DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix P Water Resources Technical Background Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix P Water Resources Technical Background Report Appendix P Water Resources Technical Background Report Humboldt County General Plan Draft EIR Humboldt County General Plan Water Resources Technical Report DRAFT WATER RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT For: Humboldt County Community Development Division DRAFT REPORT November 2007 Prepared for: County of Humboldt Community Development Division Eureka, CA 95501 Prepared by: Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers 633 Third Street Eureka, CA 95501 Tel: 707.443-8326 Fax: 707.444-8330 Appendices Appendix P - Page 1 Humboldt County General Plan Draft EIR Humboldt County General Plan Water Resources Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................1 I. Introduction.....................................................................................................................5 A. Purpose and Objectives..........................................................................................5 B. Water Resources Element Description...................................................................5 II. Existing Conditions.........................................................................................................7 A. Water Resources Background................................................................................7 B. Public Water Systems..............................................................................................10 C. Regulatory Setting..................................................................................................29 1. California Toxic Rule (CTR) Overview ...............................................................30 2. 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments & TMDL’s Overview ............30 3. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) Permit Overview ............................31 4. North Coast Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan....................................31 5. Beneficial Uses......................................................................................................31 6. California Toxic Rule (CTR) .................................................................................35 7. CWA 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments .....................................35 8. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) permit..............................................37 9. Statewide Construction Permit (SWPPP)..........................................................38 10. Humboldt County Regulations........................................................................39 D. Hydrologic Assessment ..........................................................................................41 1. Hydrology Methodology ....................................................................................41 2. Drainage Areas and Watershed.......................................................................41 3. Watershed Boundaries .......................................................................................45 4. Humboldt Bay Watershed Management Area ..............................................46 5. Eel River Watershed Management Area.........................................................47 6. North Coast River Watershed Management Area ........................................48 7. Aquifers .................................................................................................................54 8. Hydrology and Floodplain .................................................................................59 9. Normal, Wet, and Drought Years......................................................................61 10. Water Import and Export..................................................................................64 11. Hydropower Projects Relicensing ...................................................................65 12. Global Warming ................................................................................................66 E. Stormwater Quality Assessment ............................................................................68 1. Pollutants of Concern .........................................................................................68 2. Adequacy of Existing Standards .......................................................................71 III. Growth Impacts..........................................................................................................74 A. Summary of Sketch Plan Alternatives..................................................................74 B. Domestic Water Availability ..................................................................................79 i Appendices Appendix P - Page 2 Humboldt County General Plan Draft EIR Humboldt County General Plan Water Resources Technical Report Figures & Tables Figure 13-1 The Hydrologic Cycle Figure 13-2 Public Water Sources in Humboldt County Table 13-3 Beneficial Uses Table 13-4 TMDL Listed Water Bodies in California Table 13-5 Humboldt County Watersheds Figure 13-6 Humboldt County Watersheds and Major Streams Table 13-7 Critical Coastal Areas, Humboldt County Table 13-8 Multiple Scale & Jurisdiction Watershed Management Planning Efforts Figure 13-9 Humboldt County Groundwater Basins Table 13-10 General Land Use of Parcels in 100-Year Floodplain Table 13-11 Structures within 100-Year/500-Year Floodplain Humboldt County Figure 13-12 Public Water Sources in Humboldt County Table 13-13 Gross Estimate of Future Housing Capacity Table 13-14 Housing