DOCSLIB.ORG

Investigating Geochemistry and Habitability at Continental Sites of Serpentinization

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Investigating Geochemistry and Habitability at Continental Sites of Serpentinization Investigating Geochemistry and Habitability at Continental Sites of Serpentinization: The Cedars, California, USA and the Tablelands, Newfoundland, CAN by © Amanda Rietze, B.Sc. (Hons) A Thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Earth Sciences Memorial University of Newfoundland May 2015 St. John’s Newfoundland ABSTRACT This study investigates the geochemistry and habitability of spring fluids associated with active continental serpentinization at The Cedars, California, USA and the Tablelands, Newfoundland, CAN. These ophiolite complexes were host to several springs discharging ultra-basic (>11) and highly reducing (<-400 mV) fluids rich in H2 gas that were geochemically distinct from the surrounding groundwater. C2+ hydrocarbons at both ophiolite complexes suggest hydrocarbons were thermogenic in origin; however, an abiogenic contribution could not be ruled out. Methane at The Cedars was dominated by a microbial origin with a contribution of non- microbial sources, while methane at the Tablelands was dominated by a non-microbial source (i.e. thermogenic or abiogenic or mixture of the two). Spring fluids lacked electron acceptors and nutrients which adds further complications to the already unusually high pH and limited carbon fixation possibilities in this extreme environment. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all of those who have offered intellectual, emotional, and physical help over the past few years. Above all else I would like to thank my supervisor Penny Morrill for being a tremendous mentor for me and for introducing me to the topic of serpentinization and the amazing sites where I had the pleasure to work on a number of occasions. I have expanded my skills as a research scientist and have become a more critical thinker because of you. Your compassion and support throughout this thesis will never be forgotten. I would also like to thank my committee member James Macquaker for encouraging my research and always reminding me of the big picture and overall aim of my project. I always had a new and clearer perspective on my research after our meetings that have helped me to develop and focus on my research goals. This research was funded by a National Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery grant awarded to Penny Morrill and a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant awarded to Ken Nealson. I also gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Memorial University. Additionally I would like the thank lab technicians Geert van Biesen, Jamie Warren, Helen Gillespie and Alison Pye for all their analytical instructions and teachings throughout this thesis work. Collaborators Shino Suzuki and Billy Brazelton, thank you for your intellectual input and willingness to share data and ideas. I also want to thank the biogeochemistry lab group for listening to endless practise talks and providing support through numerous discussions. In particular I would like to thank Natalie for her guidance and friendship, Emily for her instrumental role in the iii creation of the maps used in this thesis, and Heidi, Lukas and Mark for their assistance in the field. A special thanks to my family (Mom, Dad, Mark and Courtney) for all their support and love over the past few years. This thesis would not have materialized without your encouragement and support in all shapes and forms especially during the rough periods. Bazey, it was the best of times it was the blusrt of times, but no matter what times they were you saw me through it all. Without your love and friendship I dare say I am not sure where I would be today. You have made my time in Newfoundland an adventure that I will not soon forget. iv Table of Contents ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures.................................................................................................................... xi List of Symbols, Nomenclature or Abbreviations .......................................................... xvii List of Appendices......................................................................................................... xviii Chapter 1: Introduction..................................................................................................... 19 1.1 Study Significance .................................................................................................. 19 1.2 Serpentinization Reaction ....................................................................................... 20 1.3 Sites of Serpentinization ......................................................................................... 22 1.4 Serpentinization Occurring in Phanerozoic Ophiolite Complexes Found at The Cedars, CA, USA and the Tablelands, NL, CAN......................................................... 26 1.4.1 The Cedars, CA, USA...................................................................................... 26 1.4.2 Tablelands, NL, CAN ...................................................................................... 27 1.5 Hydrocarbon Sources.............................................................................................. 29 1.6 Hydrocarbon Production at Continental Ophiolite Hosted Springs Associated with Serpentinization ............................................................................................................ 