, mapped the geology of the area and prepared the report in fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctorate at the University of California. The area covers that part of the Eel River Basin in northwestern Cali- fornia where much interest is now being centered on the economic devel- opment of oil and gas resources. Other mineral materials of economic concern in the area are limestone, sand and gravel, crushed rock, volcanic ash, lignite, hematite, and water resources. This report represents the results of basic geologic studies which should be of value to all manner of interests in natural resources. -
Historical Review of Eel River Anadromous Salmonids, 2010
HISTORICAL REVIEW OF EEL RIVER ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS, WITH EMPHASIS ON CHINOOK SALMON, COHO SALMON AND STEELHEAD UC DAVIS, CENTER FOR WATERSHED SCIENCES WORKING PAPER A Report Commissioned by California Trout, 2010 Ronald M. Yoshiyama and Peter B. Moyle Center for Watershed Sciences University of California, Davis Davis, CA 95616 February 1, 2010 Yoshiyama & Moyle Page - 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was made possible by the many people—past and present—who have held an interest in the Eel River system and its salmonid fishes. We greatly appreciate the support we received from numerous individuals and organizations in conducting our review. Our colleagues in the public agencies, academic institutions and private sector generously gave their time and information that contributed to this report. They are acknowledged in the text as personal communications. We especially thank S. Downie, B. Jong, M. Gilroy, S. Harris, S. Cannata, P. Higgins and B. Kier who collectively provided volumes of data and documents. In addition, we thank Scott Feierabend and the staff of California Trout for their constant support, high enthusiasm and enduring patience in seeing this project to its end. California Trout enabled funding of this project from the Friends of the Eel and anonymous donors. Yoshiyama & Moyle Page - 3 HISTORICAL REVIEW OF EEL RIVER ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS, WITH EMPHASIS ON CHINOOK SALMON, COHO SALMON AND STEELHEAD Ronald M. Yoshiyama and Peter B. Moyle Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Eel River basin once possessed significant populations of at least five distinct kinds of anadromous salmonids, including fall-run Chinook salmon, coho salmon, winter and summer steelhead, and coastal cutthroat trout. -
Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model for the Eel River Valley Basin Prepared For: Eel River Valley Groundwater Basin GSP, 2021
Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model for the Eel River Valley Basin Prepared for: Eel River Valley Groundwater Basin GSP, 2021 Humboldt County Department of Public Works August 18, 2021 PREPARED BY: GHD, Inc., 718 3rd Street, Eureka, CA 95501 Contents 1. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Geologic Setting 1 1.2.1 Basin Stratigraphy 2 1.2.2 Basin Alluvium 2 1.2.3 Terrace Deposits 2 1.2.4 Carlotta Formation 2 1.2.5 Geomorphic and Depositional Setting 3 1.2.6 Faults within the Basin 4 1.2.7 Basin Boundaries 4 1.3 Soil Characteristics 4 1.4 Principal Aquifers and Aquitards 5 1.4.1 Alluvial Aquifer 5 1.4.2 Carlotta Aquifer 6 1.4.3 Aquitards 6 1.4.4 Aquifer Hydraulic Characteristics 7 1.4.5 Primary Aquifer Use 7 1.4.6 Aquifer Recharge Areas 9 1.5 General Water Quality 9 1.6 Surface Water Bodies Significant to Basin 10 1.7 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Data Gaps and Uncertainty 10 2. References 10 List of Tables Table 1. ERVB Groundwater Use by Use Type 7 List of Charts Chart 1. Groundwater Use 2011-2020. 8 List of Figures Figure 1. General Basin Vicinity Map. A-2 Figure 2. Geologic Map (McLaughlin 2002). A-3 Figure 3. Geologic Map (Ogle, 1953; Dibblee, 2008). A-4 Figure 4. Geological Cross Sections (Ogle, 1953). A-5 GHD | Humboldt County Department of Public Works | 11217388. 2.3.1 | Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model for the Eel River Valley Basin ii Figure 5. Geological Cross-Section 1 A-6 Figure 6. -
Latest Pleistocene to Holocene River Terrace Deformation
LATEST PLEISTOCENE TO HOLOCENE RIVER TERRACE DEFORMATION WITHIN THE SOUTHERNMOST EXTENT OF THE LITTLE SALMON FAULT ZONE; GEOMORPHIC INSIGHTS TO FAULT TERMINATION AND RUPTURE HISTORY, VAN DUZEN RIVER, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA By Sylvia R. Nicovich A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Environmental Systems: Geology Committee Membership Dr. Mark Hemphill-Haley, Committee Chair Dr. Andre Lehre, Committee Member Thomas Leroy, M.Sc., Committee Member Dr. Melanie Michalak, Committee Member Dr. Christopher Dugaw, Graduate Coordinator July 2015 ABSTRACT LATEST PLEISTOCENE TO HOLOCENE RIVER TERRACE DEFORMATION WITHIN THE SOUTHERNMOST EXTENT OF THE LITTLE SALMON FAULT ZONE; GEOMORPHIC INSIGHTS TO FAULT TERMINATION AND RUPTURE HISTORY, VAN DUZEN RIVER, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Sylvia R. Nicovich The southern Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ) of northwestern California exhibits northeast-directed contraction, transitioning to north-northwest directed translation within the broad San Andreas fault (SAF) transform margin to the south. The Little Salmon fault (LSF) is one of the southern-most, active thrust faults within the onshore fold and thrust belt of the CSZ, and lies proximal to the transition from compressional to dextral stress across the Mendocino triple junction (MTJ). Thus, it is an ideal location to characterize strain associated with this complex region of transitional stress regimes. High precision topographic data (LiDAR) enabled detailed mapping of geomorphic features otherwise obscured by dense vegetation of the area. The Van Duzen fault (VDF), a northwest trending mole track scarp, sub-parallel and south of the main splay of the LSF is observed on LiDAR imagery. -
