DOCSLIB.ORG

Eric Stockwell, ERRP Fall Chinook Project Coordinator

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eric Stockwell, ERRP Fall Chinook Project Coordinator Eel River Recovery Project Final Report: Citizen Assisted 2015-2016 Fall Chinook Salmon Monitoring Prepared for: Eel River Recovery Project By: Patrick Higgins, ERRP Managing Director & Eric Stockwell, ERRP Fall Chinook Project Coordinator With Funding From: Patagonia World Trout Initiative & Salmon Restoration Association Eel River Recovery Project: Final Report 2015-2016 Fall Chinook Salmon Monitoring July 2016 i Acknowledgements The Eel River Recovery Project (ERRP) faced challenging conditions in estimating the 2015- 2016 Eel River fall Chinook salmon run due to extremely low flows in early fall and then very high flows starting in December. ERRP wishes to thank the Wiyot Tribe and Humboldt Redwood Company for once again co-sponsoring the project. The project was made possible by grant funding provided by the Patagonia World Trout Initiative and the Salmon Restoration Association, which sponsors the World’s Largest Salmon BBQ in Fort Bragg. ERRP was assisted by dozens of volunteers who participated in lower Eel River dive surveys and in tracking fall Chinook migrations and spawning throughout the watershed. Only three dives were carried out from late October to mid-November in the lower river and only in the 12th Street Pool because of shallow depths, profuse algae and the risk of divers contracting swimmer’s itch. When November rains remained sparse, ERRP deployed kayaks for lower main Eel River spawning surveys. Results from the Van Arsdale Fish Station and aerial and ground surveys of spawning were shared by fisheries biologist Scott Harris of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Thanks go out to Park Steiner and PG&E (SEC 2016) for sharing spawning data from the upper Eel River and Tomki Creek, although the latter had no fish sightings this year. The big story on this year’s run was that Chinook salmon became diseased while holding in lower Eel River pools which lead to blindness. ERRP wishes to thank the local press and electronic media for covering this problem including KMUD radio, KAEF TV, KIEM TV, Redwood Times, the Independent, and the Eureka Times Standard. Reporters Will Houston of the Times Standard and Keith Easthouse of the Independent deserve special mention for their in- depth coverage of the salmon project. ERRP worked cooperatively with CDFW to capture diseased fish for analysis, and we wish to thank Alan Renger of the Fortuna Office for his initiative. Professor Esteban Soto of the University of California, Davis rendered important assistance in analyzing the cause of disease and ERRP is also very appreciative of UCD efforts. Eel River Recovery Project: Final Report 2015-2016 Fall Chinook Salmon Monitoring July 2016 ii ERRP Thanks 2015-2016 Volunteers & the Community for Support David Sopjes Dave Wagner Sal Steinberg Ernie Merrifield Paul Trichilo Bruce Hilbach-Barger Diane Higgins Dane Downing Paul Domanchuk Dennis Halligan Walker Wise Cathy Warren Greg Byers Larry Bruckenstein Graham and Dotti Russell Doug Parkinson Karen & Scott Walsh Jeff Wells Sharon & Dean Edell Dorje Bond Seth Rick Brandi Easter Sunshine Johnston Jason Webster John Evans/Big Bend Lodge Sam Parker Jeff Hedin Brandon Torske Jim Williams Nolan Cahill Stephen Kullman Bernabe Alvirez Tim Nelson Eric Johnston Domenic Belli Mickey Bailey Jason Webster Talia Rose Willie Grover David Bradfield Sage Halvorson Bernabe Alvidrez Sean Croft Nolan Cahill Tyler Grunert Kevin Silver Jesse Barrer Ashley Woodford Barbara Sopjes Kenny Priest Amy Conway Stephanie Sawyer Richard Geinger Eel River Recovery Project: Final Report 2015-2016 Fall Chinook Salmon Monitoring July 2016 iii Table of Contents Cover……………………………………………………………………………………. i Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………... ii Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………...... iii Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………..1 Background ………………………………………………………………………………..2 Time, Location and Conditions of Surveys………………………………………………2-4 Methods ………………………………………………………………………………….2-5 Lower Eel River Pool Data ……………………………………………………..…2 Dive Surveys……………………………………………………………………….5 Kayak Surveys......…………………....…………………………………................5 Tributary Surveys…………………....…………………………………..................5 Volunteer Observations…………………………………………………………….5 Van Arsdale Fish Station ……………………………………………………..……5 Results …………………………………………………………………………………5-12 Pool Depths, Temperature, and Dissolved Oxygen ……………………………...5-7 Kayak Surveys of Lower Eel River Pools …………………………………………7 Spawner Surveys from Kayaks………………………………………………….8-10 Tributary Surveys…………………………………………………………………...9 Van Arsdale Fish Station Chinook Salmon Counts……………………………..9-11 Volunteer Observations ..………………………………………………………11-12 Discussion .