30 1.7 Distinguishing Between Hydrocarbon Sources ...................................................... 36 1.8 Objectives and Outline of Study............................................................................. 40 1.9 Contributions to the Field of Natural Science......................................................... 41 1.10 Tables and Figures ................................................................................................ 43 Chapter 2: Sampling and Analytical Methods.................................................................. 47 2.1 Sampling Locations and Dates................................................................................ 47 2.1.1 The Cedars ....................................................................................................... 47 2.1.2 The Tablelands................................................................................................. 49 2.2 Aqueous Geochemistry........................................................................................... 51 2.3 H2, CO2, and C1-C6 Gas Sampling and Analysis.................................................... 57 2.3.1 Sampling of Gases ........................................................................................... 57 2.3.2 Analysis of Gases............................................................................................. 59 2.4 Volatile and Semi Volatile Organic Compound Sampling and Analysis............... 61 2.4.1 Sampling of Volatile and Semi Volatile Organic Compounds........................ 62 2.4.2 Analysis of Volatile and Semi Volatile Organic Compounds ......................... 62 2.5 Sedimentary Organic Matter Sampling and Analysis............................................. 65 2.5.1 Sampling for Sedimentary Organic Matter...................................................... 66 2.5.2 Analysis of Sedimentary Organic Matter ........................................................ 66 2.6 Mixing Models........................................................................................................ 67 2.7 Tables and Figures .................................................................................................. 69 v Chapter 3: Results............................................................................................................. 80 3.1 The Cedars .............................................................................................................. 80 3.1.1 Aqueous Geochemistry of Ultra-Basic Springs............................................... 80 3.1.2 Gaseous Composition of Spring Waters and Austin Creek Water .................. 90 3.1.3 Isotopic Composition of Gaseous Hydrocarbons ............................................ 94 3.1.4 Volatile and Semi Volatile Organic Compound Composition ........................ 96 3.1.5 Sedimentary Organic Matter Composition ...................................................... 99 3.2 The Tablelands...................................................................................................... 100 3.2.1 Aqueous Geochemistry of ultra-basic springs ............................................... 100 3.2.2 Gaseous Composition of Spring Waters and Winter House Brook Waters... 112 3.2.3 Isotopic Composition of Gaseous Hydrocarbons .......................................... 114 3.2.4 Volatile and Semi Volatile Organic Compound Composition ...................... 115 3.2.5 Sedimentary Organic Matter Composition .................................................... 118 3.3 Tables and Figures ................................................................................................ 120 Chapter 4: Discussion ....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dear Friends, Sonoma County Is Celebrating the Winter and Spring Rains Which Have Left Our Rivers and Creeks with Plenty of Clea
    This picture of Mark West creek was taken in April by our intern, Nick Bel. Dear Friends, Sonoma County is celebrating the winter and spring rains which have left our rivers and creeks with plenty of clear clean water going into summer. Many of CCWI’s water monitors have noted that local rivers and creeks have more water and are more beautiful than they have been in the past several years. This is a very promising start to the summer season, but we should not let our guard down just yet. Several years of drought have left us with a shortage of water in many reservoirs so we must still be conscious of how we use and protect this precious resource. CCWI has a new program Director! Art Hasson joined the Community Clean Water Institute in 2008 as an intern and volunteer water monitor. Art has a business degree from the State University of New York, which he has put to good use as our new program director. He has updated our water quality database engaged in field work, performed flow studies and bacterial analysis for the past two years. Art is focused on protecting our public health through the preservation of our waterways. CCWI would like to thank outgoing program director Terrance Fleming for his hard work and valuable contributions to protect water resources. We wish him the very best in his future endeavors. CCWI would like to thank our donors for their support in building our online database interactive database. It contains nine years of data that CCWI volunteer water monitors have collected on local creeks and streams in and around Sonoma County.
