DOCSLIB.ORG

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2002

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2002 California Department of Fish and Game – July 2002 Review Draft California Department of Fish and Game 2002 DRAFT RUSSIAN RIVER BASIN FISHERIES RESTORATION PLAN Russian River Basin Fisheries Restoration Plan – July 2002 Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..2 1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................3 2. Restoration Plan Goals.........................................................................................................3 3. Watershed Background........................................................................................................3 4. Description of Watershed ....................................................................................................4 a. Geography................................................................................................................4 b. Geology....................................................................................................................6 c. Vegetation ................................................................................................................7 d. Climate and Hydrology............................................................................................7 5. Resource Use .....................................................................................................................10 a. Historical Resources Use .......................................................................................10 b. Current Resources Use...........................................................................................13 6. Fisheries Resources............................................................................................................16 a. Salmon and Steelhead Populations ........................................................................21 i. Chinook Salmon .................................................................................................21 ii. Coho Salmon .....................................................................................................27 iii. Pink Salmon......................................................................................................32 iv. Steelhead...........................................................................................................34 7. Fish Habitat Requirements.................................................................................................39 a. Adult Migration .....................................................................................................39 b. Spawning................................................................................................................44 c. Embryo Development ............................................................................................45 d. Juvenile Rearing.....................................................................................................45 e. Emigration..............................................................................................................51 8. Description of the Sub-basins ............................................................................................53 a. Estuary ...................................................................................................................56 b. Mainstem................................................................................................................57 c. Guerneville.............................................................................................................57 d. Austin Creek ..........................................................................................................59 e. Laguna De Santa Rosa ...........................................................................................62 f. Santa Rosa..............................................................................................................66 g. Mark West..............................................................................................................68 h. Warm Springs ........................................................................................................68 i. Geyserville .............................................................................................................70 j. Sulphur Creek ........................................................................................................72 k. Ukiah ....................................................................................................................74 l. Forsythe Creek .......................................................................................................76 m. Coyote Valley.........................................................................................................78 9. Recommended Actions to Benefit Salmon and Steelhead.................................................80 a. Prioritization Strategy ............................................................................................81 b. Methods..................................................................................................................83 c. Criteria ...................................................................................................................86 d. Limitations of the assessment ................................................................................89 e. Implementation of restoration projects and plans ..................................................90 10. General Limiting Factors and Restorative Actions............................................................94 a. Limiting Factor: Migration.....................................................................................94 b. Limiting Factor: Gravel Quality...........................................................................101 c. Limiting Factor: Gravel Quantity.........................................................................104 d. Limiting Factor: Riparian Stability......................................................................105 e. Limiting Factor: Water Temperature ...................................................................111 f. Limiting Factor: Water Quality ...........................................................................112 