Development Potential List of Acronyms AFY Acre Feet per Year BAT Best Available Technology BCT Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology BMPs Best Management Practices CCAs Critical Coastal Areas CEQA California Environmental Quality Act cfs Cubic Feet per Second CTR California Toxics Rule CWA Clean Water Act ft³/yr Cubic Meters per Year HA Hydrologic Areas HR Hydrologic Region HSA Hydrologic Sub-Areas MCLs Maximum Contaminant Levels MMM’s Minimum Management Measures MEP Maximum Extent Practicable mg/kg Milligrams per Kilogram NPS Non-point Source NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SWQPA Stormwater Quality Protection Areas SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan ii Appendices Appendix P - Page 3 Humboldt County General Plan Draft EIR Humboldt County General Plan Water Resources Technical Report TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load µg/g Micrograms per Gram µg/kg Micrograms per Kilogram µg/L Micrograms per Liter USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency WMA Watershed Management Areas WQOs Water Quality Objectives iii Appendices Appendix P - Page 4 Humboldt County General Plan Draft EIR Humboldt County General Plan Water Resources Technical Report Executive Summary The Water Resources Technical Report presented herein was developed to guide conclusions presented in the draft Water Resources Element of the Humboldt County General Plan. This report builds upon the water resources information developed as part of the Natural Resources and Hazards Report, Volume II. This report presents an analysis of hydrology and water quality for: 1) existing conditions in Humboldt County, including a framework of regulatory requirements; 2) an analysis of future water demands based on the General Plan land use build out; 3) potential mitigation measures and reduced impacts utilizing BMPs; 4) cumulative impacts; and 5) a summary of watershed and water resource issues facing Humboldt County. Historically, water resources have not been covered as a separate element in the County’s General Plan. Currently, only Imperial County has a Water Element. Several other counties, including Sonoma are currently working on water resources elements and it is anticipated that this element will be an important part of general plans in the future. It is hoped that this will serve as a model for integrating water resource issues into the County’s planning process. Humboldt County is blessed with an abundance of water resources, with 5 federally recognized wild and scenic rivers, numerous creeks, rivers and lakes, Humboldt Bay, and 110 miles of ocean frontage. The water resources of the County, as with other areas of the State, are faced with a myriad of issues both natural and political that could affect future needs: Pollutants California ranks TMDL’s (Total Maximum Daily Loads) as low, medium, or high priority based on the number and severity of the impairments and the importance of the beneficial uses. In Humboldt County several waterbodies have been identified as impaired by sedimentation, siltation, temperature, low dissolved oxygen, chemical constituents, and by nutrient loads. Of these waterbodies, the Mattole River, Freshwater Creek, and Elk River are listed as the highest priority because of the severity of the impairments and the importance of the beneficial uses. Sediment impairment affects fifty-nine percent of the area covered by the North Coast Region. The human-caused activities contributing to excessive sediment discharge include but are not limited to: • Construction; • Mining; • Agriculture, including ranching, grazing, and farming; • Dairies and other types of confined animal operation; • Timber harvesting; • Other earth-disturbing activities. Non Point Pollutants of concern in Humboldt County include: • Excess fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from agricultural lands and residential areas; • Oil, grease, and toxic chemicals from urban runoff and energy production; • Sediment from improperly managed construction sites,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Big Lagoon Bog
    Big Lagoon Bog Bob Ziemer • McKinleyville • California • USA • [email protected] The Big Lagoon Bog is an inconspicuous 1.3 ha peatland in coastal northwestern California (Figs. 1&2). A reason the bog is of interest to me is that it contains both Sphagnum and Drosera rotundifolia—neither are rare by any stretch of the imagination. What makes this location special is that the bog is isolated with the nearest Drosera rotundifolia neighbors about 80 km north and 200 km south. Peat bogs are rare at low elevations along the coast in California. In contrast, the Darlingtonia bogs in the Klamath region are perennial wet, nutrient poor, ultramafic outcrops with little or no Sphagnum. The Big Lagoon Bog lies 3 m above sea level and is within 300 m of the Pacific Ocean coastline. The bog drains into Big Lagoon, a 590-ha brackish embayment separated from the ocean by a nar- row 6 km long sand bar. Winter rainfall raises the water level in the lagoon several meters above sea level where hydrostatic pressure and high surf breaches the sand bar allowing the lagoon to drain into the ocean and then receive tidal inflow until wave action reforms the bar. Big Lagoon Bog is one of the few peatlands in California that have received floristic study (Lep- pig 2002; Smith 2014). Leppig (2002) found a total of 77 vascular taxa at the bog of which 5 taxa were rare (Carex huxbaumii, C. viridula, Lathyrus palustris, Lycopodiella inundata, and Lycopus uniflora) and 13 alien taxa. The high proportion of alien taxa is due to the area having been logged and grazed, with adjacent homes, a county park, and a nearby campground.