    [Show full text]
  • MAJOR STREAMS in SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000
    MAJOR STREAMS IN SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000 Bill Cox District Fishery Biologist Sonoma / Marin Gualala River 234 North Fork Gualala River 34 Big Pepperwood Creek 34 Rockpile Creek 34 Buckeye Creek 34 Francini Creek 23 Soda Springs Creek 34 Little Creek North Fork Buckeye Creek Osser Creek 3 Roy Creek 3 Flatridge Creek 3 South Fork Gualala River 32 Marshall Creek 234 Sproul Creek 34 Wild Cattle Canyon Creek 34 McKenzie Creek 34 Wheatfield Fork Gualala River 3 Fuller Creek 234 Boyd Creek 3 Sullivan Creek 3 North Fork Fuller Creek 23 South Fork Fuller Creek 23 Haupt Creek 234 Tobacco Creek 3 Elk Creek House Creek 34 Soda Spring Creek Allen Creek Pepperwood Creek 34 Danfield Creek 34 Cow Creek Jim Creek 34 Grasshopper Creek Britain Creek 3 Cedar Creek 3 Wolf Creek 3 Tombs Creek 3 Sugar Loaf Creek 3 Deadman Gulch Cannon Gulch Chinese Gulch Phillips Gulch Miller Creek 3 Warren Creek Wildcat Creek Stockhoff Creek 3 Timber Cove Creek Kohlmer Gulch 3 Fort Ross Creek 234 Russian Gulch 234 East Branch Russian Gulch 234 Middle Branch Russian Gulch 234 West Branch Russian Gulch 34 Russian River 31 Jenner Creek 3 Willow Creek 134 Sheephouse Creek 13 Orrs Creek Freezeout Creek 23 Austin Creek 235 Kohute Gulch 23 Kidd Creek 23 East Austin Creek 235 Black Rock Creek 3 Gilliam Creek 23 Schoolhouse Creek 3 Thompson Creek 3 Gray Creek 3 Lawhead Creek Devils Creek 3 Conshea Creek 3 Tiny Creek Sulphur Creek 3 Ward Creek 13 Big Oat Creek 3 Blue Jay 3 Pole Mountain Creek 3 Bear Pen Creek 3 Red Slide Creek 23 Dutch Bill Creek 234 Lancel Creek 3 N.F.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT of FISH and GAME STREAM INVENTORY REPORT Big Austin Creek Report Revised April 14, 2006 Report Complete
    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME STREAM INVENTORY REPORT Big Austin Creek Report Revised April 14, 2006 Report Completed 2000 Assessment Completed 1995 INTRODUCTION Stream inventories were conducted during the summers of 1995 and 1996 on Big Austin Creek. The inventories were conducted in two parts: habitat inventory and biological inventory. The objective of the habitat inventory was to document the amount and condition of available habitat to fish, and other aquatic species with an emphasis on anadromous salmonids in Big Austin Creek. The objective of the biological inventory was to document the salmonid and other aquatic species present and their distribution. The objective of this report is to document the current habitat conditions, and recommend options for the potential enhancement of habitat for Chinook salmon, coho salmon and steelhead trout. Recommendations for habitat improvement activities are based upon target habitat values suitable for salmonids in California's north coast streams. WATERSHED OVERVIEW Big Austin Creek is a tributary of the Russian River, located in Sonoma County, California (see Big Austin Creek map, page 2). The legal description at the confluence with the Russian River is T7N, R11W. Its location is 38°27'58" N. latitude and 123°2'57" W. longitude. Year round vehicle access exists from Austin Creek Road via Highway 116 near Cazadero. The upper road was only accessible through private locked gates. Big Austin Creek and its tributaries drain a basin of approximately 68.7 square miles. Big Austin Creek is a fourth order stream and has approximately 13 miles of blue line stream, according to the USGS Guerneville, Duncans Mills, Fort Ross, and Cazadero 7.5 minute quadrangles.
    [Show full text]
  • Austin Creek State Recreation Area Bullfrog Pond Campground
    Austin Creek State Recreation Area Bullfrog Pond Campground 17000 Armstrong Woods Road, Guerneville, CA 95446 (707) 869-2015 or (707) 865-2391 Russian River District Office Austin Creek State Recreation Area is adjacent to Armstrong Redwoods State Natural Reserve and is accessed through the same entrance. Austin Creek offers twenty miles of trails for hiking, backcountry camping and equestrians. Campsites at Bullfrog Pond are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Tables, fire rings, flush toilets and potable water are provided, but no showers are available. PARK FEES are due and payable upon entry into GENERATORS may only be operated between the park. Use the self-registration system at the the hours of 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. campground entrance. The campsite fee covers ALCOHOL and glass containers are not allowed one vehicle. There are additional fees for extra beyond your campsite. vehicles, with a maximum of two vehicles. FIRES/FIREWOOD: Fires are only allowed in fire VEHICLES: You may park up to two vehicles at rings provided. Collecting dead or downed wood each campsite. For safety reasons, vehicles more is prohibited. Firewood is available for sale at the than 20 feet long or towing any type of trailer are entrance station. not permitted at Austin Creek SRA. Vehicles may only be parked in your assigned campsite or the BICYCLES are allowed only on paved roads or overflow parking areas. fire roads. Bicycle riders under age 18 must wear a helmet. Bicycles ridden after dark must have a OCCUPANCY: Eight people maximum are light. Please ride safely.
