DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Flood Insurance Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Flood Insurance Study HUMBOLDT COUNTY, PRELIMINARY CALIFORNIA October 27, 2015 AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ARCATA, CITY OF 060061 BLUE LAKE, CITY OF 060438 EUREKA, CITY OF 060062 FERNDALE, CITY OF 060445 FORTUNA, CITY OF 060063 HUMBOLDT COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 060060 RIO DELL, CITY OF 060064 TRINIDAD, TOWN OF* 060436 *NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE NFIP Humboldt County REVISED Month, Day, Year Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 06023CV000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS components. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways and cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows. Old Zone(s) New Zone A1 through A30 AE V1 through V30 VE B X C X This FIS report was revised on (Insert Date). Users should refer to Section 10.0, Revisions Description, for further information. Section 10.0 is intended to present the most up-to-date information for specific portions of this FIS report. Therefore, users of this FIS report should be aware that the information presented in Section 10.0 supersedes information in Sections 1.0 through 9.0 of this FIS report. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: (Insert Date) Revised Countywide FIS Date: (Insert Date) First Revision This preliminary FIS report does not include unrevised Floodway Data Tables and unrevised Flood Profiles. These Floodway Data Tables and Flood Profiles will appear in the final FIS report. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments ........................................................................... 3 1.3 Coordination ........................................................................................................... 6 2.0 AREA STUDIED .................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Scope of Study ........................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Community Description .......................................................................................... 8 2.3 Principal Flood Problems ...................................................................................... 11 2.4 Flood Protection Measures ................................................................................... 22 3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS ............................................................................................ 24 3.1 Hydrologic Analyses ............................................................................................. 25 3.2 Hydraulic Analyses ............................................................................................... 35 3.3 Coastal Hazard Analyses ...................................................................................... 41 3.4 Coastal Analyses for the Insert Date Revision to the Countywide FIS ................ 43 3.5 Vertical Datum ...................................................................................................... 67 4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS ..................................................... 68 4.1 Floodplain Boundaries .......................................................................................... 68 4.2 Floodways ............................................................................................................. 69 5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATIONS ....................................................................................... 78 6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ................................................................................. 80 7.0 OTHER STUDIES .............................................................................................................. 82 8.0 LOCATION OF DATA ...................................................................................................... 83 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ......................................................................... 85 10.0 REVISION DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................................ 88 10.1 First Revision (insert date) .................................................................................... 