…………………………………………………………………..................13-20 Precision of ERRP Run Estimate …………………………………………………13 Lower Eel River Bed Scour and Chinook Egg and Alevin Survival………………13 Tributary Habitat Impairment……………………………………………………...14 Chinook Salmon Disease Outbreak …………………………………………….14-16 Lower Eel and Van Duzen River Habitat Conditions ………………………...16-17 Lower Eel and Van Duzen River Restoration Opportunities……………………16-18 Poaching and Driving Through Redds ………………………………………… 17-19 Chinook Salmon Run Trends 2012-2015.……………………………………… 19-20 Prospects for Rebound in 2016-2017…………………………………………….....19 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………….20 Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………..21 References ………………………………………………………………………………22-23 Eel River Recovery Project: Final Report 2015-2016 Fall Chinook Salmon Monitoring July 2016 iv Executive Summary ERRP has successfully estimated the Eel River fall Chinook run since 2012, and each year is unique and has different challenges. The 2015-2016 citizen assisted monitoring project was the most difficult, however, because early rains failed and dives were not able to be scheduled, and then rainfall was so high after December 1 that observation of migrating and spawning Chinook salmon were limited for protracted periods. Despite the El Nino conditions in the ocean that are usually linked to increased precipitation, rains from September through November were extremely sparse. Lower Eel River flows as measured by the U.S. Geologic Survey at Scotia did not exceed 100 cfs until November 11, which limited fish passage and prevented normal fall flushing of algae beds. Algae impairs visibility and harbors swimmers itch organisms. Consequently, dive surveys were restricted to the 12th Street Pool that is deeper and mixed by winds and other pools were surveyed by kayak. Early run Eel River fall Chinook were restricted to the estuary during late August and early September as flows at Scotia were only just over 30 cfs. ERRP documented movement of fish upstream as far as the 12th Street Pool by September 21 after light rains, but the major influx into lower river pools was with extremely high tides from October 22-24. Hundreds of Chinook salmon sat in shallow, algae infested pools and about 10% of early run fish went blind as a result of a fluke attacking their eyes. Dives on October 31, November 7 and November 14 estimated that 920, 1000, and 1200 Chinook salmon were holding, respectively, with approximately 25% of the fish comprised of smaller jack salmon. ERRP estimated 5,000 Chinook salmon were holding in the lower Eel River from the 12th Street Pool downstream on November 14. Extensive Chinook salmon spawning in the main Eel River downstream of Dyerville was documented by ERRP from November 11 through December 1. Before December 1, Chinook salmon access to headwaters was limited with spawning on the main Eel below Dos Rios, the South Fork below Leggett, and the Van Duzen River downstream of Goat Rock Falls. After December 1, flows were adequate for access and spawners were seen in low numbers throughout the basin, including upper Outlet Creek, Ten Mile Creek, the Middle Fork and Black Butte River, and the upper South Fork near Branscomb. Lower South Fork Eel River tributaries showed a late fall Chinook run peak in mid-December. Chinook arrived at the Van Arsdale Fish Station on December 6, and only 102 fish passed upstream to spawn during the entire season. Spawners were noted in Ten Mile Creek and upper Outlet Creek, but none were seen in Tomki Creek (SEC 2016). ERRP once again found that sediment impairment limited spawning use of a number of other Eel River tributaries. ERRP used historic run timing and professional judgment regarding fish response to flows to arrive at an estimate for the 2015-2016 late run of 5,000-10,000 fish. The total 2015-2016 Eel River fall Chinook run total estimate is 10,000-15,000. The population is showing a declining trend since 2012, but remains above 10,000 fish and at no risk of loss of genetic diversity. High jack counts indicate another strong year class and improved ocean conditions and restricted ocean fisheries may also favor population rebuilding in 2016-2017. However, ERRP has concern about survival of adult Chinook salmon in the lower Eel River due to poor holding habitat, and strongly encourages expeditious restoration to improve conditions. Eel River Recovery Project: Final Report 2015-2016 Fall Chinook Salmon Monitoring July 2016 1 Background ERRP community scoping meetings in September 2011 highlighted concerns about the potential loss of native Eel River fall Chinook salmon. People expressed frustration over the lack of data available from agencies and wanted more information on fish population trends. Since agency budgets are limited and they lack capacity to collect more data on Chinook salmon population trends, ERRP began volunteer
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FINAL Little Lake Valley Groundwater Management Plan
