DOCSLIB.ORG

Watershed Analysis Report for the Upper Main Eel River Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ndlSxklJtfr »//1 etfftUfcs. United States United States Department of Agriculture Department of the Interior Forest Service Bureau of Land Management ULX sjSh Watershed Analysis Report for the Upper Main Eel River Watershed May 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE UPPER MAIN EEL WATERSHED , 1.1 Location and Geography .. .. 1 1.2 Climate 1 1.3 Geology and Soils '.'.'.'..'.. 1 1.4 Hydrology 4 1.5 Fishenes . .... .5 1.6 Plant Communities 5 1.7 Fire 5 1.8Wildlife 6 1.9Historical Context 6 1.10 Ownership, Administration, and Land Allocation ,7 1.11 People and the Watershed 9 Z0 INTRODUCTION TOWATERSHED ANALYSIS n 2.1 Background Information on Planning and Watershed Analysis !... 11 2.2 The Intent of Watershed Analysis !11 2.3 Watershed Analysis on the Mendocino National Forest "\2 2.4The Upper Main Eel Watershed Analysis ..... *\2 3.0 ISSUE 1-ANADROMOUS STOCKS AT RISK 17 3.1 Issue Statement 17 3.2 Desired Conditions 17 3.3 Key Questions 17 3.4 Past Conditions and Processes 18 3.5 Current Conditions and Processes 21 3.6 Future Trends 29 4.0 ISSUE 2-RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION 33 4.1 Issue Statement 33 4.2 Desired Conditions . 33 4.3 Key Questions 33 4.4 Past Conditions and Processes 33 4.5 Current Conditions and Processes 35 4.6 Future Trends 42 5.0 ISSUE 3-THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIALSTATUS SPECIES 45 5.1 Issue Statement 45 5.2 Desired Conditions 45 5.3 Key Questions 45 5.4 Past Conditions andProcesses 46 5.5 Current Conditions and Processes 47 5.6 Future Trends 56 6.0 ISSUE 4-PLANT COMMUNITY CHANGES 61 6.1 Issue Statement 61 6.2 Desired Conditions 61 6.3 Key Questions ; 61 6.4 Past Conditions and Processes 62 6.5 Current Conditions and Processes 68 6.6 Future Trends 76 i-1 7.0 ISSUE 5-ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES 79 7.1 Issue Statement 79 7.2 Desired Conditions 79 7.3 Key Questions 79 7.4 Past Conditions and Processes 80 7.5 Current Conditions and Processes 85 7.6 Future Trends 88 8.0 ISSUE 6-EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION 93 8.1 Issue Statement ' 93 8.2 Desired Conditions 93 8.3 Key Questions 93 8.4 Past Conditions and Processes ............... 93 8.5 Current Conditions and Processes ! 99 8.6 Future Trends 104 9.0 ISSUE 7-RECREATION AND EXPERIENTIAL VALUES 107 9.1 Issue Statement ... .. 107 9.2 Desired Conditions .............. 107 9.3 Key Questions ! 107 9.4 Past Conditions and Processes 108 9.5 Current Conditions and Processes ! 110 9.6 Future Trends 114 10.0 GUIDANCE FOR SITE ANALYSIS AND PROJECT-LEVEL PLANNING AND DESIGN IN THE UPPER MAIN EEL WATERSHED 119 10.1 Riparian Reserve Delineation and Project Guidance ! 119 10.2 Specific Land Categories ................. 121 10.3 Upland Silvicultural Treatments and Prescribed Fire .122 10.4 Cumulative Effects Analysis .................. 123 10.5 Considerations for Slides 123 10.6 Transportation Planning 124 10.7 Recreation-Related Project-Level Planning 12s 11.0 WATERSHED RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES 127 11.1 Projects to Directly Benefit Riparian and Aquatic Values 127 11.2 Projects to Directly Benefit Terrestrial Values ! 130 12.0 ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES 133 12.1 Partnerships And Cooperative Agreements 133 12.2 Local Economic Development 137 13.0 DATA GAPS 139 13.1 Anadromous Stocks at Risk and Riparian Ecosystem Function 139 13.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species ! 140 13.3 Plant Community Changes 142 13.4 Erosion and Sedimentation ! 143 13.5 Recreation and Experiential Values 143 14.0 MONITORING NEEDS AND WATERSHED ANALYSIS REVISION CRITERIA 145 14.1 Anadromous Stocks at Risk and Riparian Ecosystem Function 145 14.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 147 14.3 Plant Community Changes 148 14.4 Erosion and Sedimentation 148 14.5 Watershed Analysis Revision Criteria ' 149 i-2 15.0 INFORMATION SOURCES 15l 15.1 References Cited ^...... --, 15.2 GIS Information Sources ^o 15.3 Other Information Sources is9 16.0 APPENDICES 161 16.1 List of Watershed Analysis Team Members and Others Consulted 161 16.2 Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives ! 163 16.3 Answers to Questions in Appendix Cof the FY 94-96 Watershed Analysis Guidelines 164 16.4 Attacnment C ofTable C-3 Species List 173 16.5 Geology of the Upper Main Eel Watershed 177 16.6 Recreation 183 16.7 Plates (P**w!'.$^r^[Y )\ \\\\\\\\\\ \ i84 Plate 1 Hydrography Plate 2 Ownership and Administration Plate 3 Land Allocation Plate 4 Fish Bearing Streams Plate 5 Forest Vegetation Distribution Plate 6 Non-Forest Vegetation Distribution Plate 7 Interim Riparian Reserves LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Mendocino National Forest Location Map 2 1-2Upper Main Eel Watershed Location Map 3 6-1 Frequency of fires in the Upper Main Eel watershed, 1911-1989 66 6-2 Area burned annually in 11 western states, 1916-1989 . 