88 i TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued FIGURES Figure 1 - TRANSECT SCHEMATIC 42 Figure 2 - COASTAL REACH ASSIGNMENT FOR SPATIAL APPLICATION OF TIDE GAUGE ANALYSES RESULTS 44 Figure 3 – TRANSECT LOCATION MAPS FOR THE OPEN PACIFIC COAST STUDY AREA 51 Figure 4 - FLOODWAY SCHEMATIC 78 TABLES Table 1 – INITIAL AND FINAL CCO MEETINGS 7 Table 2 - FLOODING SOURCES STUDIED BY DETAILED METHODS 7 Table 3 - SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES 31 Table 4 - SUMMARY OF STILLWATER ELEVATIONS 33 Table 5 - MANNING'S "n" VALUES 41 Table 6 – SPATIAL APPLICATION OF TIDE GAUGE ANALYSES RESULTS 44 Table 7 – SUMMARY OF REGIONAL SWELs AT TIDE GAUGES 45 Table 8 – TRANSECT LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE OPEN PACIFIC COAST STUDY 47 Table 9 – OPEN PACIFIC COAST STUDY TRANSECT DATA AND TWLs 65 Table 10 - FLOODWAY DATA TABLES 72 Table 11 - COMMUNITY MAP HISTORY 81 Table 12 - MAP REPOSITORIES 84 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Flood Profiles Dave Power’s Creek Panel 01P-02P Eastside Channel Panel 03P Eel River Panels 04P-15P Francis Creek Panels 16P-17P Freshwater Creek Panels 18P-21P Hillside Creek Panel 22P Jacoby Creek Panels 23P-25P Janes Creek Panels 26P-28P Mad River Panels 29P-31P Mad River (at Blue Lake) Panels 32P-35P Martin Slough Panels 36P-39P Martin Slough Tributary C Panels 40P-41P North Fork Mad River Panels 42P-43P Rohner Creek Panels 44P-47P South Fork Eel River Panels 48P-50P Strongs Creek Panels 51P-52P Trinity River Panels 53P-55P Van Duzen River Panels 56P-59P Williams Creek Panels 60P-61P Exhibit 2 - Flood Insurance Rate Map Index Flood Insurance Rate Maps ii FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Study This countywide Flood Insurance Study (FIS) investigates the existence and severity of flood hazards in, or revises and updates previous FISs/Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the geographic area of Humboldt County, California, including: the Cities of Arcata, Blue Lake, Eureka, Ferndale, Fortuna, and Rio Dell, and the unincorporated areas of Humboldt County (hereinafter referred to collectively as Humboldt County). Humboldt County also includes the Town of Trinidad, which is not participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. This FIS aids in the administration of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This FIS has developed flood risk data for various areas of the county that will be used to establish actuarial flood insurance rates. This information will also be used by Humboldt County to update existing floodplain regulations as part of the Regular Phase of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and will also be used by local and regional planners to further promote sound land use and floodplain development. Minimum floodplain management requirements for participation in the NFIP are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations at 44 CFR, 60.3. In some States or communities, floodplain management criteria or regulations may exist that are more restrictive or comprehensive than the minimum Federal requirements. In such cases, the more restrictive criteria take precedence and the State (or other jurisdictional agency) will be able to explain them. 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments The sources of authority for this FIS are the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This FIS was prepared to include the unincorporated areas of, and incorporated communities within, Humboldt County in a countywide format. Information on the authority and acknowledgments for each jurisdiction included in this countywide FIS, as compiled from their previously printed FIS reports, is shown below. Arcata, City of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the original FIS report dated November 5, 1997, were performed by Anderson-Nichols and Company, Inc., for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under Contract No. H-4821. That work, which was completed in July 1980, covered all 3 significant flooding sources affecting Arcata. In the November 5, 1997, revision, the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were prepared by Ensign & Buckley Consulting Engineers, the study contractor, for FEMA, under Contract No. EMW-90-C-3133. Blue Lake, City of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geomorphometric Delineation of Floodplains and Terraces From
    Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 369–385, 2017 https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-369-2017 © Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Geomorphometric delineation of floodplains and terraces from objectively defined topographic thresholds Fiona J. Clubb1, Simon M. Mudd1, David T. Milodowski2, Declan A. Valters3, Louise J. Slater4, Martin D. Hurst5, and Ajay B. Limaye6 1School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9XP, UK 2School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Crew Building, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JN, UK 3School of Earth, Atmospheric, and Environmental Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK 4Department of Geography, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK 5School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, East Quadrangle, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK 6Department of Earth Sciences and St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA Correspondence to: Fiona J. Clubb ([email protected]) Received: 31 March 2017 – Discussion started: 12 April 2017 Revised: 26 May 2017 – Accepted: 9 June 2017 – Published: 10 July 2017 Abstract. Floodplain and terrace features can provide information about current and past fluvial processes, including channel response to varying discharge and sediment flux, sediment storage, and the climatic or tectonic history of a catchment. Previous methods of identifying floodplain and terraces from digital elevation models (DEMs) tend to be semi-automated, requiring the input of independent datasets or manual editing by the user. In this study we present a new method of identifying floodplain and terrace features based on two thresholds: local gradient, and elevation compared to the nearest channel.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads For· Temperature and Sediment
