DOCSLIB.ORG

Geology and Ground Water in Russian River Valley Areas and in Round, Laytonville and Little Lake Valleys Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geology and Ground Water in Russian River Valley Areas and in Round, Laytonville and Little Lake Valleys Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, California Geology and Ground Water in Russian River Valley Areas and in Round, Laytonville and Little Lake Valleys Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, California By G. T. CARDWELL GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1548 Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Jf^ater Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1965 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract_____________________________________________________ 1 Introduction... _______________________________________________ 1 Purpose and scope_____-________________-___-_______----__-___- 1 Location of the area______________________-___________-___ ___ 2 Previous investigations.________________________________________ 2 Methods of investigation__________________________.____________ 4 Acknowledgments- _____-___-________-____-_---_-_------._----_ 5 Well-numbering system________________________________________ 5 Geography______________________________________________________ 6 Physiography and drainage_____________________________________ 6 Description of subareas_______________________________________ 8 Climate.____________________________________________________ 11 General features__-__-_-_____---__-_-_----__-__--_-__------ 11 Precipitation..._________________________________________ 12 Cultural features and natural resources.______________________ 12 Water utilization_______________________________________ 15 Source of water supplies__________________________ _ 17 General geology _________________________________________ 18 Summary of stratigraphy and occurrence of ground water._________ 18 Summary of structural control of topography.____________________ 19 Geologic history________________________________ 22 Geology and ground water of lower and middle Russian River basins - 23 Lower Russian River valley________________ ___ __ 23 Geology and water-bearing character of rock units ______ ___ 23 Franciscan and Knoxville Formations______________ ____ 24 Alluvium and river-channel deposits.____________________ 24 Ground water_______.____________________________ 25 Healdsburg area________________________________ 29 Geology and water-bearing character of rock units________ __ 29 Franciscan and Knoxville Formations____________________ 29 Merced Formation___________________________________ 30 Glen Ellen Formation_________________________ 30 Terrace deposits___________________________________ 31 Alluvium and river-channel deposits.____________________ 32 Ground water__-____-___________________________________ 34 Alexander Valley______________________________________________ 39 Geology and water-bearing character of rock units.____________ 39 Franciscan and Knoxville Formations.___________________ 39 Cretaceous(?) conglomerate-____________-____-_________- 39 Sonoma Volcanics___________________-___-____-_______- 40 Glen Ellen Formation_______________________________ 40 Terrace deposits_____________________________________ 41 Alluvium and river-channel deposits.____________________ 42 Ground water_____________________________________________ 42 in IV CONTENTS Geology and ground water, etc. Continued Pag« Cloverdale Valley_____________________-_--------__________-__ 47 Geology and water-bearing character of rock units..___________ 47 Franciscan and Knoxville Formations.___________________ 47 Terrace deposits_____________________________________ 47 Alluvium and river-channel deposits _____________________ 48 Ground water___________________________________ ________ 49 Geology and ground water of the upper Russian River basins-__________ 54 Sanel Valley area_________________-_____-_-_---_-_-___________- 54 Geology and water-bearing character of rock units.____________ 54 Franciscan and Knoxville Formations._________________ 54 Continental deposits__------_-_----_~_-_~---_-_-__---_- 55 Terrace deposits_____________________________________ 56 Dissected alluvium____________________________________ 56 Alluvium and river-channel deposits _____________________ 57 Ground water_____________________________________________ 58 Ukiah Valley area.__________________.____________ 62 Geology and water-bearing character of rock units..___________ 62 Franciscan and Knoxville Formations____________________ 63 Continental deposits______-_-----------_------_---____- 63 Terrace deposits___ _________-______-__-___-________ 65 Dissected alluvium.___________________________________ 66 Alluvium and river-channel deposits.____________________ 66 Ground water__________________________-_-_-_-_____-_____- 67 Potter Valley.._________________________________ 73 Geology and water-bearing character of rock units...__________ 73 Franciscan and Knoxville Formations..__________________ 73 Continental deposits.________-________-_-_-_-_-_-_----- 73 Terrace deposits-___-_-_-----_-------~--_-----_-------- 74 Alluvium_____ ________________________________________ 75 Ground water______________________----_---_-__-----__--_- 75 Geology and ground water of the northern Mendocino County basins-___ 79 Round Valley____________________________________ 79 Geology and water-bearing character of rock units-____________ 79 Structure and geologic history_________________________ 79 Franciscan and Knoxville Formations.