g. Limiting Factor: Water Quantity..........................................................................117 h. Limiting Factor: Habitat Availability...................................................................118 11. Specific Limiting Factors and Restorative Actions to Mainstem Russian River.............121 a. Barriers to Upstream Migration ...........................................................................121 b. Summer Dams – Migration..................................................................................121 c. Stream Crossings and Culverts ............................................................................125 d. Gravel Quantity....................................................................................................126 e. Riparian Stability .................................................................................................127 f. Temperature .........................................................................................................128 g. Limiting Factor: Water Quality............................................................................130 h. Limiting Factor: Water Quantity.........................................................................132 12. Specific Limiting Factors and Restorative Actions to Estuary ........................................137 a. Predation by Pinnipeds.........................................................................................139 13. Specific Limiting Factors and Restorative Actions to Estuary 11 Hydrologic Sub-Basins…...………………………………………...140 a. Guerneville...........................................................................................................140 b. Austin Creek ........................................................................................................150 c. Laguna ..................................................................................................................158 d. Mark West Santa Rosa.........................................................................................168 e. Warm Springs (Dry Creek) ..................................................................................175 f. Geyserville ...........................................................................................................183 g. Sulphur Creek ......................................................................................................192 h. Ukiah ..................................................................................................................200 i. Forsythe Creek.....................................................................................................208 j. Coyote Valley.......................................................................................................215 14. Other Recommended Actions to Benefit Coho Salmon and Steelhead...........................215 a. Roles of Local Government .................................................................................215 b. Role of Regulatory Efforts...................................................................................220 c. Role of Hatcheries................................................................................................224
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Scoping Document 1 for the Potter Valley Project
    FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, DC 20426 June 1, 2017 OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS Project No. 77-285 – California Potter Valley Project Pacific Gas & Electric Company Subject: Scoping Document 1 for the Potter Valley Project To the Party Addressed: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is currently reviewing the Pre-Application Document submitted by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) for relicensing the 9.4-megawatt (MW) Potter Valley Project (FERC No. 77). The proposed project is located on the Eel and East Fork Russian Rivers, in Lake and Mendocino Counties, California. The project occupies lands owned by PG&E and National Forest System Lands administered by the United States Forest Service, Mendocino National Forest. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, Commission staff intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which will be used by the Commission to determine whether, and under what conditions, to issue a new license for the project. To support and assist our environmental review, we are beginning the public scoping process to ensure that all pertinent issues are identified and analyzed and that the EIS is thorough and balanced. We invite your participation in the scoping process and are circulating the enclosed Scoping Document 1 (SD1) to provide you with information on the Potter Valley Project. We are also soliciting your comments and suggestions on our preliminary list of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS. We are also requesting that you identify any studies that would help provide a framework for collecting pertinent information on the resource areas under consideration necessary for the Commission to prepare the EIS for the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012
    Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012 A guide to resources and services For management and stewardship of the Russian River Watershed © www.robertjanover.com. Russian River & Big Sulphur Creek at Cloverdale, CA. Photo By Robert Janover Production of this directory was made possible through funding from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Conservation. In addition to this version of the directory, you can find updated versions online at www.sotoyomercd.org Russian River Watershed Directory version September 2012 - 1 - Preface The Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (RCD) has updated our Russian River Watershed directory to assist landowners, residents, professionals, educators, organizations and agencies interested in the many resources available for natural resource management and stewardship throughout the Russian River watershed. In 1997, The Sotoyome RCD compiled the first known resource directory of agencies and organization working in the Russian River Watershed. The directory was an example of an emerging Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) effort to encourage community-based solutions for natural resource management. Since that Photo courtesy of Sonoma County Water Agency time the directory has gone through several updates with our most recent edition being released electronically and re-formatting for ease of use. For more information or to include your organization in the Directory, please contact the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Sotoyome Resource Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma County Rainfall Map (1.81MB)