67 6-3 Distribution of vegetation in the Upper Main Eel watershed 68 6-4 Acres of mixed conifer by size class in the Upper Main Eel watershed 70 6-5 Acres of conifer hardwood by size class in the Upper Main Eel watershed 70 6-6 Acres of red fir by size class in the Uper Main Eel watershed 71 6-7 Acres of hardwoods by size class in the Upper Main Eel watershed 71 6-8 Volume of timberharvested from the Upper Main Eel watershed by the Upper Lake District... 83 6-9 Volume of timber harvested from the Upper Main Eel watershed by the Stonyford District ... 84 i-3 LIST OF TABLES 1-1 Ownership and area within the watershed 8 1-2 ROD land allocation types and areas within the watershed 8 5-1 Owl activity centers in LSRs. wilderness, and matrix 49 5-2 Acres of suitable nesting and roosting habitat by land allocation ... 50 5-3 Acres of suitable dispersal habitat by land allocation si 5-4 Bald eagle reproduction at Lake Pillsbury 53 6-1 Vegetation acreage by type and size class .!....... 69 6-2 Fire occurrence, 1911-1994, on the Upper Main Eel watershed, Mendocino N.F ..........73 6-3 Effectiveness of fire suppression for fires of various fire intensity .'!.'!.*'75 6-4 Proposed disturbance regimes for the Upper Main Eel Watershed ..............77 16.3-1 Acres of suitable nesting and roosting habitat by land allocation ............... 167 16.3-2 Acres of suitable dispersal habitat by land allocation 168 16.3-3 Bald eagle reproduction at Lake Pillsbury 170 16.5-1 Soil types, slopes, hazard ratings, and areas within the Upper Main Eel watershed 179 16.6-1 Construction ofcurrent Forest Service facilities at Lake Pillsbury 183 1.0 DESCRIPTION OFTHE UPPER MAIN EEL WATERSHED 1.1 Location and Geography The majority for the Upper Main Eel watershed lies within the Mendocino National Forest (the Forest), which islocated onthewestsideofthe California Coast Range approximately 25miles northeast ofUkiah. California (Figure 1-1). Most ofthe watershed (84 percent) lies in Lake County, California. The remainder is in Mendocino County (10 percent) and Glenn County (6 percent) (Figure 1-2). The watershed includes the headwaters of the Eel River downstream to the Cape Horn Dam. The eastern boundary of the watershed runs along the backbone of the California Coast Range from Bald Mountain (6,739 feet) in the north, through Snow Mountain (at 7,038 feet, the highest point in the watersned), to Goat Mountain (6,121 feet) in the south. It forms abasin of nearly 350 square miles encompassing the entire Eel River drainage above Cape Horn Dam. Cape Horn Dam (which impounds the Van Arsdale Reservoir) is located at the low point of the watershed with a spillway elevation of 1,493 ft. Above Cape Horn Dam on the Eel River, near the center of the watershed, lies another reservoir, Lake Pillsbury. which is impounded by Scott Dam (Spillway elevation 1818 ft.) Lake Pillsbury has three main'arms: the Eel River Valley and Canyon forms the eastern arm, the Rice Fork Canyon forms the deep, narrow southern arm, and Smokehouse Creek and other streams feed the broad, but shallow northern arm which inundates the lower part ofGravelly Valley. Almost 80 percent ofthe watershed analysis area drains into Lake Pillsbury withthe remainder draining into the Eel River below Scott Dam. When full, the lake covers over 3 square miles. 1.2 Climate The climate ofthe Upper Main Eel watershed is relatively moderate with occasional extreme temperatures during the winter and summer. During the summer, temperatures often exceed 100 degrees, while winter temperatures usually fall below freezing. Over 80 percent of the seasonal rainfall occurs between November 1 and April 1. Rainfall atthe upper elevations is relatively high, averaging 50-60 inches per year along the eastern boundary ofthe watershed, and 70-80 inches peryear around Bald Mountain. In the valleys, rainfall averages 40-50 inches peryear, with the lowest amounts in the vicinity of Lake Pillsbury. Snow occasionally falls at the 2,500-foot level, but seldom builds any significant snowpack below 5,000 feet. A U.S. Weather Bureau continuous-record precipitation station was operated near Lake Pillsbury from 1907 to 1936. During this 29-year period, the mean annual precipitation was 47.62 inches and the monthly precipitation ranged from 0 to 18.10 inches. The temperature range during the same period was from 15 degrees to 107 degrees F. At the present time the U.S. Weather Bureau precipitation station nearest the Upper Main Eeldrainage is located at the PotterValley powerhouse 10 miles southwest of Scott Dam at an elevation of 1,014 feet above mean sea level.
Recommended publications
  • BSR History #1

