DOCSLIB.ORG

National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA, Commerce § 226.211

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA, Commerce § 226.211 National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA, Commerce § 226.211 and the following DOI, USGS, 1:500,000 (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Critical habitat scale hydrologic unit maps: State of is designated to include all river Oregon, 1974 and State of California, reaches accessible to listed coho salm- 1978 which are incorporated by ref- on between Cape Blanco, Oregon, and erence. This incorporation by reference Punta Gorda, California. Critical habi- was approved by the Director of the tat consists of the water, substrate, Federal Register in accordance with 5 and adjacent riparian zone of estuarine U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies and riverine reaches (including off- of the USGS publication and maps may channel habitats) in hydrologic units be obtained from the USGS, Map Sales, and counties identified in Table 6 of Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Copies may this part. Accessible reaches are those be inspected at NMFS, Protected Re- within the historical range of the ESU sources Division, 525 NE Oregon that can still be occupied by any life Street—Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232– stage of coho salmon. Inaccessible 2737, or NMFS, Office of Protected Re- sources, 1315 East-West Highway, Sil- reaches are those above specific dams ver Spring, MD 20910, or at the Na- identified in Table 6 of this part or tional Archives and Records Adminis- above longstanding, naturally impass- tration (NARA). For information on able barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in the availability of this material at existence for at least several hundred NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to: http:// years). www.archives.gov/federallregister/ [64 FR 24061, May 5, 1999, as amended at 69 codeloflfederallregulations/ FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004] ibrllocations.html. (a) Central California Coast Coho Salm- § 226.211 Critical habitat for Seven on (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Critical Evolutionarily Significant Units habitat is designated to include all (ESUs) of Salmon (Oncorhynchus river reaches accessible to listed coho spp.) in California. salmon from Punta Gorda in northern Critical habitat is designated in the California south to the San Lorenzo following California counties for the River in central California, including following ESUs as described in para- Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presidio and graph (a) of this section, and as further Corte Madera Creek, tributaries to San described in paragraphs (b) through (e) Francisco Bay. Critical habitat con- of this section. The textual descrip- sists of the water, substrate, and adja- tions of critical habitat for each ESU cent riparian zone of estuarine and are included in paragraphs (f) through riverine reaches (including off-channel habitats) in hydrologic units and coun- (l) of this section, and these descrip- ties identified in Table 5 of this part. tions are the definitive source for de- Accessible reaches are those within the termining the critical habitat bound- historical range of the ESU that can aries. General location maps are pro- still be occupied by any life stage of vided at the end of each ESU descrip- coho salmon. Inaccessible reaches are tion (paragraphs (f) through (l) of this those above specific dams identified in section) and are provided for general Table 5 of this part or above long- guidance purposes only, and not as a standing, naturally impassable barriers definitive source for determining crit- (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for ical habitat boundaries. at least several hundred years). (a) Critical habitat is designated for (b) Southern Oregon/Northern Cali- the following ESUs in the following fornia Coasts Coho Salmon California counties: ESU StateÐcounties (1) California Coastal Chinook .................................................... CAÐHumboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake, Napa, Glenn, Colusa, and Tehama. (2) Northern California Steelhead ............................................... CAÐHumboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake, Glenn, Colusa, and Tehama. (3) Central California Coast Steelhead ....................................... CAÐLake, Mendocino, Sonoma, Napa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin. (4) South-Central Coast Steelhead ............................................. CAÐMonterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo. 361 VerDate Mar<15>2010 11:01 Jan 05, 2011 Jkt 220227 PO 00000 Frm 00371 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\50\220227.XXX ofr150 PsN: PC150 § 226.211 50 CFR Ch. II (10–1–10 