    LITTLE LAKE VALLEY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Final Draft PREPARED FOR CITY OF WILLITS August 18, 2020 City of Willits Contact: Andrea Trincado, Project Manager City of Willits Engineering Department Prepared by: LACO Associates 776 S. State St., Suite 103 Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 462-0222 LACO Project No. 8509.07 Little Lake Valley Groundwater Management Plan FINAL DRAFT Prepared for City of Willits TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 5 1.1 Purpose of the Plan ......................................... 5 1.2 Background and Legal Authority for Local Groundwater Management ................................. 5 1.3 Plan Components .............................................. 7 1.4 Plan Development Process ................................. 7 1.5 Previous Studies .............................................. 9 2.0 Public Outreach and Involvement ............................ 10 2.1 Public Workshops ........................................... 11 2.2 Issues of Concern to the Public ........................ 12 3.0 Study Area 12 3.1 Location and Description ................................. 12 3.2 Physical Geography and Geology ..................... 13 3.2.1 Geologic Formations ............................. 15 3.3 Climate 15 3.4 Land Use and Population ................................. 18 3.5 Water Use 21 3.5.1 Municipal Water Use ............................ 21 3.5.2 Rural Water Use .................................. 23 3.5.3 Tribal Water Use ................................. 23 3.5.4 Environmental Water Use ....................... 23 4.0 Hydrogeology 23 4.1 Principal Aquifers ......................................... 23 4.1.1 Aquifer I – Holocene Alluvium ................ 24 August 18, 2020 Page 1 of 49 Little Lake Valley Groundwater Management Plan FINAL DRAFT Prepared for City of Willits 4.1.2 Aquifer II – Pliocene to Pleistocene Continental Basin Deposits ..................... 25 4.1.3 Jurassic-Cretaceous Franciscan Complex .. 26 4.2 Recharge Sources ........................................... 27 4.3 Historic Variations in Groundwater Levels ........
    [Show full text]
  • Final Upper Main Eel River and Tributaries (Including
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX FINAL Upper Main Eel River and Tributaries (including Tomki Creek, Outlet Creek and Lake Pillsbury) Total Maximum Daily Loads for Temperature and Sediment Approved by date Original signed December 29, 2004 Alexis Strauss Director, Water Division Note: For further information please contact Palma Risler at 415/972-3451 and [email protected] or Dan Pingaro at 415/977-4275 and [email protected] Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Overview - 1 1.2. Watershed Characteristics - 2 1.3. Endangered Species Act Consultation - 4 1.4. Organization - 4 CHAPTER 2: PROBLEM STATEMENT 2.1. Fish Population Problems - 5 2.2. Temperature Problems - 7 2.3. Sediment Problems - 14 2.4. Water Quality Standards - 17 CHAPTER 3: TEMPERATURE TMDL 3.1. Interpreting the Existing Water Quality Standards for Temperature - 18 3.2. Temperature Modeling - 20 3.2.1 Temperature and Solar Radiation Modeling - 21 3.2.2 Selection of Scenario Corresponding to Water Quality Standards - 24 3.3.1 Loading Capacity and TMDL – Solar Radiation for all stream reaches - 26 3.3.2 Shade Allocations - 26 3.3.3 Margin of Safety - 27 3.3.4 Seasonal Variation and Critical Conditions - 27 3.4 Instream Heat TMDL – Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek - 28 3.4.1 Selection of Scenario Corresponding to Water Quality Standards - 34 3.4.2 Water Quality Indicators – Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek - 34 3.4.3 Instream Heat Loading Capacity and TMDL - Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek- 34 3.4.4 Instream Heat Allocations – Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek - 35 3.4.5 Margin of Safety - 35 3.4.6 Seasonal Variation and Critical Conditions - 35 CHAPTER 4: SEDIMENT TMDL 4.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Butte Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive River Management Plan Environmental Assessment
    Black Butte Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive River Management Plan Environmental Assessment Recreation & Visual Resource Report Prepared by: Shannon Pozas For: Covelo Ranger District Mendocino National Forest Service 1 August 2017 Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Purpose and Need................................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Overview of Issues & Issue Indicators ................................................................................... 4 1.4 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Mendocino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan – LRMP .............................. 5 1.6 Forest Niche ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Black Butte River and Cold Creek Segments .......................................................................... 6 2.2 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ...................................................................... 6 2.3 Visual Quality Objectives ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eel River Cooperative Cyanotoxin Analysis Summary 2013-2017