-__________________ 81 Continental deposits----------------------------------- 81 Alluvium and river-channel deposits-____________________ 82 Ground water______________-__-__-_-_--------_------_---_- 84 Laytonville Valley._-_________________________-___-___-_---_-_- 92 Geology and water-bearing character of rock units____________ 92 Structure and geologic history_________________________ 92 Franciscan and Knoxville Formations.___________________ 93 Continental deposits____-__-----__---_---------_------- 94 Terrace deposits.____________________________________ 94 Alluvium and river-channel deposits--------------------- 95 Ground water......_______________________________________ 96 Little Lake Valley____________________________ 101 Geology and water-bearing character of rock units_____________ 101 Structure and geologic history_________________________ 101 Franciscan Formation________________________________ 102 Continental deposits_______--_--_--_---_--__----------- 102 Alluvium _____________________________________________ 104 Ground water________________________-____________-------- 105 CONTENTS V Page Selected bibliography. _____________________________________________ 110 Description of wells and springs, Russian River valley area_____________ 111 Logs of wells, Russian River valley area____________________________ 123 Chemical analyses of water, Russian River valley area_________________ 131 Description of wells and springs, Mendocino County___________________ 136 Logs of wells, Mendocino County_________-_--__-_--__-_-_----_--_-_- 142 Chemical analyses of water, Mendo cino County _______________________ 145 Miscellaneous streamflow measurements, Mendocino County____________ 148 Index._______-_________-____-_______________-__-__-_--__-_-----_- 151 ILLUSTRATIONS [Plates are In pocket] PLATE 1-3. Geologic maps showing location of wells: 1. Lower and middle Rusisan River valley areas. 2. Upper Russian River valley area. 3. Round Valley. 4. Map showing water-level contours and area of flowing wells in Round Valley, Mendocino County, Calif. 5, 6. Geologic maps showing location of wells: 5. Laytonville Valley area. 6. Little Lake Valley. Page FIGURE 1. Index map showing location of areas described._________ 3 2. Well-numbering system.______________________________ 5 3. Fluctuation of water levels in the Healdsburg area, and monthly precipitation at Healdsburg-_--__-_-_-_-_____ 13 4. Graphical representation of chemical analyses of waters in the lower and middle Russian River valley areas-_____ 27 5. Fluctuation of water levels in Alexander Valley___________ 44 6. Graphical representation of chemical analyses of water from three wells in Clo verdale Valley __________________ 52 7. Fluctuation of water levels in the Sanel Valley area_______ 59 8. Graphical representation of chemical analyses of waters in Sanel, Ukiah, and Potter Valley areas-_______________ 61 9. Fluctuation of water levels in Ukiah Valley 69 10. Fluctuation of water levels in Potter Valley-_____________ 76 11. Geologic section of upper parfc of alluvium in Round Valley. 83 12. Fluctuation of water levels in Round Valley- _____________ 86 13. Graphical representation of chemical analyses of waters in Round, Laytonville, and Little Lake Valleys.___-__-___ 91 14. Geologic section across Laytonville Valley _______________ 95 15. Fluctuation of water levels in Laytonville Valley.-.------ 98 16. Fluctuation of water levels in Little Lake Valley-_-___-_- 106 VI CONTENTS TABLES Page TABLE 1. Climatological data from selected Weather Bureau stations in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, Calif., through 1955_. ___________________________________________ 11 2. Public water supplies_____________-________________.__ 16 3. Stratigraphic units and their water-bearing character in Russian River valley areas, California.--_____________ 20 4. Estimated ground-water storage capacity in the lower Russian River valley_________________________ 26 5. Summary of chemical character of ground water in the lower and middle Russian River valley areas__________ 28 6. Estimated withdrawals for irrigation in the Healdsburg area, 1954_________________________.__________ 37 7. Summary
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FINAL Little Lake Valley Groundwater Management Plan
    LITTLE LAKE VALLEY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Final Draft PREPARED FOR CITY OF WILLITS August 18, 2020 City of Willits Contact: Andrea Trincado, Project Manager City of Willits Engineering Department Prepared by: LACO Associates 776 S. State St., Suite 103 Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 462-0222 LACO Project No. 8509.07 Little Lake Valley Groundwater Management Plan FINAL DRAFT Prepared for City of Willits TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 5 1.1 Purpose of the Plan ......................................... 5 1.2 Background and Legal Authority for Local Groundwater Management ................................. 5 1.3 Plan Components .............................................. 7 1.4 Plan Development Process ................................. 7 1.5 Previous Studies .............................................. 9 2.0 Public Outreach and Involvement ............................ 10 2.1 Public Workshops ........................................... 11 2.2 Issues of Concern to the Public ........................ 12 3.0 Study Area 12 3.1 Location and Description ................................. 12 3.2 Physical Geography and Geology ..................... 