    BSR History #1

    ar C, 'f t' + t 4 4 \ " • '. ' , . • ' ' Vs'l . 4 y "."'-'-" '- : : * : : . ­ . ' . 'iw, ~ , y p i 1 I 4 t A • ' • - " 'k P+g 1 EfC ' <r THE POTTER VALLEY STORY Potter Valley was or1ginally known as Potter's Valley. F r om t he t i m e o f t h e adv e n t o f t h e f i r s t Ame r i c a n t o v 1 e w i t s b eau t y until the present time, it has been called. the Gem of Mendocino County, Of the twenty-two or so valleys in Mendocino County, it can be consicLered outstanding. I t is not a large valley, being ap­ proximately four mlles wid.e and eight miles long. T h e North Fork o f the Russian River divides the valley's ten thousand acres. T h e headwaters of the Russian River are at the extreme head. of the val­ ley. Th e lower hills of the Mayacamas Mountains of the Coast Range almost surround the valley with the usual upland. at their f eet. The high peaks, a few of which are perpetually snow-covered., can be seen in the d.istance. This combinat1on of valley, upland. and. mountains give a charm and, simplicity that has apparently d.evelop­ ed. a fascination to those who settled. here. Many of the descend.­ ants of the early settlers have for several generations remained here. It is not only the beauty of the area but its f ertility that has earned it the title "grain basket of Mendocino County." The Thomas Potter party, looking for more grazing lancL for Sonoma County cattle, decid.ed.
  • Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Evaluation Report Term 17

    Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Evaluation Report Term 17

    State Water Resources Control Board Order 5/1/2013 Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Evaluation Report Term 17 April 30, 2015 Prepared by Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Blvd Santa Rosa, CA 95403 LAKE MENDOCINO WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY EVALUATION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Organization of Report ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Project History and Description ........................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Flood Management Operations ....................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Water Supply Operations ................................................................................................................. 5 2.4 Potter Valley Project Operations .....................................................................................................
  • One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America