    [Show full text]
  • Geomorphometric Delineation of Floodplains and Terraces From
    Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 369–385, 2017 https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-369-2017 © Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Geomorphometric delineation of floodplains and terraces from objectively defined topographic thresholds Fiona J. Clubb1, Simon M. Mudd1, David T. Milodowski2, Declan A. Valters3, Louise J. Slater4, Martin D. Hurst5, and Ajay B. Limaye6 1School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9XP, UK 2School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Crew Building, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JN, UK 3School of Earth, Atmospheric, and Environmental Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK 4Department of Geography, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK 5School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, East Quadrangle, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK 6Department of Earth Sciences and St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA Correspondence to: Fiona J. Clubb ([email protected]) Received: 31 March 2017 – Discussion started: 12 April 2017 Revised: 26 May 2017 – Accepted: 9 June 2017 – Published: 10 July 2017 Abstract. Floodplain and terrace features can provide information about current and past fluvial processes, including channel response to varying discharge and sediment flux, sediment storage, and the climatic or tectonic history of a catchment. Previous methods of identifying floodplain and terraces from digital elevation models (DEMs) tend to be semi-automated, requiring the input of independent datasets or manual editing by the user. In this study we present a new method of identifying floodplain and terrace features based on two thresholds: local gradient, and elevation compared to the nearest channel.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern California Coast Northern Focus Area
    14.1 Description of Area 14.1.1 The Land The Northern California Coast - Northern Focus Area is composed of coastal Del Norte and Humboldt counties. The boundary extends eastward from the Pacific coast to the top of the first inland mountain range, and encompasses many of the region's existing and former wetlands. The focus area also includes a few important riparian and floodplain areas adjacent to major coastally draining rivers (Figure 13). In this northernmost California County, the coastline tends to be composed of rocky cliffs and high bluffs which rise steeply into the coastal mountain ranges with their deeply cut 14.0 canyons. Two major rivers drain the interior mountain ranges and empty into the Pacific Ocean within the boundary of Del Norte County: the Smith River, which has its origins in north- eastern Del Norte County and southern Oregon, and the Klamath River with headwaters much farther to the NORTHERN north and east in south central Oregon. Humboldt County, to the south, includes portions of CALIFORNIA the California Coast Range and the southern Klamath Mountains. The most extensive coastal wetlands are associated with floodplains in the lower Eel River COAST─ Valley and the Humboldt Bay area. Other significant wetland habitats include Mad River Estuary, Little River Valley, Redwood Creek Estuary, Big Lagoon, NORTHERN Stone Lagoon, and Freshwater Lagoon. Major rivers and streams draining the mountain ranges of Humboldt County include the Eel River, Van Duzen FOCUS AREA River, Mad River, Trinity River, Klamath River, Mattole River, Bear River, and Redwood Creek. Like the Klamath River, the Trinity and Eel rivers have large drainage basins within the Coast Range and the Klamath Mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus Kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report
    Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission in partnership with the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Humboldt Redwood Company Summary Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Restoration Grant Program Grantee Agreement: P1210516 Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report Prepared by: David Lam and Sharon Powers December 2016 Abstract Monitoring of coho salmon population spatial structure was conducted, as a component of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Coastal Salmonid Monitoring Program, in the lower Eel River and its tributaries, inclusive of the Van Duzen River, in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Potential coho salmon habitat within the lower Eel River and Van Duzen River study areas was segmented into a sample frame of 204 one-to-three kilometer stream survey reaches. Annually, a randomly selected subset of sample frame stream reaches was monitored by direct observation. Using mask and snorkel, surveyors conducted two independent pass dive observations to estimate fish species presence and numbers. A total of 211 surveys were conducted on 163 reaches, with 2,755 pools surveyed during the summers of 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Coho salmon were observed in 13.5% of reaches and 7.5% of pools surveyed, and the percent of the study area occupied by coho salmon juveniles was estimated at 7% in 2013 and 2014, 3% in 2015, and 4% in 2016. i Table of Contents Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mickey Jarvi CV
