DOCSLIB.ORG

China Bar) Placer Mining Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
China Bar) Placer Mining Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Sunset Consolidated (China Bar) Placer Mining Environmental Assessment Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, Plumas County, California December, 2013 + For More Information Contact: Michael A. Donald c/o Donna Duncan Mt. Hough Ranger District 39696 Highway 70 Quincy, CA 95971 Phone: 530-283-0555 Email: [email protected] Fax: 530-283-1821 Cover photo: Project area. Photo by Donna Duncan, 10/3/12 Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected]. Persons with Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TDD). ii Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest Contents Non-Discrimination Policy ......................................................................................................... ii To File an Employment Complaint ............................................................................................. ii To File a Program Complaint ...................................................................................................... ii Persons with Disabilities ............................................................................................................. ii Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Background ................................................................................................................................. 2 Proposed Project Location .......................................................................................................... 2 Need for the Proposal ...................................................................................................................... 3 Decision Framework ....................................................................................................................... 4 Land Management Direction....................................................................................................... 4 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ................................................................................... 7 Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................................... 8 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................................. 8 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 8 Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 11 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives................................................. 12 Alternative 1 – No Action ......................................................................................................... 13 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 13 Finding of No Significant Impact .................................................................................................. 16 Context ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Intensity ..................................................................................................................................... 16 List of Tables Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives Chart ……………………………………………………..12 List of Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map, Northern California.................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Project Location Map T26N, R7E, Sec 19 ............................................................... 3 1 Sunset Consolidated (China Bar) Placer Mining Introduction The Forest Service is preparing to approve a mining operation on less than one acre of land. This operation is proposed to be implemented on the Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest. We prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether implementation of placer mining activities may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the proposed action, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document. Background The Sunset Consolidated Mining claim has been held by the current claimant and his partners since 1990. The claim had been mined under a Plan of Operations (PoO) submitted and carried out by Robert Zito. After Mr. Zito passed away, Mr. Robert Johns took over operations at the site, performing needed reclamation and cleanup. Mr. Johns submitted a new PoO for the “China Bar Placer” project in spring of 2012. The proposed PoO would authorize placer mining, over a two year period, utilizing an excavator to continue to excavate the existing pit in order to extract locatable minerals. Excavated material would be processed through a trommel and sluice box set up on adjacent private land, utilizing water pumped from an existing pond located on the mining claim. This Environmental Assessment (EA) is conducted in an effort to identify resource concerns associated with implementation of this proposed PoO. Mitigation of these resource concerns has been incorporated into the proposal and will be included in the Plan of Operations Conditions of Approval. Proposed Project Location The Sunset Consolidated Placer mining claim occupies an area within the small hamlet of Seneca, California, in Township 26 North, Range 7 East, Section 19, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian. Figure 1: Vicinity Map, Northern California ↓China Bar ⃝ 2 Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest Access to the claim is off State Highway 89 west of Canyon Dam, then south on County Road 306, also known as the Seneca Road. From the Seneca Road, about two miles west of Seneca, the access is along forest road 26N32Y, which passes through private land, then crosses the river to the