    [Show full text]
  • NPDES Water Bodies
    Attachment A: Detailed list of receiving water bodies within the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Control District boundaries under the jurisdiction of Regional Water Quality Control Boards One and Two This list of watercourses in the San Francisco Bay Area groups rivers, creeks, sloughs, etc. according to the bodies of water they flow into. Tributaries are listed under the watercourses they feed, sorted by the elevation of the confluence so that tributaries entering nearest the sea appear they first. Numbers in parentheses are Geographic Nantes Information System feature ids. Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County north of Bodega Head, listed from north to south:W The Gualala River and its tributaries • Gualala River (253221): o North Fork (229679) - flows from Mendocino County. o South Fork (235010): Big Pepperwood Creek (219227) - flows from Mendocino County. • Rockpile Creek (231751) - flows from Mendocino County. Buckeye Creek (220029): Little Creek (227239) North Fork Buckeye Crcck (229647): Osser Creek (230143) • Roy Creek (231987) • Soda Springs Creek (234853) Wheatfield Fork (237594): Fuller Creek (223983): • Sullivan Crcck (235693) Boyd Creek (219738) • North Fork Fuller Creek (229676) South Fork Fuller Creek (235005) Haupt Creek (225023) • Tobacco Creek (236406) Elk Creek (223108) • )`louse Creek (225688): Soda Spring Creek (234845) Allen Creek (218142) Peppeawood Creek (230514): • Danfield Creek (222007): • Cow Creek (221691) • Jim Creek (226237) • Grasshopper Creek (224470) Britain Creek (219851) • Cedar Creek (220760) • Wolf Creek (238086) • Tombs Crock (236448) • Marshall Creek (228139): • McKenzie Creek (228391) Northern Sonoma Coast Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County between the Gualala and Russian Rivers, numbered from north to south: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalog of Hydrologic Units in Kentucky
    James C. Cobb, State Director and Geologist Kentucky Geological Survey UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY CATALOG OF HYDROLOGIC UNITS IN KENTUCKY Daniel I. Carey 2003 CONTENTS HYDROLOGIC UNITS.............................................................................................................................................................................4 Ohio River Basin - Region 05 (38,080 sq. mi.)..........................................................................................................................................5 Big Sandy River Basin - Subregion 0507 (2,290 sq. mi.) ......................................................................................................................5 Big Sandy River - Accounting Unit 050702 (2,290 sq. mi.)...........................................................................................................5 Big Sandy River - Catalog Unit 05070201 (478 sq. mi.) ..............................................................................................................5 Upper Levisa Fork - Catalog Unit 05070202 (359 sq. mi.).........................................................................................................7 Levisa Fork - Catalog Unit 05070203 (1,116 sq. mi.)...............................................................................................................12 Big Sandy River, Blaine Creek - Catalog Unit 05070204 (337 sq. mi.).......................................................................................18 Tygarts Creek, Little Sandy River,
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Plan for the California Freshwater Shrimp
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan forthe California Freshwater Shrimp (Syncaris pw~jflca Holmes 1895) Total Postorbital Length Carapace Length Rostrum Length CL RL First Antenna Pleopod I (PerelopodI) Second Antenna Figure 1. The California freshwater shrimp, Syncaris pac~fiCa. CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER SHRIMP (Syncarispac~fica Holmes 1895) RECOVERY PLAN Region 1 U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon Approved: Manager, Califo~~~i’evada Operations Office Region 1, U.S. wish and Wildlife Service Date: CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER SHRIMP (Syncarispa~flca Holmes 1895) RECOVERY PLAN Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon 1998 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regionai Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion ofrecovery tasks. Literature citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • California Freshwater Shrimp (Syncaris Pacifica) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation
    California Freshwater Shrimp (Syncaris pacifica) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo: Larry Serpa U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Sacramento, California September 2011 5-YEAR REVIEW California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process defined in the Act that includes public review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Hydrologic/Hydraulic Assessment
    Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Hydrologic/Hydraulic Assessment February 2006 Prepared by City of Santa Rosa Public Works Department 69 Stony Circle Santa Rosa, CA 95401 (707) 543-3800 tel. (707) 543-3801 fax. Citywide Creek Master Plan Hydrologic/Hydraulic Assessment Page 1 of 23 Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Hydrologic/Hydraulic Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 5 PRIOR DRAINAGE ANALYSES 6 Central Sonoma Watershed Project 6 Matanzas Creek Alternatives for Stabilization 7 Spring Creek Bypass 8 Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan 8 Lower Colgan Creek Concept Plan 9 Hydraulic Assessment of Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Control Channels 9 DRAINAGE ANALYSES FOR CONCEPT PLANS INCLUDED IN MASTER PLAN 10 Upper Colgan Creek Concept Plan 10 Roseland Creek Concept Plan 11 DRAINAGE ANALYSES IN PROCESS 11 Army Corps Santa Rosa Creek Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study 11 Southern Santa Rosa Drainage Study 12 CREEK DREAMS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS 12 HYDROLOGY 14 HYDRAULIC ASSESSMENT 15 Brush Creek 16 Austin Creek 16 Ducker Creek through Rincon Valley Park 16 Spring Creek - Summerfield Road to Mayette Avenue 17 Lornadell Creek – Mesquite Park to Tachevah Drive 17 Piner Creek - Northwestern Pacific Railroad to Santa Rosa Creek 18 Peterson Creek – Youth Community Park to confluence with Santa Rosa Creek 18 Paulin Creek - Highway 101 to the confluence with Piner Creek 18 Poppy Creek - Wright Avenue to confluence with Paulin Creek 18 Roseland Creek from Stony Point Road to Ludwig Avenue 19 Colgan Creek from Victoria Drive to Bellevue Avenue 19 Citywide Creek Master Plan Hydrologic/Hydraulic Assessment Page 2 of 23 Todd Creek Watershed 19 Hunter Creek – Hunter Lane to confluence with Todd Creek 20 Santa Rosa Creek – E Street to Santa Rosa Avenue 20 Matanzas Creek- E Street to confluence with Santa Rosa Creek 20 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 20 General Discussion of Assessment Results 20 Recommendations for Future Study 21 REFERENCES 22 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Zone 1A Stream Maintenance Program 2019 Year in Review
    Clean. Reliable. Essential. Every Day. SMP 2019 Year in Review FLOOD ZONE 1A sonomawater.org Vegetation Maintenance • Austin Creek • Matanzas Creek • Bellvue-Wilfred Creek • Santa Rosa Creek • Brush Creek • Santa Rosa Creek • Cook Creek Diversion • Copeland Creek • Todd Creek • Crane Creek • Warrington Creek • Five Creek • Wilfred Creek • Hinebaugh Creek • 2,942 Cubic Yards of • Hunter Creek Vegetation Removed • Kawana Springs Creek • 46 Acres of Vegetation Grazed • Laguna de Santa Rosa Trash Removal • 69,000 lbs of trash removed Fire Fuel Reduction and Public Safety Urban Forest Management 1. Provide long-term sustainable tree spacing and tree structure. 2. Establish shaded canopy to reduce invasive growth (i.e. blackberries) to reduce maintenance and minimize herbicide. 