    Eel River Cooperative Cyanotoxin Analysis Summary 2013-2017 By: Eli Asarian and Patrick Higgins Edited by: Diane Higgins Performed for: The Eel River Recovery Project August 2018 Business Sponsors of ERRP Cyanotoxin Analysis Thanks to Individual Crowdfunding Donors and Those Who Contributed Off-line to Support ERRP Cyanotoxin Work: Barbara & David Sopjes Dr. Andrew Stubblefield Mary Power Ree Slocum Bill Dietrich Ben Middlemiss Dean & Sharon Edell Judy Schriebman Jack Crider Daron Pedroja Tim Talbert Gil Anda Ken Miller Will Parrish Dani Walthall Chris McBride Zane and Amanda Ruddy Christina Tran Brett Lovelace Sarah Ottley Ken Vance-Borland Karen & Scott Welsh Thomas Daugherty Pureum Kim Keith Bouma-Gregson Alex Christie Lee McClellan Matthew Amberg Charlie Liphart Eric Damon Walters April Mason Amy Collette Jason Hartwick Marissa Adams Kristin McDonald John Filce Carl Zichella Robert Leher Thanks also to experiment.com, our crowdfunding host that raises funds for scientific research throughout the World: https://experiment.com/projects/when-does-the-eel-river-turn-toxic- patterns-in-cyanotoxin-occurrence-2013-2016. This study was postponed a year so we could collect 2017 cyanotoxin data. Thanks for your patience. Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Background
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural and Historic Resources Assessment and Management Plan Analysis Report (R2018050800003)
    1 Cultural and Historic Resources Assessment and Management Plan Analysis Report (R2018050800003) Black Butte River and Cold Creek Segments Black Butte River Wild and Scenic River Mendocino National Forest November 2017 Purpose The comprehensive Management Plan for the Black Butte and Cold Creek Wild and Scenic River (WSR) establishes programmatic management direction for the WSR corridor. It has been developed to implement the direction of the Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968 as amended in the 2006 Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act (Public Law 109-362) to include 19.5 miles of the Black Butte River and 1.5 miles of Cold Creek. The WSR Act established a system for preserving outstanding free-flowing rivers. A defined section in Section 1(b) of the WSR Act: “certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreations, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations” (PL 90-542, 1968). The WSR Act requires the Forest Service to develop a comprehensive WSR Management Plan for the Black Butte and Cold Creek to protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable fish and cultural/historic values. The WSR Management Plan will guide all development, management, and restoration activities within the WSR corridor. It includes standards and guidelines from the Proposed Action Alternative, an Implementation Plan with a list of possible projects, and a Monitoring Plan. The standards and guidelines are a statement of the WSR Management Plan’s management direction; however, the potential projects from the implementation plan are estimates and depend on site-specific NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) analysis and the agency’s budgeting process.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Butte River Proposed Wilderness Area
    Proposed Wilderness Pattison Northern California Mountains and Rivers Black Butte River Proposed Wilderness Area Description Quick Facts The Wild and Scenic Black Butte River flows northwest for almost 30 Management Agency: miles from the crest of the northern Coast Range to the Wild and U.S. Forest Service, Scenic Middle Fork Eel River downstream. Mendocino National Forest The proposed wilderness is situated in the river’s V-shaped, rugged Location: canyon, where it hosts resident trout, Chinook salmon, and winter-run Mendocino County, CA; nd steelhead. Downstream, the Middle Fork Eel supports what is 2 Congressional District presently considered to be the southernmost population of summer- run steelhead on the West Coast and the largest single run of summer Watershed: Black Butte River, a steelhead in the state. Rich oak forests, meadows, and abundant tributary of the Middle Fork Eel ancient pine, fir and cedar forest grace the slopes above the river. The River Forest Service notes that the region contains so many pristine Size: 24,621 acres archeological sites that it is of “exceptional” cultural importance. The Black Butte has been rated as a class IV+ stream (very difficult) by Recreational Uses: Fishing, American Whitewater for those brave enough to kayak it. kayaking, hiking, horseback riding, important historical sites The Bauer brothers had this to say in American Whitewater Journal after running the stream in the 1970s: “The Black Butte is an all-time Ecological Values: classic! We all agreed that we had never experienced a better Ancient conifer and hardwood combination of fantastic rapids, beautiful scenery, abundant wildlife, forests, critically-important salmon and isolation from humanity.