    128 OAT VALLEY CREEK ALDER CREEK Mendocino County CREEK BIG SULPHUR CREEK CLOVERDALE 40 Cloverdale 29 60 CREEK OSSER CREEK PORTERFIELD SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY 45 40 LITTLE SULPHUR CREEK BUCKEYE CREEK 40 Lake County FLAT RIDGE CREEK 45 GUALALA RIVER 50 55 60 70 GRASSHOPPER CREEK 55 Sea Ranch 60 65 75 70 RANCHERIA CREEK LITTLE CREEK 55 50 GILL CREEK Annapolis 4 A SAUSAL CREEK 55 45 Lake STRAWBERRY CREEK Sonoma MILLER CREEK BURNS CREEK 50 TOMBS CREEK 45 65 WHEATFIELD Geyserville INGALLS CREEK FORK GUALALA-SALMON GUALALA-SALMON WOOD CREEK 1 GEORGE YOUNG CREEK BOYD CREEK MILL STREAM SOUTH FORK GUALALA BEAR CREEK FULLER CREEK COON CREEK 40 LITTLE BRIGGS CREEK RIVER 50 GIRD CREEK BRIGGS CREEK 7 A MAACAMA CREEK Jimtown WINE CREEK 6 A KELLOGG CREEK GRAIN CREEK HOUSE CREEK 60 CEDAR CREEK INDIANCREEK LANCASTER CREEK DANFIELD CREEK FALL CREEK OWL CREEK 40 Stewarts Point HOOT WOODS CREEK CRANE CREEK HAUPT CREEK YELLOWJACKET CREEK FOOTE CREEK REDWOOD CREEK GUALALA RIVER WALLACE CREEK 60 128 Lake JIM CREEK Berryessa ANGEL CREEK Healdsburg RUSSIAN RIVER SPROULE CREEK MILL CREEK DEVIL CREEK AUSTIN CREEK RUSSIAN RIVER SLOUGHWEST MARTIN CREEK BIG AUSTIN CREEK GILLIAM CREEK THOMPSON CREEK PALMER CREEK FELTA CREEK FRANZ CREEK BLUE JAY CREEK MCKENZIE CREEK BARNES CREEK BIG OAT CREEK Windsor MARK WEST CREEK COVE 75 WARD CREEK POOL CREEK PORTER CREEKMILL CREEK Fort Ross 80 HUMBUG CREEK TIMBER Cazadero STAR FIFE CREEK CREEK 55 PRUITT 45 HOBSON CREEK CREEK 50 NEAL CREEK 1 A 60 Hacienda REDWOOD CREEK RUSSIAN WIKIUP KIDD CREEK Guerneville CREEK VAN BUREN CREEK 101 RINCON CREEK RIVER 70 35 WEEKS CREEK 50 FULTON CREEK 65 BRUSH CREEK DUCKER CREEK GREEN COFFEYCREEK PINER CREEK 5 A VALLEY Forestville 60 CREEK CREEK RUSSELL BRUSH CREEK LAGUNA 55 Monte Rio CREEK AUSTIN BEAR CREEK RIVER CREEK GREEN FORESTVILLECREEK PAULIN CREEK DUTCH PINER CREEK Santa Rosa DE PETERSONCREEKFORESTVIEW SANTA ROSA CREEK OAKMONT STEELE VALLEY WENDELL CREEK CREEK BILL SANTA CREEK 45 SONOMA CREEK RUSSIAN GRUB CREEK SPRING CREEK LAWNDALECREEK 40 Napa County STATE HWY 116 COLLEGE CREEK CREEK HOOD MT.
    [Show full text]
  • Big River Basin Assessment November 2006
    Coastal Watershed Planning Assessment Program Big River Basin Assessment November 2006 State of California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger California Resources Agency California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary, Mike Chrisman Secretary, Alan Lloyd North Coast Watershed Assessment Program Participants Contributing Agencies and Departments Department of Fish and Game State Water Resources Control Board Director, Loris “Ryan” Broddrick Chair, Art Baggett Department of Forestry and Fire Protection North Coast Regional Water Director, Dale Gildert Quality Control Board Executive Officer, Catherine Kuhlman Department of Water Resources Department of Conservation Director, Lester A. Snow Interim Director, Debbie Sareeram Big River Assessment Team Assessment Manager Scott Downie California Department of Fish and Game Fisheries: Steve Cannata California Department of Fish and Game Beatrijs deWaard Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Cynthia LeDoux-Bloom California Department of Fish and Game Forestry and Land Use: Rob Rutland California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Water Quality: Elmer Dudik North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Geology: Karin W. Fresnel Department of Conservation/California Geological Survey Fluvial Geomorphology: Dawn McGuire Department of Conservation/California Geological Survey Currently Department of Fish and Game Geographic Information System, Data Management, Ecological Management Decision System (EMDS) Vikki Avara-Snider – GIS & Document Production Pacific States Marine Fisheries
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Hydrologic Report June 25, 2021 - July 1, 2021
    State Water Resources Control Board Temporary Urgency Change Order (6/14/2021) Russian River Hydrologic Report June 25, 2021 - July 1, 2021 Prepared as a requirement of the Order approving Sonoma Water's Petition for Temporary Urgency Change in Permits 12947A, 12949, 12950, and 16596 (Applications 12919A, 15736, 15737, and 19351). Instream Flow Requirements as of July 1, 2021 Basis Reach Instantaneous (cfs) 5-day Average (cfs) Modified Per Order: Critical Condition Upper Russian River 15 25 D-1610: Dry Condition Dry Creek 25 - Modified Per Order: Critical Condition Lower Russian River 25 35 Upper Russian River and Lower Russian River based on criteria as established in the Order issued 6/14/2021. Lake Mendocino Lake Mendocino Storage 2015 - 2021 and Storage Curve 120,000 100,000 80,000 feet - 60,000 Acre 40,000 July 01, 2021 30,586 Acre-feet 20,000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Storage Curve Major Deviation Curve Emergency Regulation Storage Threshold 0 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 1/1 2/1 10/1 12/1 11/1 Storage July 1, 2021 30,586 (acre-feet) Total Average Daily Rate Change in Storage Last 30 days -4,337 -145 (acre-feet) Last 7 days -1,112 -159 Min 7 Daily Inflow Last 7 days Max 24 (cfs) Mean 15 Min 82 Release (cfs) Last 7 days Max 84 Mean 83 Release Flow Change Ramping Rates : Approved Adjusted Rates Event Requested: 3/1/2021 Purpose: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has requested the discharge from Coyote Valley Dam be increased from 25 cfs to 100 cfs to facilitate the second and final release of steelhead smolts from the Coyote Valley Fish Facility.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River