    ., U.s. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Lower Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads for· Temperature and Sediment Approved by: l~ltl(Jl Alexis Strauss, Date Director, Water Division TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 1.1. OVERVIEW OF THE TMDL PROGRAM ................................................................... 1 1.2. WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................... 2 1.3. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CONSULTATION.................................................... 4 1.4. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION .................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 2: PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................. 7 2.1. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS............................................................................... 7 2.2. FISH POPULATION AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CONCERNS......................... 9 2.3. STREAM TEMPERATURE PROBLEMS .................................................................. 14 2.4. SEDIMENT PROBLEMS ............................................................................................ 26 CHAPTER 3: TEMPERATURE TMDLS ............................................................................... 30 3.1. INTERPRETING THE EXISTING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR TEMPERATURE ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork Eel River & Tributaries PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC
    Management Agency: South Fork Eel River & Tributaries Bureau of Land Management ~ BLM Arcata Field Office PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC RIVERS University of California ~ Angelo Coast Range Reserve These proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers support threatened Location: Mendocino County and endangered populations of salmon and steelhead and CA 2nd Congressional District rare plants. They also provide outstanding research Watershed: opportunities of nearly pristine undeveloped watersheds. South Fork Eel River Wild & Scenic River Miles: South Fork Eel River – 12.3 miles South Fork Eel River—12.3 The South Fork Eel River supports the largest concentration Elder Creek—7 of naturally reproducing anadromous fish in the region. East Branch South Fork Eel River—23.1 Cedar Creek—9.6 Federal officials recently identified the river as essential for the recovery of threatened salmon and steelhead. The Outstanding Values: upper portion of this segment is located on the Angelo Anadromous fisheries, ecological, Biosphere Reserve, hydrological, wildlife, recreation Preserve managed for wild lands research by the University of California. Angelo Reserve access roads are open to For More Information: public hiking. The lower portion flows through the existing Steve Evans—CalWild [email protected] South Fork Wilderness managed by the BLM. The river (916) 708-3155 offers class IV-V whitewater boating opportunities. The river would be administered through a cooperative management agreement between the BLM and the State of California. Elder Creek – 7 miles This nearly pristine stream is a National Natural Landmark, Hydrologic Benchmark, and a UN-recognized Biosphere Reserve. A tributary of the South Fork Eel River, the creek is an important contributor to the South Fork’s anadromous Front Photo: South Fork Eel River fishery.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Name
    COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation March 25, 2021 WILLIAMS CREEK RESTORATION PLAN Project No. 11-025-05 Project Manager: Michael Bowen RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $307,170 to the Humboldt County Resource Conservation District to conduct studies and prepare designs, permit applications, and a management plan for restoration of the Williams Creek watershed near Ferndale, Humboldt County, CA. LOCATION: Williams Creek watershed near Ferndale, Humboldt County, CA. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location Map Exhibit 2: Project Photos Exhibit 3: Project Letters RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution and findings. Resolution: The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes disbursement of an amount not to exceed three hundred seven thousand one hundred seventy dollars ($307,170) to the Humboldt County Resource Conservation District (“the grantee”) to conduct studies and prepare designs, permit applications, and a management plan for the enhancement of the Williams Creek watershed near Ferndale, CA. Prior to commencement of the project, the grantee shall submit for the review and written approval of the Executive Officer of the Conservancy (Executive Officer) the following: 1. A detailed work program, schedule, and budget. 2. Names and qualifications of any contractors to be retained in carrying out the project. 3. A plan for acknowledgement of Conservancy funding and Proposition 1 as the source of that funding. Page 1 of 9 WILLIAMS CREEK RESTORATION PLAN Findings: Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal Conservancy hereby finds that: 1. The proposed authorization is consistent with Chapter 5.5 of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code, regarding integrated coastal and marine resources protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Eureka Area Humboldt County, California
    Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Eureka Area Humboldt County, California By R, E. EVENSON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1470 Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1959 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. S EATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U. S. Geological Survey Library has cataloged this publication as follows: Evenson, Robert Edward, 1924- Geology and ground-water features of the Eureka area, Humboldt County, California. Prepared in cooperation with the California Dept. of Water Eesources. Washing­ ton, U. S. Govt. Print. Off., 1959 iv, 80 p. maps, diagrs., tables. 25 cm. (U. S. Geological Survey Water-supply paper 1470) Part of illustrative matter fold. col. in pocket. Bibliography: p. 77. 1. Water-supply California Humboldt Co. 2. Water, Under­ ground California Humboldt Co. i. Title: Eureka area, Hum­ boldt County, California. (Series) TC801.U2 no. 1470 551.490979412 GS 59-169 copy 2. GB1025.C2E9 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. CONTENTS Page Abstract___-_____-__--_--_-_-_________-__--_--_-_-______ ___ 1 Introduction._____________________________________________________ 2 Purpose and scope of the work________ _________________________ 2 Location and extent of the area_______________-_-__-__--________ 3 Previous work_______________________________________________ 3 Well-numbering system________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • COASTAL CUTTHROAT TROUT Oncorhynchus Clarkii Clarkii (Richardson)
    COASTAL CUTTHROAT TROUT Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii (Richardson) Moderate Concern. Status Score = 2.7 out of 5.0. Coastal cutthroat trout populations in California are small, fragmented, and face multiple threats, including cumulative impacts from land use practices and predicted outcomes of climate change in their range. However, their numbers appear to be stable in the few watersheds they inhabit along the Northern California coast. Description: Coastal cutthroat trout are similar in appearance to coastal rainbow trout (O. mykiss) but have heavier spotting, particularly below the lateral line, and heavy spots on ventral fins. Adults have spotting on the lower mandible and more pointed heads than coastal rainbow trout. The spots become nearly invisible when fish become silvery during smolting and migrations to and from the sea. Mature fish in fresh water have a dark coppery or brassy appearance, especially on the fins (Behnke 1992, Moyle 2002). Cutthroat trout are more slender than rainbow trout and possess characteristic red to orange to yellow slashes under the mandibles, though the slashes are rarely visible until the fish reach over 80 mm total length (TL) (Scott and Crossman 1973, Behnke 1992). Larger fish have long maxillary bones extending past the eye. Well-developed teeth are found on the jaws, vomer, palatines, tongue, and sometimes on the basibranchial bones (Rizza 2015). The dorsal fin has 9-11 rays, the anal fin 8-12 rays, the pelvic fins 9-10 rays, and the pectoral fins 12-15 rays. There are 15-28 gill rakers on each arch and 9-12 branchiostegal rays. The caudal fin is moderately forked and scales are smaller than those of rainbow trout, with 140-200 along the lateral line (Behnke 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • California Wetlands