    [Show full text]
  • Salmonid Habitat and Population Capacity Estimates for Steelhead Trout and Chinook Salmon Upstream of Scott Dam in the Eel River, California
    Emily J. Cooper1, Alison P. O’Dowd, and James J. Graham, Humboldt State University, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, California 95521 Darren W. Mierau, California Trout, 615 11th Street, Arcata, California 95521 William J. Trush, Humboldt State University, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, California 95521 and Ross Taylor, Ross Taylor and Associates, 1660 Central Avenue # B, McKinleyville, California 95519 Salmonid Habitat and Population Capacity Estimates for Steelhead Trout and Chinook Salmon Upstream of Scott Dam in the Eel River, California Abstract Estimating salmonid habitat capacity upstream of a barrier can inform priorities for fisheries conservation. Scott Dam in California’s Eel River is an impassable barrier for anadromous salmonids. With Federal dam relicensing underway, we demonstrated recolonization potential for upper Eel River salmonid populations by estimating the potential distribution (stream-km) and habitat capacity (numbers of parr and adults) for winter steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and fall Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) upstream of Scott Dam. Removal of Scott Dam would support salmonid recovery by increasing salmonid habitat stream-kms from 2 to 465 stream-km for steelhead trout and 920 to 1,071 stream-km for Chinook salmon in the upper mainstem Eel River population boundaries, whose downstream extents begin near Scott Dam and the confluence of South Fork Eel River, respectively. Upstream of Scott Dam, estimated steelhead trout habitat included up to 463 stream-kms for spawning and 291 stream-kms for summer rearing; estimated Chinook salmon habitat included up to 151 stream-kms for both spawning and rearing. The number of returning adult estimates based on historical count data (1938 to 1975) from the South Fork Eel River produced wide ranges for steelhead trout (3,241 to 26,391) and Chinook salmon (1,057 to 10,117).
    [Show full text]
  • MICROCOMP Output File
    109TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. 128 AN ACT To designate certain public land in Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, Lake, and Napa Counties in the State of California as wilderness, to designate certain segments of the Black Butte River in Mendocino County, Cali- fornia as a wild or scenic river, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Northern California 5 Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act’’. 2 1 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. 2 In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means— 3 (1) with respect to land under the jurisdiction 4 of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Ag- 5 riculture; and 6 (2) with respect to land under the jurisdiction 7 of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the 8 Interior. 9 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS. 10 In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 11 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State of California 12 are designated as wilderness areas and as components of 13 the National Wilderness Preservation System: 14 (1) SNOW MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS ADDITION.— 15 (A) IN GENERAL.—Certain land in the 16 Mendocino National Forest, comprising ap- 17 proximately 23,312 acres, as generally depicted 18 on the maps described in subparagraph (B), is 19 incorporated in and shall considered to be a 20 part of the ‘‘Snow Mountain Wilderness’’, as 21 designated by section 101(a)(31) of the Cali- 22 fornia Wilderness Act of 1984 (16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System
    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2012 Forest Service WO Lands FS-383 November 2012 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System January 2013 As of September 30, 2012 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003 Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/ Cover Photo: Mt. Edgecumbe, Kruzof Island, Alaska Courtesy of: Jeffery Wickett Table of Contents Table 1 – National and Regional Areas Summary ...............................................................1 Table 2 – Regional Areas Summary ....................................................................................2 Table 3 – Areas by Region...................................................................................................4 Table 4 – Areas by State ....................................................................................................17 Table 5 – Areas in Multiple States .....................................................................................51 Table 6 – NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County ..............................56 Table 7 – National Wilderness Areas by State ................................................................109 Table 8 – National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States .................................................127 Table 9 – National Wilderness State Acreage Summary .................................................130