13 3.2.1 Geologic Formations ............................. 15 3.3 Climate 15 3.4 Land Use and Population ................................. 18 3.5 Water Use 21 3.5.1 Municipal Water Use ............................ 21 3.5.2 Rural Water Use .................................. 23 3.5.3 Tribal Water Use ................................. 23 3.5.4 Environmental Water Use ....................... 23 4.0 Hydrogeology 23 4.1 Principal Aquifers ......................................... 23 4.1.1 Aquifer I – Holocene Alluvium ................ 24 August 18, 2020 Page 1 of 49 Little Lake Valley Groundwater Management Plan FINAL DRAFT Prepared for City of Willits 4.1.2 Aquifer II – Pliocene to Pleistocene Continental Basin Deposits ..................... 25 4.1.3 Jurassic-Cretaceous Franciscan Complex .. 26 4.2 Recharge Sources ........................................... 27 4.3 Historic Variations in Groundwater Levels ........
    [Show full text]
  • Final Upper Main Eel River and Tributaries (Including
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX FINAL Upper Main Eel River and Tributaries (including Tomki Creek, Outlet Creek and Lake Pillsbury) Total Maximum Daily Loads for Temperature and Sediment Approved by date Original signed December 29, 2004 Alexis Strauss Director, Water Division Note: For further information please contact Palma Risler at 415/972-3451 and [email protected] or Dan Pingaro at 415/977-4275 and [email protected] Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Overview - 1 1.2. Watershed Characteristics - 2 1.3. Endangered Species Act Consultation - 4 1.4. Organization - 4 CHAPTER 2: PROBLEM STATEMENT 2.1. Fish Population Problems - 5 2.2. Temperature Problems - 7 2.3. Sediment Problems - 14 2.4. Water Quality Standards - 17 CHAPTER 3: TEMPERATURE TMDL 3.1. Interpreting the Existing Water Quality Standards for Temperature - 18 3.2. Temperature Modeling - 20 3.2.1 Temperature and Solar Radiation Modeling - 21 3.2.2 Selection of Scenario Corresponding to Water Quality Standards - 24 3.3.1 Loading Capacity and TMDL – Solar Radiation for all stream reaches - 26 3.3.2 Shade Allocations - 26 3.3.3 Margin of Safety - 27 3.3.4 Seasonal Variation and Critical Conditions - 27 3.4 Instream Heat TMDL – Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek - 28 3.4.1 Selection of Scenario Corresponding to Water Quality Standards - 34 3.4.2 Water Quality Indicators – Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek - 34 3.4.3 Instream Heat Loading Capacity and TMDL - Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek- 34 3.4.4 Instream Heat Allocations – Van Arsdale to Outlet Creek - 35 3.4.5 Margin of Safety - 35 3.4.6 Seasonal Variation and Critical Conditions - 35 CHAPTER 4: SEDIMENT TMDL 4.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Springs of California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIBECTOB WATER- SUPPLY PAPER 338 SPRINGS OF CALIFORNIA BY GEKALD A. WARING WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1915 CONTENTS. Page. lntroduction by W. C. Mendenhall ... .. ................................... 5 Physical features of California ...... ....... .. .. ... .. ....... .............. 7 Natural divisions ................... ... .. ........................... 7 Coast Ranges ..................................... ....•.......... _._._ 7 11 ~~:~~::!:: :~~e:_-_-_·.-.·.·: ~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: ::: 12 Sierra Nevada .................... .................................... 12 Southeastern desert ......................... ............. .. ..... ... 13 Faults ..... ....... ... ................ ·.. : ..... ................ ..... 14 Natural waters ................................ _.......................... 15 Use of terms "mineral water" and ''pure water" ............... : .·...... 15 ,,uneral analysis of water ................................ .. ... ........ 15 Source and amount of substances in water ................. ............. 17 Degree of concentration of natural waters ........................ ..· .... 21 Properties of mineral waters . ................... ...... _. _.. .. _... _....• 22 Temperature of natural waters ... : ....................... _.. _..... .... : . 24 Classification of mineral waters ............ .......... .. .. _. .. _......... _ 25 Therapeutic value of waters .................................... ... ... 26 Analyses
    [Show full text]
  • Big River Basin Assessment November 2006
    Coastal Watershed Planning Assessment Program Big River Basin Assessment November 2006 State of California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger California Resources Agency California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary, Mike Chrisman Secretary, Alan Lloyd North Coast Watershed Assessment Program Participants Contributing Agencies and Departments Department of Fish and Game State Water Resources Control Board Director, Loris “Ryan” Broddrick Chair, Art Baggett Department of Forestry and Fire Protection North Coast Regional Water Director, Dale Gildert Quality Control Board Executive Officer, Catherine Kuhlman Department of Water Resources Department of Conservation Director, Lester A. Snow Interim Director, Debbie Sareeram Big River Assessment Team Assessment Manager Scott Downie California Department of Fish and Game Fisheries: Steve Cannata California Department of Fish and Game Beatrijs deWaard Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Cynthia LeDoux-Bloom California Department of Fish and Game Forestry and Land Use: Rob Rutland California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Water Quality: Elmer Dudik North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Geology: Karin W. Fresnel Department of Conservation/California Geological Survey Fluvial Geomorphology: Dawn McGuire Department of Conservation/California Geological Survey Currently Department of Fish and Game Geographic Information System, Data Management, Ecological Management Decision System (EMDS) Vikki Avara-Snider – GIS & Document Production Pacific States Marine Fisheries