    One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America

    H. R. 233 One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, two thousand and six An Act To designate certain National Forest System lands in the Mendocino and Six Rivers National Forests and certain Bureau of Land Management lands in Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, and Napa Counties in the State of California as wilderness, to designate the Elkhorn Ridge Potential Wilderness Area, to designate certain segments of the Black Butte River in Mendocino County, California as a wild or scenic river, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act’’. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary. Sec. 3. Designation of wilderness areas. Sec. 4. Administration of wilderness areas. Sec. 5. Release of wilderness study areas. Sec. 6. Elkhorn Ridge Potential Wilderness Area. Sec. 7. Wild and scenic river designation. Sec. 8. King Range National Conservation Area boundary adjustment. Sec. 9. Cow Mountain Recreation Area, Lake and Mendocino Counties, California. Sec. 10. Continuation of traditional commercial surf fishing, Redwood National and State Parks. SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means— (1) with respect to land under the jurisdiction of the Sec- retary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture; and (2) with respect to land under the jurisdiction of the Sec- retary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior.
  • Sedimentation of Lake Pillsbury Lake County California

    Sedimentation of Lake Pillsbury Lake County California

    Sedimentation of Lake Pillsbury Lake County California GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1619-EE Prepared in cooperation with the State of California Department of fFater Resources Sedimentation of Lake Pillsbury Lake County California By G. PORTERFIELD and C. A. DUNNAM CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1619-EE Prepared in cooperation with the State of California Department of fFater Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1964 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Paw Abstract___________________________________________ EEl Introduction._____________________________________________________ 2 Location and general features--___-__-____-_-_-_---__--_--_---_- 2 Purpose and scope_____________________________________________ 2 Acknowledgments ________________'__________________--_-_______ 2 Drainage basin.___________________________________________________ 3 Physiography and soils.._______________________________________ 3 Climate ______________________________________________________ 4 Vegetation__ _--_-_____________-_-___---___-----__-_-_-_-____ 5 Dam and reservoir_____-__-__-_____________-______-___-_-__-_-_-_ 5 Dam_________________________________________________________ 5 Datum.______________________________________________________ 7 Reservoir___________________________________________________
  • Thirsty Eel Oct. 11-Corrections

    Thirsty Eel Oct. 11-Corrections

    1 THE THIRSTY EEL: SUMMER AND WINTER FLOW THRESHOLDS THAT TILT THE EEL 2 RIVER OF NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA FROM SALMON-SUPPORTING TO 3 CYANOBACTERIALLY-DEGRADED STATES 4 5 In press, Special Volume, Copeia: Fish out of Water Symposium 6 Mary E. Power1, 7 Keith Bouma-Gregson 2,3 8 Patrick Higgins3, 9 Stephanie M. Carlson4 10 11 12 13 14 1. Department of Integrative Biology, Univ. California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720; Email: 15 [email protected] 16 17 2. Department of Integrative Biology, Univ. California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720; Email: 18 [email protected]> 19 20 3. Eel River Recovery Project, Garberville CA 95542 www.eelriverrecovery.org; Email: 21 [email protected] 22 23 4. Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 24 94720; Email: [email protected] 25 26 27 Running head: Discharge-mediated food web states 28 29 Key words: cyanobacteria, discharge extremes, drought, food webs, salmonids, tipping points 30 31 Although it flows through regions of Northwestern California that are thought to be relatively well- 32 watered, the Eel River is increasingly stressed by drought and water withdrawals. We discuss how critical 33 threshold changes in summer discharge can potentially tilt the Eel from a recovering salmon-supporting 34 ecosystem toward a cyanobacterially-degraded one. To maintain food webs and habitats that support 35 salmonids and suppress harmful cyanobacteria, summer discharge must be sufficient to connect mainstem 36 pools hydrologically with gently moving, cool base flow. Rearing salmon and steelhead can survive even 37 in pools that become isolated during summer low flows if hyporheic exchange is sufficient.
  • An Estimation of Potential Salmonid Habitat Capacity in the Upper Mainstem Eel River, California

    An Estimation of Potential Salmonid Habitat Capacity in the Upper Mainstem Eel River, California