    VOL. 46, NO.2 FREMONTIA JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY California Wetlands 1 California Native Plant Society CNPS, 2707 K Street, Suite 1; Sacramento, CA 95816-5130 Phone: (916) 447-2677 • Fax: (916) 447-2727 FREMONTIA www.cnps.org • [email protected] VOL. 46, NO. 2, November 2018 Memberships Copyright © 2018 Members receive many benefits, including a subscription toFremontia California Native Plant Society and the CNPS Bulletin. Look for more on inside back cover. ISSN 0092-1793 (print) Mariposa Lily.............................$1,500 Family..............................................$75 ISSN 2572-6870 (online) Benefactor....................................$600 International or library...................$75 Patron............................................$300 Individual................................$45 Gordon Leppig, Editor Plant lover.....................................$100 Student/retired..........................$25 Michael Kauffmann, Editor & Designer Corporate/Organizational 10+ Employees.........................$2,500 4-6 Employees..............................$500 7-10 Employees.........................$1,000 1-3 Employees............................$150 Staff & Contractors Dan Gluesenkamp: Executive Director Elizabeth Kubey: Outreach Coordinator Our mission is to conserve California’s Alfredo Arredondo: Legislative Analyst Sydney Magner: Asst. Vegetation Ecologist native plants and their natural habitats, Christopher Brown: Membership & Sales David Magney: Rare Plant Program Manager and increase understanding,
    [Show full text]
  • KNICKPOINTS in TRIBUTARIES of the SOUTH FORK EEL RIVER, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA by Melissa Foster a Thesis Presented to the Faculty
    KNICKPOINTS IN TRIBUTARIES OF THE SOUTH FORK EEL RIVER, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA by Melissa Foster A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science In Environmental Systems: Geology May, 2010 KNICKPOINTS IN TRIBUTARIES OF THE SOUTH FORK EEL RIVER, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA By Melissa Foster Approved by the Master’s Thesis Committee: Dr. Harvey M. Kelsey, Major Professor Date Dr. Benjamin T. Crosby, Committee Member Date Dr. William E. Weaver, Committee Member Date Dr. Christopher J. Dugaw, Graduate Coordinator Date Jená Burges, Vice Provost Date ABSTRACT KNICKPOINTS IN TRIBUTARIES OF THE SOUTH FORK EEL RIVER, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Melissa Foster Multiple knickpoints are present in two tributary basins of the South Fork Eel River. These tributaries are downstream from a major knickpoint on the South Fork Eel River, which may be a transient knickpoint propagating base-level fall throughout the basin. Knickpoints are identified from longitudinal profiles extracted from LiDAR- derived DEMs. Knickpoints and knickzones, knickzones being the immediate downstream reach of higher gradient, are present throughout the two basins. Many of the knickpoints display correlative elevations between the two basins. Knickpoints are most common on first-order streams, and knickpoint frequency decreases with increasing stream order. Major knickzones were found throughout the basins, but the largest knickzone reaches were found closest to the basin outlets. Although only the lowest major knickpoints on each tributary likely correlate with the major knickpoint on the South Fork, it does appear that knickpoints in these tributary basins are the result of multiple instances of base-level lowering on the South Fork Eel River.
    [Show full text]
  • Branscomb Project Investigation
    LIBRARY PHIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS state of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY partment of Wa ter Resources UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORnTa DAVIS ^-'^'^ BULLETIN No. 92 1965 LlUiAMr<y '^S^ BRANSCOMB PROJECT INVESTIGATION FEBRUARY 1965 HUGO FISHER EDMUND G. BROWN WILLIAM E. WARNE Adm/n/sfrafor Governor D/rector The Resources Agency State of California Department of Water Resources state of Cal ifornia THE RESOURCES AGENCY Department of Wa ter Resources BULLETIN No. 92 BRANSCOMB PROJECT INVESTIGATION FEBRUARY 1965 HUGO FISHER EDMUND G. BROWN WILLIAM E. WARNE Administrator Governor Direcior The Resources Agency State of California Department of Water Resources LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVrs TAJ3LE OF COl^ITENTS Page LE11SR OF TRATISMTTAL vii ORGAIJIZATIOII, TIE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORIIIA. DEPARTI.IEI^:T of water resources viii ORGAIIIZATION, THE CALIr'ORlIIA WATER COW-IISSION ix AUTHORIZATIOi: FOR BIVESTIGATION x ACIvtWv.'LEDGMEriT xii PUBLIC HEARING xiii CIiAPTSR I. THE PROJECT AI^^D THE MSIN 1 Bramscomi) Project Investigation 1 South Fork Eel River I3asin 3 ]3asin Temperatures 3 i>asin Developr.ient k Basin Economy 5 CHAPTER II. WATER SUPPLY MB vJATER USE 9 Water Supply 9 Precipitation 9 Precipitation Stations and Records 10 Runoff Ill- Stream Gating Stations and Records I5 VJater Use i3 Applications to Appropriate V/ater I8 Cedar Creek Fish Hatchery I9 Water Service Agencies I9 Other Water Uses I9 111 Page CHAPTER III. RECREATION USE OF THE BRANSCOMB PROJECT . 21 Stream Recreation 21 Fish Count 22 Fish Catch 22 Water Quality as Related to Fishery 23 Water Temperature 24 Effects of Releases of Stored Water 25 Proposed Water Releases from Branscomb Reservoir 27 Benefits from Water Releases 29 Reservoir Recreation 29 Recreation Facilities 29 Recreation Benefits 32 Water Quality as Related to Recreation Use 3^ CHAPTER IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix P Water Resources Technical Background Report