claim. (Figure 2) Much of the claim area was burned in the 2012 Chips fire. Subsequent rains caused massive debris flows which changed the course of the river. However, there were no changes to the area proposed for mining. Figure 2: Project Location Map T26N, R7E, Sec 19 Butt Valley Reservoir To Seneca О North Fork Feather River О = Location of proposed mining Need for the Proposal An individual seeks to discover the mineral potential of his mining claim, which is located on National Forest System lands. He has submitted a Plan of Operations to obtain authorization for the surface disturbance associated with the exploration methods he will use to extract the locatable1 minerals. These activities include use of an excavator to remove the material, use and 1 Locatable minerals include metallic minerals (gold, silver, lead, copper, zinc, nickel, etc.), nonmetallic minerals (fluorspar, mica, certain limestones and gypsum, tantalum, heavy minerals in placer form, and gemstones) and certain uncommon variety minerals. 3 Sunset Consolidated (China Bar)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 11404500 North Fork Feather River at Pulga, CA Sacramento River Basin
    Water-Data Report 2011 11404500 North Fork Feather River at Pulga, CA Sacramento River Basin LOCATION.--Lat 39°47′40″, long 121°27′02″ referenced to North American Datum of 1927, in SE ¼ NE ¼ sec.6, T.22 N., R.5 E., Butte County, CA, Hydrologic Unit 18020121, Plumas National Forest, on left bank between railroad and highway bridges, 0.6 mi downstream from Flea Valley Creek and Pulga, and 1.6 mi downstream from Poe Dam. DRAINAGE AREA.--1,953 mi². SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PERIOD OF RECORD.--October 1910 to current year. Monthly discharge only for some periods and yearly estimates for water years 1911 and 1938, published in WSP 1315-A. Prior to October 1960, published as "at Big Bar." CHEMICAL DATA: Water years 1963-66, 1972, 1977. WATER TEMPERATURE: Water years 1963-83. REVISED RECORDS.--WSP 931: 1938 (instantaneous maximum discharge), 1940. WSP 1515: 1935. WDR CA-77-4: 1976 (yearly summaries). GAGE.--Water-stage recorder. Datum of gage is 1,305.62 ft above NGVD of 1929. Prior to Oct. 1, 1937, at site 1.1 mi upstream at different datum. Oct. 1, 1937, to Sept. 30, 1958, at present site at datum 5.00 ft higher. COOPERATION.--Records, including diversion to Poe Powerplant (station 11404900), were collected by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., under general supervision of the U.S. Geological Survey, in connection with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project no. 2107. REMARKS.--Flow regulated by Lake Almanor, Bucks Lake, Butt Valley Reservoir (stations 11399000, 11403500, and 11401050, respectively), Mountain Meadows Reservoir, and five forebays, combined capacity, 1,386,000 acre-ft.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.3-1 4.3 HYDROLOGY and WATER QUALITY This Section Describes Water Resources at Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Hydroelect
    4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.3.1 INTRODUCTION TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section describes water resources at Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s hydroelectric facilities and associated Watershed Lands in Northern and Central California, and addresses how utilization and management of the water resources for power production affects the physical environment and other beneficial uses. The section provides an overview of discretionary and non- discretionary factors affecting water use and management, including applicable regulatory constraints. The section then addresses the following for each asset: the location of the drainage basin, the flow of water through the different facilities, a general discussion of water quality, physical characteristics of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s water conveyance systems and capacities, maximum powerhouse capacities, and considerations, including specific regulatory constraints, that affect the management of water for power production and other purposes. Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s hydroelectric facilities were built, for the most part, in the early and mid part of the 20th Century. The existing facilities and their operations are integrated into the water supply system for the State and can affect water quality in the surrounding watershed. 4.3.1.1 Water Use Water is used at Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s hydroelectric facilities primarily for the nonconsumptive purpose of generating electric power. Other uses include minor consumption at powerhouses and recreational facilities (e.g., for drinking water, sanitation, or maintenance activities), provision of recreational opportunities, sale or delivery to other parties, and fish and wildlife preservation and enhancement.
    [Show full text]
  • Donated Transaction Status (Recommended to Date) PG&E