    AN ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL SALMONID HABITAT CAPACITY IN THE UPPER MAINSTEM EEL RIVER, CALIFORNIA By Emily Jeanne Cooper A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Natural Resources: Environmental and Natural Resource Science Committee Membership Dr. Alison O’Dowd, Committee Chair Dr. James Graham, Committee Member Dr. Darren Ward, Committee Member Dr. Alison O’Dowd, Graduate Coordinator May 2017 ABSTRACT AN ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL SALMONID HABITAT CAPACITY IN THE UPPER MAINSTEM EEL RIVER, CALIFORNIA Emily Jeanne Cooper In Northern California’s Eel River watershed, the two dams that make up the Potter Valley Project (PVP) restrict the distribution and production of anadromous salmonids, and current populations of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead trout (O. mykiss) in the upper mainstem Eel River are in need of recovery. In anticipation of the upcoming FERC relicensing of the PVP, this project provides an estimation of the extent of potential salmonid habitat and its capacity for steelhead trout and Chinook Salmon in the upper mainstem Eel River watershed above the impassable Scott Dam. Using three fish passage scenarios, potential Chinook Salmon habitat was estimated between 89-127 km (55-79 mi) for spawning and rearing; potential steelhead trout habitat was estimated between 318-463 km (198-288 mi) for spawning and between 179-291 km (111-181 mi) for rearing. Rearing habitat capacity was modeled with the Unit Characteristic Method, which used surrogate fish density values specific to habitat units (i.e. pools, riffles, runs) that were adjusted by measured habitat conditions.
  • A Tale of Two Rivers, 2004

    A Tale of Two Rivers, 2004

    A Tale of Two Rivers Photograph by Michael Amsler Gently Down the Stream: Russian RiverKeeper Don McEnhill out on a recent sampling foray. The Russian, the Eel and why you should care about both every single time you turn on a tap By R.V. Scheide, June 2004 Editor's note: This is the first in a summer-long series about the history, health and impact of the Russian and Eel rivers on the North Bay's environment and citizenry. The Russian River begins as a trickle in the pine-studded hills at the far end of Redwood Valley, a dozen or so miles north of Ukiah. It's not much to speak of, this narrow, meandering rivulet; in some places, it's possible to easily step across from one bank to the other. Fed by the creeks and culverts etched into the hillsides, the stream gradually gains breadth, if not depth, as it courses south, where just past the lumberyards of Ukiah, the main stem joins forces with its east fork, and the Russian River, at least as we commonly perceive it, begins. Picking up speed and volume, the thick band of olive-drab water winds through southern Mendocino County, farms and vineyards suckling its banks, and enters Sonoma County just north of Cloverdale. It cuts through a scenic serpentine canyon and pours into the Alexander Valley, where more thirsty vineyards nestle up to the trough, patchwork swatches of green and gold blanketing the valley floor. Gazing out over this vast, verdant empire, which receives nearly four times the average rainfall of Southern California, it's tempting to think that water is not a problem for us, like it is for, say, Los Angeles, which over the years has developed an unseemly reputation for stealing water from other regions.
  • Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State

    Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State

    Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wilderness Area NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Alabama Cheaha Wilderness Talladega National Forest 7,400 0 7,400 Dugger Mountain Wilderness** Talladega National Forest 9,048 0 9,048 Sipsey Wilderness William B. Bankhead National Forest 25,770 83 25,853 Alabama Totals 42,218 83 42,301 Alaska Chuck River Wilderness 74,876 520 75,396 Coronation Island Wilderness Tongass National Forest 19,118 0 19,118 Endicott River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 98,396 0 98,396 Karta River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 39,917 7 39,924 Kootznoowoo Wilderness Tongass National Forest 979,079 21,741 1,000,820 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 654 654 Kuiu Wilderness Tongass National Forest 60,183 15 60,198 Maurille Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 4,814 0 4,814 Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness Tongass National Forest 2,144,010 235 2,144,245 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Tongass National Forest 46,758 0 46,758 Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 23,083 41 23,124 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Russell Fjord Wilderness Tongass National Forest 348,626 63 348,689 South Baranof Wilderness Tongass National Forest 315,833 0 315,833 South Etolin Wilderness Tongass National Forest 82,593 834 83,427 Refresh Date: 10/14/2017
  • Salmonid Habitat and Population Capacity Estimates for Steelhead Trout and Chinook Salmon Upstream of Scott Dam in the Eel River, California

    Salmonid Habitat and Population Capacity Estimates for Steelhead Trout and Chinook Salmon Upstream of Scott Dam in the Eel River, California