Edition) ESU StateÐcounties (5) Southern California Steelhead ............................................... CAÐSan Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego. (6) Central Valley spring-run Chinook ......................................... CAÐTehama, Butte, Glenn, Shasta, Yolo, Sacramento, So- lano, Colusa, Yuba, Sutter, Trinity, Alameda, San Joaquin, and Contra Costa. (7) Central Valley Steelhead ....................................................... CAÐTehama, Butte, Glenn, Shasta, Yolo, Sacramento, Solona, Yuba, Sutter, Placer, Calaveras, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, Alameda, Contra Costa. (b) Critical habitat boundaries. Critical wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks habitat includes the stream channels and boulders, side channels, and under- within the designated stream reaches, cut banks supporting juvenile and and includes a lateral extent as defined adult mobility and survival. by the ordinary high-water line (33 (4) Estuarine areas free of obstruc- CFR 329.11). In areas where the ordi- tion and excessive predation with: nary high-water line has not been de- (i) Water quality, water quantity, fined, the lateral extent will be defined and salinity conditions supporting ju- by the bankfull elevation. Bankfull ele- venile and adult physiological transi- vation is the level at which water be- tions between fresh- and saltwater; gins to leave the channel and move (ii) Natural cover such as submerged into the floodplain and is reached at a and overhanging large wood, aquatic discharge which generally has a recur- vegetation, large rocks and boulders, rence interval of 1 to 2 years on the an- side channels; and nual flood series. Critical habitat in es- (iii) Juvenile and adult forage, in- tuaries (e.g. San Francisco-San Pablo- cluding aquatic invertebrates and Suisun Bay, Humboldt Bay, and Morro fishes, supporting growth and matura- Bay) is defined by the perimeter of the tion. water body as displayed on standard (d) Exclusion of Indian lands. Critical 1:24,000 scale topographic maps or the habitat does not include occupied habi- elevation of extreme high water, tat areas on Indian lands. The Indian whichever is greater. lands specifically excluded from crit- (c) Primary constituent elements. With- ical habitat are those defined in the in these areas, the primary constituent Secretarial Order, including: elements essential for the conservation (1) Lands held in trust by the United of these ESUs are those sites and habi- States for the benefit of any Indian tat components that support one or tribe; more life stages, including: (2) Land held in trust by the United (1) Freshwater spawning sites with States for any Indian Tribe or indi- water quantity and quality conditions vidual subject to restrictions by the and substrate supporting spawning, in- United States against alienation; cubation and larval development; (3) Fee lands, either within or outside (2) Freshwater rearing sites with: the reservation boundaries, owned by (i) Water quantity and floodplain the tribal government; and connectivity to form and maintain (4) Fee lands within the reservation physical habitat conditions and sup- boundaries owned by individual Indi- port juvenile growth and mobility; ans. (ii) Water quality and forage sup- (e) Land owned or controlled by the De- porting juvenile development; and partment of Defense. Additionally, crit- (iii) Natural cover such as shade, sub- ical habitat does not include the fol- merged and overhanging large wood, lowing areas owned or controlled by log jams and beaver dams, aquatic the Department of Defense, or des- vegetation, large rocks and boulders, ignated for its use, that are subject to side channels, and undercut banks. an integrated natural resources man- (3) Freshwater migration corridors agement plan prepared under section free of obstruction and excessive preda- 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a): tion with water quantity and quality (1) Camp Pendleton Marine Corps conditions and natural cover such as Base; submerged and overhanging large (2) Vandenberg Air Force Base; 362 VerDate Mar<15>2010 11:01 Jan 05, 2011 Jkt 220227 PO 00000 Frm 00372 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\50\220227.XXX ofr150 PsN: PC150 National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA, Commerce § 226.211 (3) Camp San Luis Obispo; Fork Mad River (40.8687, –123.9649); (4) Camp Roberts; and Squaw Creek (40.9426, –124.0202); Warren (5) Mare Island Army Reserve Center. Creek (40.8901, –124.0402). (f) California Coastal Chinook Salmon (ii) North Fork Mad River 110920. Out- (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Critical let(s) = North Fork Mad River (Lat habitat is designated to include the 40.8687, Long –123.9649) upstream to areas defined in the following endpoint(s) in: Sullivan Gulch (40.8646, CALWATER Hydrologic units: –123.9553); North Fork Mad River (1) Redwood Creek Hydrologic Unit (40.8837, –123.9436). 1107—(i) Orick Hydrologic Sub-area (iii) Butler Valley 110930. Outlet(s) = 110710. Outlet(s) = Redwood Creek (Lat Mad River (Lat 40.8449, Long –123.9807) –41.2923, Long –124.0917) upstream to upstream to endpoint(s)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US Format C V2.1