    Mickey Jarvi Ph.D. Forest Science Lecturer in Natural Resources Michigan Technological University Office: 906-487-2596; cell: 906-369-4221, email: [email protected] Appointments Lecturer in Natural Resources 2019-Present Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI College of Forest Resources and Environmental Science Assistant Professor, Forestry 2016-2019 College of the Redwoods Eureka, CA Forestry and Natural Resources Research Associate - Postdoctoral 2016 University of Washington Seattle, WA Civil and Environmental Engineering Supervisor: Dr. Rebecca Neumann Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant 2009-2015 Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science Advisor: Dr. Andrew Burton Education Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 2012-2015 Ph.D. – Forest Science Research – Ecological Responses of Sugar Maple Roots to Climatic Conditions Advisor: Dr. Andrew Burton Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 2009-2011 M.S. - Forest Ecology and Management Research – The Effects of a Changing Climate on Root Respiration of Woody Plants in Sugar Maple Forests and Northern Peatlands Advisor: Dr. Andrew Burton Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 2007-2009 B.S. - Forestry B.S. - Wildlife Ecology and Management Magna Cum Laude Dr. Mickey Jarvi - 1 Academic/ Teaching Experience Advisor: Integrated Resource Assessment, MTU (FW 4830) 2020-Current 3 Credit (3 Recitation) Lecturer: Stand & Forest Modeling, MTU (FW4140) 2020-Current 2 Credits (1 Lecture, 2 Lab) Lecturer: Outdoor
    [Show full text]
  • 6:00 Pm AGENDA Agenda I
    Newton/North Newton Historic Preservation Commission Newton City Commission Chambers July 17, 2017 – 6:00 p.m. AGENDA HPC Members: ___ Jerry Wall, Chair (N) ___ David Haury (N) ___ John Torline (NN) ___ Ed Klock, Vice Chair (N) ___ Steve Johnson (N) ___ Tyson Weidenbener (NN) ___ John Thiesen, Secretary (N) ___ Jay Sommerfeld (N) ___ Danny Benbrook (NN) Staff: ___ Kelly Bergeron, Director of Community Planning & Development Agenda Items: 1. Approval of Minutes: April 20, 2017 2. Additions or Modifications to the Agenda 3. Open Forum 4. Design Review: A. 310 E. 4th Street: Design Review for Exterior Siding Replacement & Repair 5. New business 6. Old Business 7. Staff Report 8. Adjourn The next regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission is scheduled for August 17, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Agenda Item #1 July 17, 2017 Newton/North Newton Historic Preservation Commission MINUTES Newton City Commission Chambers April 20, 2017 HPC Members Present: Jerry Wall-Chair (14/14), Ed Klock-Vice Chair (12/14), David Haury (14/14), Steve Johnson (9/14), John Torline (11/11), John Thiesen – Secretary (12/14), Jay Sommerfeld (11/14), Danny Benbrook (02/02) HPC Members Absent: Tyson Weidenbener (9/14) Staff: Kelly Bergeron, Director of Community Planning & Development 1. Approval of Minutes: March 16, 2017 Commissioner Ed Klock moved to approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Steve Johnson seconded. Motion approved unanimously. 2. Additions or Modifications to the Agenda. None. 3. Open Forum None. 4. Design Review A. 613 N. Main Street: In February 2017 Regier Construction, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • County Profile
    FY 2020-21 PROPOSED BUDGET SECTION B:PROFILE GOVERNANCE Assessor County Counsel Auditor-Controller Human Resources Board of Supervisors Measure Z Clerk-Recorder Other Funds County Admin. Office Treasurer-Tax Collector Population County Comparison Education Infrastructure Employment DEMOGRAPHICS Geography Located on the far North Coast of California, 200 miles north of San Francisco and about 50 miles south of the southern Oregon border, Humboldt County is situated along the Pacific coast in Northern California’s rugged Coastal (Mountain) Ranges, bordered on the north SCENERY by Del Norte County, on the east by Siskiyou and Trinity counties, on the south by Mendocino County and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. The climate is ideal for growth The county encompasses 2.3 million acres, 80 percent of which is of the world’s tallest tree - the forestlands, protected redwoods and recreational areas. A densely coastal redwood. Though these forested, mountainous, rural county with about 110 miles of coastline, trees are found from southern more than any other county in the state, Humboldt contains over forty Oregon to the Big Sur area of percent of all remaining old growth Coast Redwood forests, the vast California, Humboldt County majority of which is protected or strictly conserved within dozens of contains the most impressive national, state, and local forests and parks, totaling approximately collection of Sequoia 680,000 acres (over 1,000 square miles). Humboldt’s highest point is sempervirens. The county is Salmon Mountain at 6,962 feet. Its lowest point is located in Samoa at home to Redwood National 20 feet. Humboldt Bay, California’s second largest natural bay, is the and State Parks, Humboldt only deep water port between San Francisco and Coos Bay, Oregon, Redwoods State Park (The and is located on the coast at the midpoint of the county.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District
    AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HUMBOLDT BAY HARBOR, RECREATION AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT DATE: February 11, 2021 TIME: Closed Session – 5:00 P.M. Regular Session – 6:00 P.M. PLACE: Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/3432860852 Meeting ID: 343 286 0852 One tap mobile (669) 900-9128, 343 286 0852# US 1. Call to Order Closed Session at 5:00 P.M. 2. Public Comment Note: This portion of the Agenda allows the public to speak to the Board on the closed session items. Each speaker is limited to speak for a period of three (3) minutes regarding each item on the Closed Session Agenda. The three (3) minute time limit may not be transferred to other speakers. The three (3) minute time limit for each speaker may be extended by the President of the Board of Commissioners or the Presiding Member of the Board of Commissioners. 3. Move to Closed Session a) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS. Agency designated representatives: Larry Oetker, Executive Director. Employee organization: Management Employees. b) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. Terms of potential lease and sublease of District’s lease interest by District under lease between the District and Mario’s Marina LLC dated April 1, 2016 for the real property commonly known as Mario’s Marina in Shelter Cove (APN: 108-171-023-000), Humboldt County, California pursuant to California Government Code § 54956.8. District negotiators: Larry Oetker, Executive Director and Ryan Plotz, District Counsel. Negotiating party: Mario’s Marina and Shelter Cove Fisherman’s Preservation, Inc. Under negotiation: price and payment terms.