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 4.1 Hydrology
    CHAPTER 4.1 Hydrology 4.1.1 Introduction This chapter describes the existing hydrologic conditions within the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project Area. Section 4.1.2, “Environmental Setting” describes the regional and project area environmental setting, including important water bodies and related infrastructure, surface and groundwater hydrology, geomorphology, and flooding. Section 4.1.3, “Regulatory Setting” details the federal, state, and local laws related to hydrology. Potential impacts to these resources resulting from the proposed project are analyzed in Section 4.1.4, “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. Other impacts to related resources are addressed in other chapters as follows: impacts to water quality are addressed in Chapter 4.2, Water Quality; impacts to fish are addressed in Chapter 4.3, Fisheries Resources; and impacts to recreation are addressed in Chapter 4.5, Recreation. 4.1.2 Environmental Setting The environmental setting for hydrology includes all areas that could be affected by activities associated with the Proposed Project. As stated in Chapter 3, Background and Project Description, the objective of the Fish Flow Project is to manage Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma water supply releases to provide instream flows that will improve habitat for threatened and endangered fish, while updating the Water Agency’s existing water rights to reflect current conditions. The Water Agency would manage water supply releases from Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma to provide minimum instream flows in the Russian River and Dry Creek that would improve habitat for listed salmonids and meet the requirements of the Russian River Biological Opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Collections
    A. andersonii A. Gray SANTA CRUZ MANZANITA San Mateo Along Skyline Blvd. between Gulch Road and la Honda Rd. (A. regismontana?) Santa Cruz Along Empire Grade, about 2 miles north of its intersection with Alba Grade. Lat. N. 37° 07', Long. 122° 10' W. Altitude about 2550 feet. Santa Cruz Aong grade (summit) 0.8 mi nw Alba Road junction (2600 ft elev. above and nw of Ben Lomond (town)) - Empire Grade Santa Cruz Near Summit of Opal Creek Rd., Big Basin Redwood State Park. Santa Cruz Near intersection of Empire Grade and Alba Grade. ben Lomond Mountain. Santa Cruz Along China Grade, 0.2 miles NW of its intersection with the Big Basin-Saratoga Summit Rd. Santa Cruz Nisene Marks State Park, Aptos Creek watershed; under PG&E high-voltage transmission line on eastern rim of the creek canyon Santa Cruz Along Redwood Drive 1.5 miles up (north of) from Monte Toyon Santa Cruz Miller's Ranch, summit between Gilroy and Watsonville. Santa Cruz At junction of Alba Road and Empire Road Ben Lomond Ridge summit Santa Cruz Sandy ridges near Bonny Doon - Santa Cruz Mountains Santa Cruz 3 miles NW of Santa Cruz, on upper UC Santa Cruz campus, Marshall Fields Santa Cruz Mt. Madonna Road along summit of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Between Lands End and Manzanitas School. Lat. N. 37° 02', Long. 121° 45' W; elev. 2000 feet Monterey Moro Road, Prunedale (A. pajaroensis?) A. auriculata Eastw. MT. DIABLO MANZANITA Contra Costa Between two major cuts of Cowell Cement Company (w face of ridge) - Mount Diablo, Lime Ridge Contra Costa Immediately south of Nortonville; 37°57'N, 121°53'W Contra Costa Top Pine Canyon Ridge (s-facing slope between the two forks) - Mount Diablo, Emmons Canyon (off Stone Valley) Contra Costa Near fire trail which runs s from large spur (on meridian) heading into Sycamore Canyon - Mount Diablo, Inner Black Hills Contra Costa Off Summit Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • North Coast Hydrologic Region
    California’s Groundwater Update 2013 A Compilation of Enhanced Content for California Water Plan Update 2013 April 2015 State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Water Resources NORTH COAST HYDROLOGIC REGION Chapter 3. North Coast Hydrologic Region Groundwater Update Contents Chapter 3. North Coast Hydrologic Region Groundwater Update ........................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Findings, Data Gaps, and Recommendations .............................................................................. 3 Findings ................................................................................................................................... 3 Groundwater Supply and Development ............................................................................... 3 Groundwater Use and Aquifer Conditions........................................................................... 4 Groundwater Monitoring Efforts ......................................................................................... 4 Groundwater Management and Conjunctive Management.................................................. 4 Data Gaps ................................................................................................................................. 5 Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................................... 5 Groundwater Basin Assessments