    Emily J. Cooper1, Alison P. O’Dowd, and James J. Graham, Humboldt State University, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, California 95521 Darren W. Mierau, California Trout, 615 11th Street, Arcata, California 95521 William J. Trush, Humboldt State University, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, California 95521 and Ross Taylor, Ross Taylor and Associates, 1660 Central Avenue # B, McKinleyville, California 95519 Salmonid Habitat and Population Capacity Estimates for Steelhead Trout and Chinook Salmon Upstream of Scott Dam in the Eel River, California Abstract Estimating salmonid habitat capacity upstream of a barrier can inform priorities for fisheries conservation. Scott Dam in California’s Eel River is an impassable barrier for anadromous salmonids. With Federal dam relicensing underway, we demonstrated recolonization potential for upper Eel River salmonid populations by estimating the potential distribution (stream-km) and habitat capacity (numbers of parr and adults) for winter steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and fall Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) upstream of Scott Dam. Removal of Scott Dam would support salmonid recovery by increasing salmonid habitat stream-kms from 2 to 465 stream-km for steelhead trout and 920 to 1,071 stream-km for Chinook salmon in the upper mainstem Eel River population boundaries, whose downstream extents begin near Scott Dam and the confluence of South Fork Eel River, respectively. Upstream of Scott Dam, estimated steelhead trout habitat included up to 463 stream-kms for spawning and 291 stream-kms for summer rearing; estimated Chinook salmon habitat included up to 151 stream-kms for both spawning and rearing. The number of returning adult estimates based on historical count data (1938 to 1975) from the South Fork Eel River produced wide ranges for steelhead trout (3,241 to 26,391) and Chinook salmon (1,057 to 10,117).
  • Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument

    Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument

    California Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument Annual Manager’s Report—Fiscal Year 2017 Table of Contents Berryessa Snow Mountain Profile .................................................................................................... 1 Planning and NEPA ............................................................................................................................. 4 Year’s Projects and Accomplishments ............................................................................................ 6 Science .............................................................................................................................................. 14 Resources, Objects, Values, and Stressors .................................................................................. 16 Summary of Performance Measure ............................................................................................. 18 Manager’s Letter .............................................................................................................................. 18 Beautiful vistas are abundant within the Cache Creek, Snow Mountain, and Cedar Roughs Wilderness Areas of Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument. Berryessa Snow Mountain Profile 1 Designating Authority Designating Authority: Presidential Proclamation – Establishment of the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument (BSM) Date of Designation: July 10, 2015 Other legislation and documents guiding management include Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act (Public
  • Initial Study Report for FERC Projects

    Initial Study Report for FERC Projects

    Potter Valley Project FERC Project No. 77 Initial Study Report September 2020 ©2020, Potter Valley Project Notice of Intent Parties California Trout Humboldt County Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Round Valley Indian Tribes Sonoma County Water Agency This Page Intentionally Left Blank POTTER VALLEY PROJECT NOTICE OF INTENT PARTIES Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 77 Initial Study Report September 2020 ©2020, Potter Valley Project Notice of Intent Parties California Trout Humboldt County Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Round Valley Indian Tribes Sonoma County Water Agency This Page Intentionally Left Blank Potter Valley Project, FERC Project No. 77 Initial Study Report TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 FERC Requirements for Proposed Modification to Approved Studies and New Studies .................................................................................................... 1-4 SECTION 2.0 STATUS OF FERC-APPROVED STUDIES AND PROPOSED STUDY MODIFICATIONS .............................................. 2-1 2.1 AQ 1 – Hydrology .......................................................................................... 2-3 2.2 AQ 2 – Water Temperature ........................................................................... 2-5 2.3 AQ 3 – Water Quality ...................................................................................
  • MICROCOMP Output File

    MICROCOMP Output File

    109TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. 128 AN ACT To designate certain public land in Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, Lake, and Napa Counties in the State of California as wilderness, to designate certain segments of the Black Butte River in Mendocino County, Cali- fornia as a wild or scenic river, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Northern California 5 Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act’’. 2 1 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. 2 In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means— 3 (1) with respect to land under the jurisdiction 4 of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Ag- 5 riculture; and 6 (2) with respect to land under the jurisdiction 7 of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the 8 Interior. 9 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS. 10 In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 11 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State of California 12 are designated as wilderness areas and as components of 13 the National Wilderness Preservation System: 14 (1) SNOW MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS ADDITION.— 15 (A) IN GENERAL.—Certain land in the 16 Mendocino National Forest, comprising ap- 17 proximately 23,312 acres, as generally depicted 18 on the maps described in subparagraph (B), is 19 incorporated in and shall considered to be a 20 part of the ‘‘Snow Mountain Wilderness’’, as 21 designated by section 101(a)(31) of the Cali- 22 fornia Wilderness Act of 1984 (16 U.S.C.