    [Show full text]
  • Redwood Highway/Save the Redwoods Movement Susie Van Kirk
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Susie Van Kirk Papers Special Collections 12-2015 Redwood Highway/Save the Redwoods Movement Susie Van Kirk Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/svk Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Van Kirk, Susie, "Redwood Highway/Save the Redwoods Movement" (2015). Susie Van Kirk Papers. 25. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/svk/25 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Special Collections at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Susie Van Kirk Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REDWOOD HIGHWAY/SAVE THE REDWOODS MOVEMENT Research for State Parks project August 2013-April 2014 Engbeck, Joseph H., Jr., State Parks of California. 1980. Graphic Arts Center Publishing Co., Portland. Chapter 4. Save the Redwoods! Naturalists had explored the forests of the north coast region and some, including John Mur, were especially impressed by the extraordinary stand of redwoods alongside the South Fork of the Eel River at bull Creek and the nearby Dyerville Flat. These experts agreed that the coast redwood forest was at its magnificent best far to the north of San Francisco. Some authorities went so far as to say that the Bull Creek and Dyerville Flat area supported the most impressive and spectacular forest in the whole world…. In 1916 and 1917 several developments took place that would eventually have a profound impact on the north coast redwood region in general and the Bull Creek-Dyerville Flat area in particular.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Middle Fork Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads For
    MIDDLE FORK EEL SEDIMENT TMDL LANDSLIDE ASSESSMENT DRAFT By: Juan de la Fuente, William Snavely, Alisha Miller September 25, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE-----------------------------------------------------------------3 BACKGROUND----------------------------------------------------------3 METHODS-----------------------------------------------------------------5 FINDINGS-----------------------------------------------------------------10 LIMITATIONS/UNCERTAINTIES ----------------------------------12 PROJECT PARTICIPANTS------------------------------------------14 REFERENCES-----------------------------------------------------------15 FIGURES------------------------------------------------------------------ Map 1:Bedrock Units and Active Landslides--------18 Map 2: Subwatersheds and Land Ownership-------19 APPENDICES-------------------------------------------------------------20 Appendix 1: Tables--------------------------------------------20 Appendix 2: Previous Studies-----------------------------32 Appendix 3: List of Air Photos----------------------------35 Appendix 4- Bedrock Descriptions----------------------36 Appendix 5- Conversion of Cubic Yards to Tons---37 2 PURPOSE- The purpose of this investigation was to determine the amount of sediment delivered to the Middle Fork of the Eel River by landslides since 1940. Additionally, it was to assess the influence of land management activities on landslide rates. The work is part of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program, for compliance with section (d), part 303 of the Clean Water
    [Show full text]
  • Map from Mendocino County ZEV Regional Readiness Plan-Accepted
    ^_ Figure #2 ^_RECOMMENDED^_ CHARGING STATION SITES Mattole River HUMBOLDT ^_ TRINITY PIERCY 271 ¤£ Eel River ^_ ¤£101^_ ^_LEGGETT TEHAMA Middle Fork Eel River COVELO Black Butte River £¤1 GLENN ¤£101 £¤162 LAYTONVILLE^_ South Fork Eel River ^_^_WESTPORT Eel River P A C I F I C O C E A N ^_ ^_CLEONE BROOKTRAILS ^_^_ Noyo River ^_FORT BRAGG ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_WILLITS £¤1 CASPAR £¤20 ^_ POTTER MENDOCINO ^_ VALLEY ^_ £¤101 LITTLE RIVER COMPTCHE REDWOOD Russian River VALLEY South Fork Big River ALBION ^_ CALPELLA 20 Little North Fork Navarro River ^_ ¤£ LAKE MENDOCINO LAKE ^_NAVARRO ^_ ^_ ^_ELK UKIAH^_^_TALMAGE ¤£222 ¤£128 Russian River ¯ PHILO MENDOCINO COUNTY CHARGING ¤£253 STATION SITE LOCATION MAP BOONVILLE^_ CHARGING STATION SITES ^_MANCHESTER ^_ HOPLAND^_ ¤£175 LOCAL PUBLIC ROADS Garcia River POINT ARENA ¤£101 STATE HIGHWAYS ^_ ^_YORKVILLE RIVERS ¤£128 CITY BOUNDARIES ¤£1 MENDOCINO COUNTY BOUNDARY ANCHOR BAY 0 2 4 8 Miles GUALALA^_^_ SONOMA ^_ Map Developed By: A.Pedrotti 367 N. State Street, Suite # 206 Ukiah, CA 95482 707-463-1859 Table 3 Recommended Charging Station Sites and Distance to Closest Station Sites Route Distance Nearest Charging Station Recommended Station to US 101 Veterans Memorial Building 14 mi Commerce Drive Cul-de-Sac 110 Feliz Creek Road, Hopland Commerce Drive Cul-de-Sac 4 mi Twelfth District Fairgrounds Ukiah Twelfth District Fairgrounds 22 mi Willits Skunk Train Depot & Chamber of Ukiah Commerce 8 mi Lake Mendocino Parking Lot Willits Skunk Train Depot & Chamber of Commerce 23 mi Laytonville Fire House 299 E Commercial
    [Show full text]