    A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored by Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting August 1996 Steiner Environmental Consulting Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Quality P. O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored By Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 August 1996 (707) 743-1815 (707) 743-1816 f«x [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Introduction This report gathers together the best available information to provide the historical and current status of chinook salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, and steelhead in the Russian River basin. Although the historical records are limited, all sources depict a river system where the once dominant salmonids have declined dramatically. The last 150 years of human activities have transformed the Russian River basin into a watershed heavily altered by agriculture and urban development. Flows in the main river channel river are heavily regulated. The result is a river system with significantly compromised biological functions. The anthropogenic factors contributing to the decline of salmonids are discussed. Study Area The 1,485 square mile Russian River watershed, roughly 80 miles long and 10 to 30 miles wide, lies in Mendocino, Sonoma, and Lake counties. The basin topography is characterized by a sequence of northwest/southeast trending fault-block ridges and alluvial valleys. Lying within a region of Mediterranean climate, the watershed is divided into a fog-influenced coastal region and an interior region of hot, dry summers.
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTI8 SMITH, DIEECTOE WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 296 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA PART II. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OP JOHN C. HOYT BY B. D. WOOD In cooperation with the State Water Commission and the Conservation Commission of the State of California WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1912 NOTE. A complete list of the gaging stations maintained in the San Joaquin River basin from 1888 to July 1, 1912, is presented on pages 100-102. 2 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS IN SAN JOAQUIN RIYER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. By B. D. WOOD. INTRODUCTION. This gazetteer is the second of a series of reports on the* surf ace waters of California prepared by the United States Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the State of California as repre­ sented by the State Conservation Commission, George C. Pardee, chairman; Francis Cuttle; and J. P. Baumgartner, and by the State Water Commission, Hiram W. Johnson, governor; Charles D. Marx, chairman; S. C. Graham; Harold T. Powers; and W. F. McClure. Louis R. Glavis is secretary of both commissions. The reports are to be published as Water-Supply Papers 295 to 300 and will bear the fol­ lowing titles: 295. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part I, Sacramento River basin. 296. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part II, San Joaquin River basin. 297. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part III, Great Basin and Pacific coast streams. 298. Water resources of California, Part I, Stream measurements in the Sacramento River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Stream Maintenance Program
    2018 Stream Maintenance Program Improving water quality in our streams while providing flood protection for our community This summer the Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) will be working in streams and channels throughout Sonoma County to improve water quality and provide flood protection. As part of our comprehensive Stream Maintenance Program (SMP), we will be removing sediment and garbage and planting trees to create shady riparian canopies. These canopies help cool the water and shade out less desirable species of plants, which can catch debris and reduce the streams’ water-carrying capacity. If necessary, we will remove some non-canopy forming trees such as arroyo willows as well as certain dense shrubs such as non-native and invasive blackberries. Sediment removal activities include planting native trees, shrubs, and some aquatic plants according to a certain pattern to establish canopy while maintaining channel capacity. The Sonoma County Youth Ecology Corps (SCYEC), a workforce training and ecosystem education program aimed at educating youth and young adults in environmental stewardship and restoration, will be working with the SMP this summer. The SCYEC provides youth and young adults paychecks, valuable work experience, environmental education, and the opportunity to contribute to their community through ongoing outdoor experiences. Below is the list of streams the Water Agency will be maintaining this summer. For a more detailed list, map of locations, and information on stream maintenance, visit www.sonomacountywater.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Friends, Sonoma County Is Celebrating the Winter and Spring Rains Which Have Left Our Rivers and Creeks with Plenty of Clea
    This picture of Mark West creek was taken in April by our intern, Nick Bel. Dear Friends, Sonoma County is celebrating the winter and spring rains which have left our rivers and creeks with plenty of clear clean water going into summer. Many of CCWI’s water monitors have noted that local rivers and creeks have more water and are more beautiful than they have been in the past several years. This is a very promising start to the summer season, but we should not let our guard down just yet. Several years of drought have left us with a shortage of water in many reservoirs so we must still be conscious of how we use and protect this precious resource. CCWI has a new program Director! Art Hasson joined the Community Clean Water Institute in 2008 as an intern and volunteer water monitor. Art has a business degree from the State University of New York, which he has put to good use as our new program director. He has updated our water quality database engaged in field work, performed flow studies and bacterial analysis for the past two years. Art is focused on protecting our public health through the preservation of our waterways. CCWI would like to thank outgoing program director Terrance Fleming for his hard work and valuable contributions to protect water resources. We wish him the very best in his future endeavors. CCWI would like to thank our donors for their support in building our online database interactive database. It contains nine years of data that CCWI volunteer water monitors have collected on local creeks and streams in and around Sonoma County.