    Donated Transaction Status (Recommended to date) 9/16/2020 Closed Board Approved LCCPs In Process USFS Deer Creek 151 USFS Eel River 907 Pit River Tribe Hat Creek #2/Lk. Britton 1,878 USFS Lower Bear 907 Fall River RCD Fall River Mills 463 Pit River Tribe Fall River Mills 1,506 Tuolumne County Kennedy Meadows 240 USFS Lake Britton 244 UC Narrows 41 Maidu Summit Consortium Lake Almanor (Cemetery) 142 USFS Blue Lakes 410 UC Pit River 3,203 Auburn Recreation District Lower Drum (CV) 16 CAL FIRE Pit River/Tunnel Reservoir 7,016 USFS Wishon Reservoir 167 Pit River Tribe Hat Creek #1 830 UC Lake Spaulding 1,459 Maidu Summit Consortium Lake Almanor (Wetlands) 296 USFS North Fork Mokelumne 98 Cal State Parks Lake Britton 119 Fall River RCD McArthur Swamp 4,491 SJCOE Lake Spaulding 60 Placer County Lower Drum 10 Fall River RCD Fall River Mills Gun Club 434 USFS Fordyce (White Rock) 77 CAL FIRE Lake Spaulding 1,151 USFS Lyons Reservoir 628 CAL FIRE Bear River (BYLT) 269 Fall River Valley CSD Fall River Mills 34 CAL FIRE Bear River (PLT) 1,238 Potter Valley Tribe Eel River 678 CAL FIRE Cow Creek 2,246 Potter Valley Tribe - Alder Eel River 201 CAL FIRE Battle Creek 2,306 Maidu Summit Consortium Humbug Valley 2,325 Maidu Summit Consortium Lake Almanor (Trail) 8 CAL FIRE North Fork Mokelumne 1,052 Madera County Manzanita Lake 146 Maidu Summit Consortium Lake Almanor (Forest) 164 USFS Battle Creek 934 Total Acres 14,237 20,924 3,384 Total Donated Acres 38,545 Total Transactions 22 16 2 Total Donated Transactions 40 PG&E Retained Transaction Status (Recommended
    [Show full text]
  • Who's Who in the Feather River Watershed
    Who’s Who in the Feather River Watershed This document was developed to help address questions about organizations and relationships within the Upper Feather River region related to water and watershed management. Please submit comments, corrections, or additions to [email protected]. Almanor Basin Watershed Advisory Committee (a.k.a. ABWAC) The Almanor Basin Watershed Advisory Committee was created by the Plumas County Board of Supervisors to address water quality, land use, and critical habitat issues in the Lake Almanor Basin. American Whitewater The goals of American Whitewater are to restore rivers dewatered by hydropower dams, eliminate water degradation, improve public land management and protect public access to rivers for responsible recreational use. In the Feather River region, American Whitewater is involved in the relicensing and license implementation of a number of FERC hydroelectric projects, as well as the development of river recreation facilities and opportunities, such as the Rock Creek Dam bench. Butte County About one-third of Butte County (over 500 square miles) encompasses part of the Upper Feather River watershed, including Lake Oroville and the town of Paradise. Butte County is a State Water Project contractor with access to water from Lake Oroville and the Feather River watershed. Butte County Fire Safe Council The Butte County Fire Safe Council is a non-profit, public benefit corporation formed in 1998 to reduce damage and devastation by providing safety in Butte County through wildfire hazard education and mitigation. CalTrout CalTrout was formed in 1970 as the nation''s first statewide conservation group supported by trout fishermen. CalTrout’s goal is to protect and restore trout and the beautiful places where they live.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Control Plan, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Amendments to the 1994 Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins The Third Edition of the Basin Plan was adopted by the Central Valley Water Board on 9 December 1994, approved by the State Water Board on 16 February 1995 and approved by the Office of Administrative Law on 9 May 1995. The Fourth Edition of the Basin Plan was the 1998 reprint of the Third Edition incorporating amendments adopted and approved between 1994 and 1998. The Basin Plan is in a loose-leaf format to facilitate the addition of amendments. The Basin Plan can be kept up-to-date by inserting the pages that have been revised to include subsequent amendments. The date subsequent amendments are adopted by the Central Valley Water Board will appear at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, all pages will be dated 1 September 1998. Basin plan amendments adopted by the Regional Central Valley Water Board must be approved by the State Water Board and the Office of Administrative Law. If the amendment involves adopting or revising a standard which relates to surface waters it must also be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [40 CFR Section 131(c)].
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Projects—Leading The
    Watershed Projects—Leading the Way The past 10 years have seen the completion of numerous watershed assessments and watershed management plans throughout the Sacramento River Basin. However, the true measure of success of any management program comes from the ability to affect conditions on the ground, i.e., implement actions to protect or improve watershed resources and overall watershed condition. This section briefly describes projects from each subregion area that are examples of watershed improvement work being done by locally directed management groups; by local, state, and federal agencies; and by other public and private entities. The examples presented here include projects to benefit water quality, streamflow and aquatic habitat, fish passage, fire and fuels management, habitat for wildlife and waterfowl, eradication of invasive plant species, flood management, and watershed stewardship education. Support for this work has come from a broad spectrum of public and private sources. Sacramento Subregions Northeast Lakeview Eastside OREGON Sacramento Valley CALIFORNIA Westside 5 Goose Feather 97 Lake Yuba, American & Bear 0 20 Miles Featured Projects: Alturas Lassen Creek Stream and Mt Shasta r Meadow Restoration e v i R 299 395 t i Pit River Channel Erosion P r e er iv iv R R o t RCD Cooperative Sagebrush Steppe n e m a r d c u Iniatitive — Butte Creek Project a o r S l 101 C e v c i R Lake M Burney Shasta Bear Creek Meadow Restoration Pit 299 CA NEVA Iron Mountain Mine LIFORNIA Eagle Superfund Cleanup Lake Redding DA Redding Allied Stream Team d Cr. Cottonwoo Lower Clear Creek Floodway Rehabilitation Honey Lake Red Bluff Lake Almanor Cow Creek— Bassett Diversion Fish Passage Project 395 r.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1-4 Draft Plan Public Comments