    [Show full text]
  • Redwood Highway/Save the Redwoods Movement Susie Van Kirk
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Susie Van Kirk Papers Special Collections 12-2015 Redwood Highway/Save the Redwoods Movement Susie Van Kirk Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/svk Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Van Kirk, Susie, "Redwood Highway/Save the Redwoods Movement" (2015). Susie Van Kirk Papers. 25. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/svk/25 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Special Collections at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Susie Van Kirk Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REDWOOD HIGHWAY/SAVE THE REDWOODS MOVEMENT Research for State Parks project August 2013-April 2014 Engbeck, Joseph H., Jr., State Parks of California. 1980. Graphic Arts Center Publishing Co., Portland. Chapter 4. Save the Redwoods! Naturalists had explored the forests of the north coast region and some, including John Mur, were especially impressed by the extraordinary stand of redwoods alongside the South Fork of the Eel River at bull Creek and the nearby Dyerville Flat. These experts agreed that the coast redwood forest was at its magnificent best far to the north of San Francisco. Some authorities went so far as to say that the Bull Creek and Dyerville Flat area supported the most impressive and spectacular forest in the whole world…. In 1916 and 1917 several developments took place that would eventually have a profound impact on the north coast redwood region in general and the Bull Creek-Dyerville Flat area in particular.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Neogene and Quaternary Landscape Evolution of the Northern California Coast Ranges: Evidence for Mendocino Triple Junction Tectonics
    Late Neogene and Quaternary landscape evolution of the northern California Coast Ranges: Evidence for Mendocino triple junction tectonics Jane Lock† Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA Harvey Kelsey‡ Department of Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521, USA Kevin Furlong§ Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA Adam Woolace# Department of Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521, USA ABSTRACT the double-humped pattern of uplift and our understanding of the lithospheric forces subsidence migrates, and the Coast Ranges that have built the orogen, and recognizing the A landscape records the surface response emerge. Smaller drainages develop and tectonic signal recorded by the landscape. We to tectonics at time scales intermedi- evolve by stream capture and fl ow reversal, describe how the surface responds to tectonics ate between short time-scale information and the two main divides migrate in concert in northern California, and we use the tectonic derived from seismic imaging and global with the triple junction. In contrast to the signal contained in the landscape to test and positioning systems and the long-term geo- systematic development of the small streams, develop our understanding of the geodynamics. logic record. We link late Neogene and the largest trunk streams can maintain grade A variety of mechanisms has been proposed Quaternary deposits and landforms in the through regions of high uplift, and coastal to explain the timing of uplift of the northern northern California Coast Ranges to the tec- river mouths remain stationary despite the California Coast Ranges. Dumitru (1989), using tonics of the Mendocino triple junction.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 CERTIFIED for PUBLICATION in the COURT of APPEAL of the STATE of CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---CENTRAL
    Filed 1/5/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- CENTRAL COAST FOREST ASSOCIATION et al., C060569 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 07CS00851) v. OPINION ON REMAND FISH AND GAME COMMISSION, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Gail D. Ohanesian, Judge. (Retired judge of the Sacramento Super. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra Attorneys General, Mary E. Hackenbracht, Kathleen A. Kenealy and Robert W. Byrne, Assistant Attorneys General, Sara J. Russell, Gavin G. McCabe, Tara L. Mueller and Cecilia L. Dennis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant. Deborah A. Sivas, Robb W. Kapla and Molly Loughney for Environmental Law Clinic, Center for Biological Diversity, Turtle Island Restoration Network, California Trout, Central Coast Forest Watch and Lompico Watershed Conservancy as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Murphy & Buchal and James L. Buchal for Plaintiffs and Respondents. Damien M. Schiff and Anthony L. Francois for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents. 1 The California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq., hereafter CESA)1 provides that a wild, native, species may be added to or removed from the regulation listing endangered species by a finding of the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) based on scientific information from the Department of Fish and Wildlife (department).2 (§§ 2074.6, 2075.5.) The standard for adding a wild, native species is that it is in serious danger of extinction.