Ground-Water Conditions in the Eureka Area, Humboldt
GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS IN THE EUREKA AREA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALJFORNIA, 197 5 U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 78-127 Prepared in cooperation with the Humboldt County Department of Public Works 11 . Report No. o. - BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 12. 3. Recipient's Accession 1 SHEET 4. T itlc and Subt itlc 5. Rep ort Date December GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS IN THE EUREKA AREA , HUMBOLDT 1978 - COUNTY, CALIFORNIA , 1975 6. 7. Author(s) s. Performing Organi za ti on R Johnson, Michael J . No .uSGS/WRI 78-127 ept . 9. Performin g Orga niza ti on Na me and Addr ess 10 . Proje ct/ Ta sk/Work Unit N~. u.s. Geological Survey , Water Resources Division 345 Middlefie ld Rd. 11. Co ntra ct/ Grant No. Menlo Park , Calif. 94025 12. Spo n orin g Organi z,ni on Nam e and Addr cs 13. Ty pt' of Report & Pe riod .overed u.s . Geological Survey, Water Resources Division Final 345 Middlefield Rd. Menlo Park, Calif. 94025 14. 15. Supplementary Nore s Prepared in cooperation with the Humboldt Count y Department of Public Works 16 · Ab'GP'cSlfnd-water conditions in the Eureka area were evaluated during 1975 to determine f'lh ether significant changes had occurred since 1952 , when an earlier reconnaissance was !nade . No major changes in water levels or water quality we r e noted at 1975 pumping rate Recharge to the ground-water system compensates for both artificial and natural discharge. rhe position of the freshwater- saltwater transition zone underlying the alluvial flood ?lains in the summer of 1975 were unchanged from those in 1 952 . -
Van Duzen River Cumulative Effects
Van Duzen River Watershed Analysis Cumulative Watershed Effects Final Report July 15, 2002 Arcata, CA Cumulative Watershed Effects TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................i LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................v LIST OF MAPS...........................................................................................................................vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Approach and Process...................................................................................................3 2.0 WATERSHED OVERVIEW...............................................................................................5 2.1 Watershed Overview......................................................................................................5 2.2 Ownership and Land Use...............................................................................................6 2.3 Basin History ..................................................................................................................7 2.4 Geology and Soils ..........................................................................................................8 -
Salt River Watershed Assessment
RivSaltersid Rivere Ranc h Kl am a th Mouth of Salt River, Ferndale R i v Watershed Assessment e r % Orick IÄ Humboldt County % # Redding Willow Creek % Ma d R iv er Riverside Ranch Salt River % Eureka % % Ferndale San Francisco Eel R iver Ma tto le R N iver IÄ % Garberville % Los Angeles This map is for general reference purposes only. Map: California Department of Fish and Game, June 2004. Salt River Watershed Assessment Prepared through a cooperative effort by California Department of Fish and Game California Coastal Conservancy Coastal Watershed Planning and Assessment Program Pacific States Humboldt County Marine Fisheries Commission Resource Conservation District May 2005 Coastal Watershed Planning and Assessment Program Contributors Department of Fish and Game Director, Loris “Ryan” Broddrick Salt River Watershed Assessment Contributors Team Leader: Scott Downie Primary Author: Kevin Lucey Senior Biologist Specialist: Mark Wheetley Associate Fishery Biologist: Steve Cannata Fisheries Biologist: Beatrijs deWaard GIS Specialist: Vikki Snider Programmer: Karen Wilson Acknowledgements: Natural Resource Conservation Service, UC Cooperative Extension, City of Ferndale, Humboldt County Planning Department, Ferndale Museum, Bruce Slocum, Bryan Furman, Marnie Atkins of the Wiyot Tribe. Suggested Citation: Downie, Scott T., Lucey, Kevin. P. 2005. Salt River Watershed Assessment. Coastal Watershed Planning and Assessment Program. Department of Fish and Game. Table of Contents Table of Contents ..............................................................................................................................i -