    APPENDIX G-7 Listed, Proposed Species, and Critical Habitat Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project Region Listed, Proposed Species, and Critical Habitat Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project Region. Scientific Name/ Common Federal/State/ General Habitat Description Habitat Rationale Name CNPS/other Present/ Status Absent Invertebrates Adela oplerella --/--/G2G3, S2S3 Opler's longhorn moth is recorded from 18 sites A Suitable habitat for this species is not Opler’s longhorn moth extending along the west side of the San present within the project site. Francisco Bay from 5 miles southeast of Nicasio in Marin County south to the Gilroy area of Santa Clara County and from the Oakland area on the inner Coast Ranges. Habitat for Opler's longhorn moth consists of serpentine grassland (Federal Register 50CFR17). Andrena blennospermatis --/--/G2, S2 Known occurrences in Contra Costa, Lake, A Yellow carpet is absent from the Blennosperma vernal pool Sonoma, Solano, Yolo, Tehamea, Sacramento, project site. Upland habitat adjacent andrenid bee San Joaquin, El Dorado, and Placer Counties. to vernal pools in the area is Habitat consists of upland areas near vernal pools composed of substrate, such as containing yellow carpet (Blennosperma sp.). gravel, compacted soil, or heavily Forages exclusively on flowering yellow carpet. disturbed soil, which does not This species excavates nests in soil in adjacent provide suitable nesting habitat for upland areas (Thorp 2008). this species. Branchinecta conservatio FE/--/-- Conservancy fairy shrimp inhabit rather large, cool- A Suitable habitat for this species does conservancy fairy shrimp water vernal pools with moderately turbid water. It not occur on site.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax Traillii Extimus)
    Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) August 2002 Prepared By Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team Technical Subgroup For Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Approved: Date: Disclaimer Recovery Plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or 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 Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved Recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Some of the techniques outlined for recovery efforts in this plan are completely new regarding this subspecies. Therefore, the cost and time estimates are approximations. Citations This document should be cited as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-ix + 210 pp., Appendices A-O Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Service Reference Service 5430 Governor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 1-800-582-3421 i This Recovery Plan was prepared by the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team, Technical Subgroup: Deborah M.
    [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]
  • 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Opens a New Window
    3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section provides information regarding impacts of the proposed project on hydrology and water quality. The information used in this analysis is taken from: ► Water Supply Assessment for the Humboldt Wind Energy Project (Stantec 2019) (Appendix T); ► Humboldt County General Plan (Humboldt County 2017); ► North Coast Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (North Coast IRWMP) (North Coast Resource Partnership 2018); ► Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan) (North Coast RWQCB 2018); ► the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Mapping Program (2018); ► National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data; and ► California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater (DWR 2003). 3.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CLIMATE AND PRECIPITATION Weather in the project area is characterized by temperate, dry summers and cool, wet winters. In winter, precipitation is heavy. Average annual rainfall can be up to 47 inches in Scotia (WRCC 2019). The rainy season, which generally begins in October and lasts through April, includes most of the precipitation (e.g., 90 percent of the mean annual runoff of the Eel River occurs during winter). Precipitation data from water years 1981–2010 for Eureka, approximately 20 miles north of the project area, show a mean annual precipitation of 40 inches (NOAA and CNRFC 2019). Mean annual precipitation in the project area is lowest in the coastal zone area (40 inches per year) and highest in the upper elevations of the Upper Cape Mendocino and Eel River hydrologic units to the east (85 inches per year) (Cal-Atlas 1996). The dry season, generally May through September, is usually defined by morning fog and overcast conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • AQ Conformity Amended PBA 2040 Supplemental Report Mar.2018
    TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Metropolitan Transportation Commission Association of Bay Area Governments MARCH 2018 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Jake Mackenzie, Chair Dorene M. Giacopini Julie Pierce Sonoma County and Cities U.S. Department of Transportation Association of Bay Area Governments Scott Haggerty, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Alameda County Contra Costa County Bijan Sartipi California State Alicia C. Aguirre Anne W. Halsted Transportation Agency Cities of San Mateo County San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Libby Schaaf Tom Azumbrado Oakland Mayor’s Appointee U.S. Department of Housing Nick Josefowitz and Urban Development San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee Warren Slocum San Mateo County Jeannie Bruins Jane Kim Cities of Santa Clara County City and County of San Francisco James P. Spering Solano County and Cities Damon Connolly Sam Liccardo Marin County and Cities San Jose Mayor’s Appointee Amy R. Worth Cities of Contra Costa County Dave Cortese Alfredo Pedroza Santa Clara County Napa County and Cities Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cities of Alameda County Association of Bay Area Governments Supervisor David Rabbit Supervisor David Cortese Councilmember Pradeep Gupta ABAG President Santa Clara City of South San Francisco / County of Sonoma San Mateo Supervisor Erin Hannigan Mayor Greg Scharff Solano Mayor Liz Gibbons ABAG Vice President City of Campbell / Santa Clara City of Palo Alto Representatives From Mayor Len Augustine Cities in Each County City of Vacaville
    [Show full text]
  • Contra Costa County
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Marsh Creek Watershed Marsh Creek flows approximately 30 miles from the eastern slopes of Mt. Diablo to Suisun Bay in the northern San Francisco Estuary. Its watershed consists of about 100 square miles. The headwaters of Marsh Creek consist of numerous small, intermittent and perennial tributaries within the Black Hills. The creek drains to the northwest before abruptly turning east near Marsh Creek Springs. From Marsh Creek Springs, Marsh Creek flows in an easterly direction entering Marsh Creek Reservoir, constructed in the 1960s. The creek is largely channelized in the lower watershed, and includes a drop structure near the city of Brentwood that appears to be a complete passage barrier. Marsh Creek enters the Big Break area of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta northeast of the city of Oakley. Marsh Creek No salmonids were observed by DFG during an April 1942 visual survey of Marsh Creek at two locations: 0.25 miles upstream from the mouth in a tidal reach, and in close proximity to a bridge four miles east of Byron (Curtis 1942).
    [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]
  • San Mateo County
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of San Mateo County San Pedro San Pedro Creek flows northwesterly, entering the Pacific Ocean at Pacifica State Beach. It drains a watershed about eight square miles in area. The upper portions of the drainage contain springs (feeding the south and middle forks) that produce perennial flow in the creek. Documents with information regarding steelhead in the San Pedro Creek watershed may refer to the North Fork San Pedro Creek and the Sanchez Fork. For purposes of this report, these tributaries are considered as part of the mainstem. A 1912 letter regarding San Mateo County streams indicates that San Pedro Creek was stocked. A fishway also is noted on the creek (Smith 1912). Titus et al. (in prep.) note DFG records of steelhead spawning in the creek in 1941. In 1968, DFG staff estimated that the San Pedro Creek steelhead run consisted of 100 individuals (Wood 1968). A 1973 stream survey report notes, “Spawning habitat is a limiting factor for steelhead” (DFG 1973a, p. 2). The report called the steelhead resources of San Pedro Creek “viable and important” but cited passage at culverts, summer water diversion, and urbanization effects on the stream channel and watershed hydrology as placing “the long-term survival of the steelhead resource in question”(DFG 1973a, p. 5). The lower portions of San Pedro Creek were surveyed during the spring and summer of 1989. Three O. mykiss year classes were observed during the study throughout the lower creek. Researchers noticed “a marked exodus from the lower creek during the late summer” of yearling and age 2+ individuals, many of which showed “typical smolt characteristics” (Sullivan 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS
    San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS Introduction The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (Program) performs Watershed Assessment and Monitoring (WAM) component activities in compliance with its municipal stormwater NPDES permit requirements. In the past, a consistent countywide watershed boundary data layer has not been available to meet Program needs for mapping and analyzing watershed-related data. As a result, the Program has previously utilized the best existing available data sets and/or developed new data to meet the objectives of specific individual projects. For example, creek location and watershed boundary data were developed to characterize imperviousness and channel modifications in seventeen watersheds in San Mateo County (STOPPP 2002). In another example, Program staff compiled existing countywide watershed data and developed new data needed to identify watershed areas considered exempt from Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) requirements (STOPPP 2005). The Program previously identified two major information gaps in digital watershed boundary data: 1) limited storm drain catchment data were available for urban areas and 2) consistent countywide watershed data layers were not available (STOPPP 2005). Recent development of watershed data in urbanized portions of San Mateo County has provided an opportunity to address these information gaps. This memo describes the methods used by Program staff to create a consistent countywide watershed data layer that includes delineation of storm drain catchments in urban areas. Consistent watershed and creek data set will assist Program staff in watershed characterization and the identification and prioritization of potential future monitoring and watershed assessment activities. Background In 1999, the State of California developed a statewide watershed data layer entitled the California Interagency Watershed Map (Calwater).
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) California Regional Water Quality Control Board
    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Agencies California Documents 12-1986 Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) California Regional Water Quality Control Board Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation California Regional Water Quality Control Board, "Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)" (1986). California Agencies. Paper 393. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies/393 This Cal State Document is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Agencies by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WATER QUA~ITY · CONTROL PLAN Cover photo by: MICHAEL DRENNAN. Senior Water Resources Engineer San Francisco Bay Region DONALD E. ANDERSON, CHAIRMAN PETER W. SNYDER, VICE CHAIRMAN* FRED KLATTE* JANICE E. MONDAVI MARION OTSEA • KENNETH R. MERCER JEPTHA WADE PHILIP WENTE *Basin Plan Committee 1986 3 F N R R This report was prepared under the direction of Roger B. James ......................................................................... Executive Officer Lawrence P. Kolb ...................................................................... Assistant Executive Officer Richard H. Whitsel ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Are California'! Orth Coast River
    1u i A7 .( ARE CALIFORNIA'! I 19 ORTH COAST RIVER: On the Impacts 1 Of River Diversion Published in Arcata, California, 1982 Printing by Neuberg Photography & Printing Hayfork. California Available From: Rivers Paper - Northcoast Environmental Center 1091 H Street ,, Arcata, Calif. 9552 1 (707) 822-69 18 postal orders: $2°0/copy wholesale prices available 0 1982 .*. .. i ;(i,{.,~TVl ..' EASii.4 RESOURCE LIBRARY ARE CALIFORNIA'S NORTH COAST RIVERS REALLY "WASTING AWAY TO SEA?" By: Paul Bodin, Geologist William Brock, Fishery Biologist Phillip Buttolph, Estuarine Biologist Harvey KeIsey, GeoIogi st Thomas Lisle, Hydrologist Bruce Marcot, WlIdlife Biologist $amy Reichard, ~~drologis~ Robert ~Lnner.Plant Ecologist Table of Contents Preface .............................................1 Summary ............................................1 Introduction ..........................................2 The Potter Valley Project .................................3 The Proposed Dos Rios Diversion and the Existing Trinity Diversion: Project Descriptions .................3 Effects of Impoundment and Diversion on Sediment Transport ...........................4 Effects of a Dos Rios Dam on HiIIsIope Stability ................................9 Effects of Impoundment and Diversion on Fishery Resources ............................9 Potential Effects of the Dos Rios Project on the Middle Fork Eel River Fishery ...............10 Economic Evaluation of the Middle Fork Eel Fishery .............................11 Potential Effects of the Dos Rios Project on the
    [Show full text]