    Appendix P Water Resources Technical Background Report Humboldt County General Plan Draft EIR Humboldt County General Plan Water Resources Technical Report DRAFT WATER RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT For: Humboldt County Community Development Division DRAFT REPORT November 2007 Prepared for: County of Humboldt Community Development Division Eureka, CA 95501 Prepared by: Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers 633 Third Street Eureka, CA 95501 Tel: 707.443-8326 Fax: 707.444-8330 Appendices Appendix P - Page 1 Humboldt County General Plan Draft EIR Humboldt County General Plan Water Resources Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................1 I. Introduction.....................................................................................................................5 A. Purpose and Objectives..........................................................................................5 B. Water Resources Element Description...................................................................5 II. Existing Conditions.........................................................................................................7 A. Water Resources Background................................................................................7 B. Public Water Systems..............................................................................................10 C. Regulatory Setting..................................................................................................29
    [Show full text]
  • Salt River Annual Fish Report 2017
    SALT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT FISH MONITORING PROGRAM 2017 Results of Fish Species Presence and Distribution Monitoring Conducted From March to August, 2017 within the Salt River, Eel River Estuary, Phase 1 and 2 Project Areas, Humboldt County California Prepared By: Doreen Hansen (Humboldt County Resource Conservation District) December 12, 2017 Abstract Phase 1 of the Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project (SRERP), which includes 330 acres of a restored estuary and 2.5 miles of restored river channel, was implemented in 2013. A fish sampling program was developed in the spring of 2014. A lower portion of the Phase 2 footprint (1.6 miles of river channel) was constructed in 2014 and 2015. Currently 11 sites are established across Phase 1 (Riverside Ranch) and the completed portion of the Phase 2 channel corridor of the SRERP. Monitoring for fish species presence and distribution in 2017 began in March and continued through to August (though monitoring did not occur in the month of July). A 1/8th inch mesh pole seine and baited minnow traps were methods used to sample various sites. Captured fish were identified, enumerated, and released. Surveys identified the species presence of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), top smelt (Atherinops affinis), shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregate); and Bay pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhyncus), among others. 1. INTRODUCTION The Salt River is a tidally influenced slough tributary to the Eel River Estuary located in Humboldt County near Ferndale, California. Salinity in the Salt River varies by the interaction of tides, Eel River flow stage, and the input of freshwater tributary streams that drain from the Wildcat Ridge above Ferndale.
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork Eel River
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of the South Fork Eel River South Fork Eel River The South Fork Eel River is tributary to the Eel River and consists of about 104 stream miles. It flows north from headwaters about five miles south of Laytonville, through Mendocino and Humboldt Counties, entering the Eel River about 40.5 miles upstream from the Pacific Ocean. The river drains an area of about 689 square miles (DFG 1997a). Benbow Dam is located on the South Fork Eel River near the town of Benbow, about 40 miles upstream from the Eel River confluence. A fish ladder is in operation on the dam. Steelhead were planted in the South Fork Eel River as early as 1938. Stocking records from DFG indicate that 50,000 steelhead were stocked in the river on one date in 1938 (DFG 1938a). A hatchery that operated on Cedar Creek was responsible for several years of plantings that contributed significantly to the South Fork Eel River steelhead run. In 1958 and 1959 planted fish contributed 10.8 and 10.4 percent of the steelhead run over Benbow Dam, respectively (DWR 1974). A 1998 report on the impacts of the Potter Valley Project noted that most of the steelhead planting that took place in the Eel River drainage between 1956 and 1965 was done in the South Fork, and steelhead planting continued in the South Fork until 1995 (PG&E 1998). Staff from DFG surveyed several areas of the South Fork Eel River from 1938 through 1941. “Good” spawning areas and “excellent” pools and shelter were noted in several areas during these surveys and juvenile steelhead were present (DFG 1938b, DFG 1938c).
    [Show full text]