    Appendix 1-4 Public Comments Received on Draft Plan California Sport Fishing Alliance From: Chris Shutes <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 6:25 PM To: [email protected]; Cindy Noble Cc: Dave Steindorf Subject: Additions to IRWM report Chapter 3 Attachments: 3. DRAFT Region Description 8-5-16_BF CS v2 090916.DOCX Flag Status: Flagged Dear Uma and Cindy, I have added several pages of copy relating to upper Feather watershed fisheries. They are in jRedline [underline/strikethrough] format. You can find them on what is now pages 3-20 to 3-25. Like Cindy, I believe it is important to have a more complete description of these fisheries and their history. They are important to the watershed and to the County. Dave added a few changes relating to hydropower settlements on what is now page 3-57. Dave also suggested a couple of photos, such as a photo of Curtain Falls on the American Whitewater website. However, I did not include those, in part for formatting reasons, and in part because of file size. I have tried to avoid controversial statements and to be as objective (and frankly, positive) as possible. I provide cites in footnotes; you may wish to pull some of the information out of the footnotes and put it in the References section at the end of the chapter or document. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thanks, Chris Shutes Chris Shutes FERC Projects Director California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (510) 421-2405 (Comments excerpted from full Word version of chapter) 3.4.4 Aquatic Ecosystems and Fisheries The Upper Feather River Watershed has a wide variety of aquatic habitats including natural ponds and lakes, reservoirs and canals, springs and meadows, small alpine streams, and large, canyon-bounded rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods in Northern California, January 1997
    science for a changing world &2CV FLOODS IN NORTHERN fl' CALIFORNIA, JANUARY 1997 Photo by John Trotter, Jan.4, 1997/Sacramento Bee Photo: The community of Olivehurst was inundated with water after a levee failed on the Feather River INTRODUCTION Flooding in California in recent years has been increased evaporation from the warmer surface water. attributed mostly to climate conditions referred to as the The result is an increase in the number and intensity of "El Nino" effect. However, floods in California also have storms. La Nina, characterized by colder than average been associated with other climate conditions (table 1). ocean temperatures, does not entirely prevent storms of The flood of January 1997 occurred during a weak "La sufficient precipitation to cause flooding in California. Nina" or near-normal (average) climate condition (U.S. Precipitation in the Sierra Nevada mountain range Department of Commerce, 1997). These climate produced an above-normal snowpack and saturated conditions are based on sea-surface water temperatures soils during November and December 1996. A series of and trade-wind velocities in the Pacific Ocean. storms from December 29, 1996, through January 4, Precipitation from storms during any climate condition 1997. brought heavy and relatively warm precipitation generally increases with orographic uplift as the storms across much of California. Precipitation totals of up to move easterly across the mountains of California. 24 inches were recorded for the week. Virtually all of During El Nino, trade winds diminish, and upwelling of this precipitation was rain because temperatures were colder water in the ocean is inhibited along the Pacific above freezing at elevations as high as about 9,000 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • SNOWMELT RUNOFF in the SIERRA NEVADA and SOUTHERN CASCADES DURING CALIFORNIA's FOURTH CONSECUTIVE YEAR of DROUGHT Gary J
    SNOWMELT RUNOFF IN THE SIERRA NEVADA AND SOUTHERN CASCADES DURING CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH CONSECUTIVE YEAR OF DROUGHT Gary J. Freeman1 ABSTRACT For California statewide the 2015 water year, which followed three prior dry years, produced several new hydrometeorological records including but not limited to low runoff, dryness and warmer than normal minimum temperatures. The 2015 spring freshet from snowmelt reflected the general lack of snowpack, setting several new records for low spring flows leaving most of California reservoirs less than full. Headwaters which drained the Sierra’s exposed granites suffered some of the lowest late summer and fall flows on record. Northern California’s rivers such as the Pit, McCloud, Upper Sacramento, Klamath, and North Fork Feather River above Lake Almanor which have portions of their watersheds overlaying the High Cascades volcanic aquifer systems while at some of their lowest flow rates on record still managed to maintain higher flow rates than for the Sierra exposed granites. While water year precipitation was less than normal, the majority of precipitation occurred in December 2014 with storms delivering the majority of water year precipitation during a couple weeks mostly in the form of rainfall. A large number of the storms that entered California during the 2015 water year occurred as atmospheric rivers with rainfall occurring on the higher headwater areas of the Sierra. The relatively high elevation southern Sierra was much drier than northern California, so despite its higher elevation conducive to snowfall, precipitation was among the driest on record, leaving only a shallow snowpack on summits above 2,700-3,300 meters elevation.