    [Show full text]
  • Eric Stockwell, ERRP Fall Chinook Project Coordinator
    Eel River Recovery Project Final Report: Citizen Assisted 2015-2016 Fall Chinook Salmon Monitoring Prepared for: Eel River Recovery Project By: Patrick Higgins, ERRP Managing Director & Eric Stockwell, ERRP Fall Chinook Project Coordinator With Funding From: Patagonia World Trout Initiative & Salmon Restoration Association Eel River Recovery Project: Final Report 2015-2016 Fall Chinook Salmon Monitoring July 2016 i Acknowledgements The Eel River Recovery Project (ERRP) faced challenging conditions in estimating the 2015- 2016 Eel River fall Chinook salmon run due to extremely low flows in early fall and then very high flows starting in December. ERRP wishes to thank the Wiyot Tribe and Humboldt Redwood Company for once again co-sponsoring the project. The project was made possible by grant funding provided by the Patagonia World Trout Initiative and the Salmon Restoration Association, which sponsors the World’s Largest Salmon BBQ in Fort Bragg. ERRP was assisted by dozens of volunteers who participated in lower Eel River dive surveys and in tracking fall Chinook migrations and spawning throughout the watershed. Only three dives were carried out from late October to mid-November in the lower river and only in the 12th Street Pool because of shallow depths, profuse algae and the risk of divers contracting swimmer’s itch. When November rains remained sparse, ERRP deployed kayaks for lower main Eel River spawning surveys. Results from the Van Arsdale Fish Station and aerial and ground surveys of spawning were shared by fisheries biologist Scott Harris of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Thanks go out to Park Steiner and PG&E (SEC 2016) for sharing spawning data from the upper Eel River and Tomki Creek, although the latter had no fish sightings this year.
    [Show full text]
  • ELK CONSERVATION and MANAGEMENT PLAN December 2018 CONTENTS
    ELK CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN December 2018 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 I. INTRODUCTION 10 A. Goals and Objectives 13 B. Taxonomy and Historical Distribution 15 C. Life History and Habitat 18 D. Distribution and Population Status Since 1970 22 E. Historical and Ongoing Management Efforts by the Department and California Tribes 30 II. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT 32 A. Adaptive Management 32 B. Population Monitoring 33 C. Population Viability and Genetic Diversity 36 D. Disease Surveillance 38 E. Co-Management with California Federally Recognized Tribes & Tribal Traditional Uses and Knowledge 40 F. Hunting 41 G. Depredation Response and Alleviation 43 H. Human Dimensions 44 2 III. UNRESOLVED MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND INFORMATION NEEDS 45 A. Key Uncertainties 45 B. Research Needs to Inform Management 49 IV. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 53 A. Strategy for Implementation and Evaluation 53 B. Priority Actions 53 V. PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 54 VI. LITERATURE CITED 55 VII. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS 66 VIII. LIST OF FIGURES and TABLES 67 IX. APPENDICES 68 3 FROM OUR DIRECTOR It is remarkable that in a state with nearly 40 million people, one of the largest, most iconic land mammals in North America is one of our most successful conservation stories. Elk, or Wapiti, meaning “ghost kings” as named by the Shawnee Indians due to the animals’ elusive behavior are coming back from a precipitous population decline. The Department of Fish and Wildlife is proud to present this adaptive, scientifically based management plan that considers the many challenges facing elk in the most populous state in the nation. We’ve come a long way.
    [Show full text]