    [Show full text]
  • FICE Code List for Colleges and Universities (X0011)
    FICE Code List For Colleges And Universities ALABAMA ALASKA 001002 ALABAMA A & M 001061 ALASKA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY 001005 ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY 066659 PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND C.C. 001008 ATHENS STATE UNIVERSITY 011462 U OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE 008310 AUBURN U-MONTGOMERY 001063 U OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS 001009 AUBURN UNIVERSITY MAIN 001065 UNIV OF ALASKA SOUTHEAST 005733 BEVILL STATE C.C. 001012 BIRMINGHAM SOUTHERN COLL ARIZONA 001030 BISHOP STATE COMM COLLEGE 001081 ARIZONA STATE UNIV MAIN 001013 CALHOUN COMMUNITY COLLEGE 066935 ARIZONA STATE UNIV WEST 001007 CENTRAL ALABAMA COMM COLL 001071 ARIZONA WESTERN COLLEGE 002602 CHATTAHOOCHEE VALLEY 001072 COCHISE COLLEGE 012182 CHATTAHOOCHEE VALLEY 031004 COCONINO COUNTY COMM COLL 012308 COMM COLLEGE OF THE A.F. 008322 DEVRY UNIVERSITY 001015 ENTERPRISE STATE JR COLL 008246 DINE COLLEGE 001003 FAULKNER UNIVERSITY 008303 GATEWAY COMMUNITY COLLEGE 005699 G.WALLACE ST CC-SELMA 001076 GLENDALE COMMUNITY COLL 001017 GADSDEN STATE COMM COLL 001074 GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY 001019 HUNTINGDON COLLEGE 001077 MESA COMMUNITY COLLEGE 001020 JACKSONVILLE STATE UNIV 011864 MOHAVE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 001021 JEFFERSON DAVIS COMM COLL 001082 NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIV 001022 JEFFERSON STATE COMM COLL 011862 NORTHLAND PIONEER COLLEGE 001023 JUDSON COLLEGE 026236 PARADISE VALLEY COMM COLL 001059 LAWSON STATE COMM COLLEGE 001078 PHOENIX COLLEGE 001026 MARION MILITARY INSTITUTE 007266 PIMA COUNTY COMMUNITY COL 001028 MILES COLLEGE 020653 PRESCOTT COLLEGE 001031 NORTHEAST ALABAMA COMM CO 021775 RIO SALADO COMMUNITY COLL 005697 NORTHWEST
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork Eel River & Tributaries PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC
    Management Agency: South Fork Eel River & Tributaries Bureau of Land Management ~ BLM Arcata Field Office PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC RIVERS University of California ~ Angelo Coast Range Reserve These proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers support threatened Location: Mendocino County and endangered populations of salmon and steelhead and CA 2nd Congressional District rare plants. They also provide outstanding research Watershed: opportunities of nearly pristine undeveloped watersheds. South Fork Eel River Wild & Scenic River Miles: South Fork Eel River – 12.3 miles South Fork Eel River—12.3 The South Fork Eel River supports the largest concentration Elder Creek—7 of naturally reproducing anadromous fish in the region. East Branch South Fork Eel River—23.1 Cedar Creek—9.6 Federal officials recently identified the river as essential for the recovery of threatened salmon and steelhead. The Outstanding Values: upper portion of this segment is located on the Angelo Anadromous fisheries, ecological, Biosphere Reserve, hydrological, wildlife, recreation Preserve managed for wild lands research by the University of California. Angelo Reserve access roads are open to For More Information: public hiking. The lower portion flows through the existing Steve Evans—CalWild [email protected] South Fork Wilderness managed by the BLM. The river (916) 708-3155 offers class IV-V whitewater boating opportunities. The river would be administered through a cooperative management agreement between the BLM and the State of California. Elder Creek – 7 miles This nearly pristine stream is a National Natural Landmark, Hydrologic Benchmark, and a UN-recognized Biosphere Reserve. A tributary of the South Fork Eel River, the creek is an important contributor to the South Fork’s anadromous Front Photo: South Fork Eel River fishery.
    [Show full text]
  • 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___________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]