    [Show full text]
  • January 21, 2021 Additional Information Request By
    FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 January 29, 2021 OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS Project No. 2105-089 – California North Fork Feather River Hydroelectric Project Pacific Gas and Electric Company VIA FERC Service Jan Nimick Vice President, Power Generation Pacific Gas and Electric Company 245 Market Street, Mail Code: N11E San Francisco, CA 94105 Reference: Additional Information Request for the Upper North Fork Feather River Hydroelectric Project No. 2105-089 Dear Mr. Nimick: We are in the process of updating our review of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) license application for the Upper North Fork Feather River Project, in light of the Relicensing Settlement Agreement, additional information filed by PG&E in the proceeding, the final environmental impact statement (final EIS) for the project,1 and an updated threatened and endangered (T&E) species list. Based on our review, we need additional information to update the record regarding: (1) project facilities, operation, and generation; (2) the cost of proposed and recommended measures; (3) water quality in the Upper North Fork Feather River; (4) project effects on federally listed T&E species for purposes of consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973;2 and (5) compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act. Pursuant to section 4.32(g) of the Commission's regulations, please provide the additional information requested in items 1-9 and 11-18 in the enclosed Schedule A 1 The final EIS was issued on November 10, 2005. 2 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a). P-2105-089 - 2 - within 90 days from the date of this letter.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Region Description
    Region Description CHAPTER 3.0 REGION DESCRIPTION 3.1 Introduction The Upper Feather River watershed encompasses 2.3 million acres in the northern Sierra Nevada, where that range intersects the Cascade Range to the north and the Diamond Mountains of the Great Basin and Range Province to the east. The watershed drains generally southwest to Lake Oroville, the largest reservoir of the California State Water Project (SWP). Water from Lake Oroville enters a comprehensive system of natural and constructed conveyances to provide irrigation and domestic water as well as to supply natural aquatic ecosystems in the Lower Feather River, Sacramento River, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Lake Oroville is the principal storage facility of the SWP, which delivers water to over two- thirds of California’s population and provides an average of 34.3 million acre-feet (AF)/year of agricultural water to the Central Valley. Lands to the east of the Upper Feather River watershed drain to Eagle and Honey Lakes that are closed drainage basins in the Basin and Range Province, while lands to the north, west, and south drain to the Sacramento River via the Pit River, Yuba River, Battle Creek, Thomas Creek, Big Chico Creek, and Butte Creek. Mount Lassen, the southernmost volcano in the Cascade Range, defines the northern boundary of the region. Sierra Valley, the largest valley in the Sierra Nevada, defines the southern boundary. At the intersection of the Great Basin, the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Cascade Range, the Region supports a diversity of habitats including an assemblage of meadows and alluvial valleys interconnected by river gorges and rimmed by granite and volcanic mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical and Present Distribution of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California
    Historical and Present Distribution of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California Ronald M. Yoshiyama, Eric R. Gerstung, Frank W. Fisher, and Peter B. Moyle Abstract Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) formerly were highly abundant and widely distributed in virtually all the major streams of California’s Central Valley drainage—encompassing the Sacramento River basin in the north and San Joaquin River basin in the south. We used information from historical narratives and ethnographic accounts, fishery records and locations of in-stream natural barriers to determine the historical distributional limits and, secondarily, to describe at least qualitatively the abundances of chinook salmon within the major salmon-producing Central Valley watersheds. Indi- vidual synopses are given for each of the larger streams that histori- cally supported or currently support salmon runs. In the concluding section, we compare the historical distributional limits of chinook salmon in Central Valley streams with present-day distributions to estimate the reduction of in-stream salmon habitat that has resulted from human activities—namely, primarily the con- struction of dams and other barriers and dewatering of stream reaches. We estimated that at least 1,057 mi (or 48%) of the stream lengths historically available to salmon have been lost from the origi- nal total of 2,183 mi in the Central Valley drainage. We included in these assessments all lengths of stream that were occupied by salmon, whether for spawning and holding or only as migration cor- ridors. In considering only spawning and holding habitat (in other words, excluding migration corridors in the lower rivers), the propor- tionate reduction of the historical habitat range was far more than 48% and probably exceeded 72% because most of the former spawn- ing and holding habitat was located in upstream reaches that are now inaccessible for salmon.
    [Show full text]