3. Ensure maintenance and emergency vehicle access 4. Encourage a safe public environment through clear site lines 5. Manage and reduce fire fuel Sediment Removal • Santa Rosa Creek • College Creek • Laguna de Santa Rosa • Matanzas Creek • Copeland Creek Reservoir • Austin Creek • Santa Rosa Creek • Five Creek Reservoir • Airport Creek • 31,932 Cubic Yards of Material Removed • Cook Creek • 2.4 miles of Flood • Wilfred Creek Control Channels • Santa Rosa Creek Diversion • Spring Creek Diversion Sediment Removal • Five Creek – Downstream of Snyder Ln – 2,579 linear ft – 8,944 Cubic Yards Sediment Removal • Laguna de Santa Rosa – Up and Downstream of Stony Point rd – 4,577 linear ft – 11,104 Cubic Yards Sediment Removal • Laguna de Santa Rosa – Up and Downstream of Stony Point rd – 4,577 linear ft – 11,104 Cubic Yards Sediment Removal • Copeland Creek – Upstream of County Club Dr – 1,490 linear ft – 3,624 Cubic Yards sonomawater.org.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 4.3 Fisheries Resources
    CHAPTER 4.3 Fisheries Resources 4.3.1 Introduction This chapter describes the existing fisheries resources within the area of the Proposed Project. Section 4.3.2, “Environmental Setting” describes the regional and project area environmental setting as it relates to fisheries resources. Section 4.3.3, “Regulatory Framework” details the federal, state, and local laws related to fisheries resources. Potential impacts to fisheries resources resulting from the Proposed Project are analyzed in Section 4.3.4, “Impact Analysis” in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance criteria (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G) and mitigation measures are proposed that could reduce, eliminate, or avoid such impacts, if feasible. Other impacts related to fisheries resources addressed in other chapters as follows: impacts to hydrology are addressed in Chapter 4.1, “Hydrology,” impacts to water quality are addressed in Chapter 4.2, “Water Quality,” and impacts to recreation are addressed in Chapter 4.5, “Recreation.” 4.3.2 Environmental Setting Russian River Watershed The Russian River measures slightly over 100 miles in length and the watershed drains roughly 1,485 square miles in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties. The watershed consists of a series of valleys surrounded by two mountainous ranges, the Mendocino Highlands to the West and the Mayacamas Mountains to the east. The Santa Rosa Plain, Alexander Valley, Hopland Valley, Ukiah Valley, Redwood Valley, Potter Valley and other small valleys comprise about 15 percent of the watershed. The remainder of the watershed area is hilly to mountainous. Principal tributaries of the Russian River include the East Fork Russian River, Big Sulphur Creek, Maacama Creek, Dry Creek, Mark West Creek, and Austin Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Austin Creek Watershed Assessment
    AUSTIN CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT Austin Creek Watershed. Prepared by: Laurel Marcus and Associates 3661 Grand Ave. #204 Oakland, CA 94610 510-832-3101 707-869-2760 For: Sotoyome Resource Conservation District 970 Piner Rd. Santa Rosa, CA 95403 October 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 II. Methods and Information Sources 4 III. Overview of the Austin Creek Watershed 23 IV. Austin Creek Watershed Sub-basins 78 Upper East Austin Creek Sub-basin 78 Lower East Austin Creek Sub-basin 89 Upper Austin Creek Sub-basin 97 Ward Creek Sub-basin 107 Kidd/St. Elmo Creeks Sub-basin 116 Lower Austin Creek Sub-basin 125 V. Sub-basin Sensitivity to Disturbance 132 Large Figure Insert 151 VI. Discussion 179 VII. Recommendations 188 VII. References 195 VIII. Persons Preparing the Report 206 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Regional Location 2 Figure 2. Top: 1941/42 aerial showing cleared conifer forest in Lower Austin Creek Sub-basin Bottom: 2000 aerial showing regrown conifer forest at same location 7 Figure 3. Top: Portion of Upper Austin Creek Sub-basin in 1941/42 with forest. Bottom: Same area in 1961 aerial photo showing extensive clear-cut logging 8 Figure 4. Same location as Figure 3 in 1980 showing lack of conifer regrowth and continued ground disturbance as well as additional timber harvesting 9 Figure 5. Photo on left is in the Kidd St Elmo Creeks Sub-basin in 1940. Photo on right is the same location in 1961 showing clear-cut logging 10 Figure 6. Photo on left is in the Kidd St Elmo Creeks Sub-basin in 1980 and shows disturbance from logging in 1961 and additional logging on left part of photo.
    [Show full text]