Geology of Eel River Valley Area, Humboldt County, California
TN 24 C3 :7u>.;fe4-. STATE OF CALIFOBina DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY OF EEL RIVER VALLEY AREA HUMBOLDT COUNTY. CALtFOBNIA BULLETIN 164 IS53 DIVISION OF MINES FEBHY BUILDING, SftN FRANCISCO THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS STATE OF CALIFORNIA EARL WARREN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WARREN T. HANNUM, Director DIVISION OF MINES FERRY BUILDING, SAN FRANCISCO 11 OLAF P. JENKINS. Chief SAN FRANCISCO BULLETIN 164 NOVEMBER 1953 GEOLOGY OF EEL RIVER VALLEY AREA HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By BURDETTE A. OGLE LIBRARY UNIVERSll Y OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To His Exccllencij The Honorable Earl Warren Governor of the State of California Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith Bulletin 164, Geology of Eel River Valley Area, Humholdt County, California, prepared under the direction of Olaf P. Jenkins, Chief of the Division of Mines, Depart- ment of Natural Resources. The report is accompanied by a detailed geologic map covering the Fernclale and Fortuna quadrangles and the northern part of the Scotia quadrangle, scale 1 : 62,500. The author, Bur- dette Ogle, mapped the geology of the area and prepared the report in fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctorate at the University of California. The area covers that part of the Eel River Basin in northwestern Cali- fornia where much interest is now being centered on the economic devel- opment of oil and gas resources. Other mineral materials of economic concern in the area are limestone, sand and gravel, crushed rock, volcanic ash, lignite, hematite, and water resources. This report represents the results of basic geologic studies which should be of value to all manner of interests in natural resources. -
The Rise and Fall of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad
Awfully Muddy, Precariously Ledged, and Going Nowhere in Particular: The Rise and Fall of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad "Only men of the Eel River Line would railroad here: the ordinary railroad man would take one look, collect his pay and disappear to flatland railroading to seek a less adventuresome form of employment." - Donald D. Edmisten, Railroad Inspector for the Eureka Southern, 1989. Buck, Joshua History 490 02/01/2018 Two Part Introduction Buck, Josh 10/03/2017 History 490 This paper examines the successes and subsequent consolidation of railroads in Humboldt County that preceded the Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWP). Specifically, this paper highlights how the Arcata & Mad River Railroad (A&MR) and The Pacific Lumber Company Railroad (TPLC) set the NWP's fixed right-of-way along Humboldt Bay and along the Eel River. It describes how the A&MR set the pace and precedent for railroads in Humboldt County and they cited economic reasons in order to justify railroad development southward towards other railroads around San Francisco Bay. Next, it describes the history of the TPLC's railroad—particularly their passage below the Scotia Bluffs as a significant geographical feature and engineering accomplishment in their right-of-way. This paper also examines the development of the NWP under the ownership of the Southern Pacific Railroad (SP) and the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway (AT&SF). Lastly, this paper examines what ultimately contributed to the NWP's decline and termination (both of railroad service and its physical plant) between 1907 and 1998: First, it analyzes the geographical layout and composition of the Eel River Canyon and why this watershed was chosen as the desired and set route. -
Geologic Hazard Evaluation Report
Geologic Hazard Evaluation Report Town of Scotia Humboldt County, California Prepared for: Pacific Lumber Company Consulting Engineers & Geologists, Inc. 812 W. Wabash Eureka, CA 95501-2138 January 2006 707/441-8855 005161.310 Reference: 005161.310 Geologic Hazard Evaluation Report Town of Scotia Humboldt County, California Prepared for: Pacific Lumber Company Consulting Engineers & Geologists, Inc. 812 W. Wabash Ave. Eureka, CA 95501-2138 (707) 441-8855 January 2006 QA/QC: GDS_____ G:\2005\005161_ScotiaMasterPlan\310_GeoAssessment\rpt\GeoHaz-rpt.doc Table of Contents Page Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................1 Site Conditions.................................................................................................................................................. 1 Site Geology.......................................................................................................................................................2 Site Soils ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Seismic Setting ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Liquefaction.......................................................................................................................................... 5 Flood Hazard ......................................................................................................................................