    [Show full text]
  • 1982 Flood Report
    GB 1399.4 S383 R4 1982 I ; CLARA VAltEY WATER DISlRIDl LIBRARY 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSYIAY SAN JOSE. CAUFORN!A 9Sll8 REPORT ON FLOODING AND FLOOD RELATED DAMAGES IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY January 1 to April 30, 1982 Prepared by John H. Sutcliffe Acting Division Engineer Operations Division With Contributions From Michael McNeely Division Engineer Design Division and Jeanette Scanlon Assistant Civil Engineer Design Division Under the Direction of Leo F. Cournoyer Assistant Operations and Maintenance Manager and Daniel F. Kriege Operations and Maintenance Manager August 24, 1982 DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Arthur T. Pfeiffer, Chairman District 1 James J. Lenihan District 5 Patrick T. Ferraro District 2 Sio Sanchez. Vice Chairman At Large Robert W. Gross District 3 Audrey H. Fisher At large Maurice E. Dullea District 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCrfION .......................... a ••••••••••••••••••• 4 •• Ill • 1 STORM OF JANUARY 3-5, 1982 .•.•.•.•.•••••••.••••••••.••.••.••.••••. 3 STORMS OF MARCH 31 THROUGH APRIL 13, 1982 ••.....••••••.•••••••••••• 7 SUMMARY e • • • • • • • • • : • 111 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1111 o e • e • • o • e • e o e • e 1111 • • • • • e • e 12 TABLES I Storm Rainfall Summary •••••••••.••••.•••••••.••••••••••••• 14 II Historical Rainfall Data •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15 III Channel Flood Flow Summary •••••.•••••.•••••••••••••••••••• 16 IV Historical Stream flow Data •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17 V January 3-5, 1982 Damage Assessment Summary •••••••••••••••••• 18 VI March 31 - April 13, 1982 Damage
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology-DRA,FT Garcia
    Hydrology Big River WAU SECTION C HYDROLOGY INTRODUCTION This section provides the available river peak flow data for the South Fork Big River (1961-1974), Navarro River (1951-1998) and Noyo River (1952-1998). Other than the few years of stream flow information on the South Fork Big River there is little information on peak storm events in Big River, thus the information from the Noyo River and the Navarro River is presented to give an indication of storm timing and magnitude. High river peak flow events are indicative of the largest storms, with large storms typically comes high erosion and sediment transport events. The Big River WAU does not receive significant snow accumulations that could contribute to rain-on- snow events. Current research shows possible cumulative effects from increased peak flows from forest harvest in rain-on-snow dominated areas (Harr, 198l). However, in rain dominated areas increases in large stream peak flows (i.e. > 20 year event) from forest harvesting are not found (Ziemer, 1981; Wright et. al., 1990). The Big River WAU is a rain-dominated area in the temperate coastal zone of Northern California therefore analysis on peak flow hydrologic change was not done. PEAK FLOWS The peak flow information was taken from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) gage 11468070, South Fork Big River, from water years 1961-1974 (no data for 1971-1973). To estimate the recurrence interval of the flood events of the South Fork Big River the USGS annual peak flow series was used. An extreme value type I distribution (Gumbel, 1958) was fitted to the data.
    [Show full text]