DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FINAL REPORT EEL RIVER BASELINE TEMPERATURE MONITORING Submitted To: California Department of Fish and Game Agreement No. P0110546 Submitted By: The Humboldt County Resource Conservation District Gary L. Friedrichsen, Jacoby Creek Biologists, Project Director 2002-2003 Humboldt County Resource Conservation District 5630 South Broadway Eureka, Ca. 95503 (707) 444-9708 FAX (707) 442-7514 Working with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Eel River Temperature Monitoring Project (2002-2003) Humboldt County Resource Conservation District for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts Resource Conservation District Stream Temperature Assessment 2002 Overview Map B$ B$B$B$ B$ Humboldt Co. B$B$ B$ B$ B$B$B$B$B$B$B$ B$ B$B$ B$B$ B$ B$ Trinity Co. B$ B$B$B$ B$ B$ B$B$B$ B$B$ B$ B$B$ B$ B$B$B$B$B$B$B$ B$ B$ B$ B$ B$ B$ B$ B$B$ B$ B$ B$B$ B$ B$ B$ B$B$B$B$ B$ B$ B$B$ B$ B$ B$ B$ B$ B$ B$B$ B$ B$ B$ B$ B$ P B$ a c i B$ f B$B$ B$ i c Mendocino Co. O B$B$ B$B$B$ B$ c B$B$ B$B$ e B$ B$ Glenn Co. a B$B$ n B$ B$ B$ B$B$ B$ B$ B$ B$ B$ B$ B$ B$B$ B$ B$B$ B$B$B$ B$ B$ B$ B$ Lake Co. 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles MWAT Institute for Forest 10 - 14 and B$ Watershed Management B$ 14 - 16 N 16 - 18 Data Sources: B$ Hydrography -- USGS 500K Digital Line Graphs (DLG). B$ 18 - 20 MWAT -- IFWM Cooperator Stream Temperature Data 20 - 22 (Highest 7-day moving average of daily average). B$ B$ 22 - 24 B$ >24 Compiled by Scott Webb and David Lamphear Hydrography E-Mail: [email protected] February 2004 Major Rivers Homepage: www.humboldt.edu/~fsp Eel River Water Quality Monitoring Project (2002) 2 Humboldt County Resource Conservation District for the California Department of Fish and Game Agreement #P0110546 Table of Contents: Cover Topographic map of the Eel River watershed showing 2002 placements of temperature data loggers------------------------------------------------------- 2 Table of Contents----------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Overview and 2002-2003 Field Seasons---------------------------------------- 4 Protocols and Quality Control -------------------------------------------------- 4-5 List of Cooperators ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Estimated Cost Share and In-kind Contributions----------------------------- 6 Institute For Forest and Watershed Management Data Packages----------- 6-7 Stream Temperature Monitoring Site Report Explanation------------------- 7-8 Sub-basin Summary (Including Tables and Maps): Main Stem Eel River-------------------------------------------------------------- 8-11 South Fork Eel River------------------------------------------------------------- 12-13 Middle Fork Eel River----------------------------------------------------------- 14-15 North Fork Eel River------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Van Duzen River----------------------------------------------------------------- 16 MWAT Overview---------------------------------------------------------------- 17-22 Summary of the Three-Year Project: General Project Activity-------------------------------------------------------- 22 A. Cooperators--------------------------------------------------------- 24 B. Hardware, Software, and Deployment Issues------------------ 25 C. Sites and Site Selection ------------------------------------------ 25 D. Use of the Data ---------------------------------------------------- 26 E. Operations and Procedures --------------------------------------- 26-28 Appendices: (1) MWAT Comparison----------------------------------------------------------- 29-31 (2) IFWM Product Deliverables------------------------------------------------- 32-33 (3) Field Form---------------------------------------------------------------------- 34 Eel River Water Quality Monitoring Project (2002) 3 Humboldt County Resource Conservation District for the California Department of Fish and Game Agreement #P0110546 Overview The Humboldt County Resource Conservation District (HCRCD) has now completed eight field seasons (1996-2003) of temperature monitoring in the Eel River watershed. This report is the summation of the last two years of this multi-year project Stream temperature has been a concern in watersheds throughout the Pacific Northwest in relation to salmon and steelhead populations. The effects of past land use activities and potential future impacts to these watersheds have led to a number of regulatory actions that are intended to mitigate the adverse affects of increased temperatures. Restoration activities and resource extraction need to be designed after scientifically based assessment and monitoring is in place. With the advent of relatively inexpensive continuous temperature recorders, such as the “Onset” HoboTemp series, temperature monitoring has been shown to be one of the most cost effective tools available to land use managers for accessing present conditions and health of existing fisheries and other constituents of the aquatic habitat. Monitoring protocols developed over the past few years by researchers in government and the resource industry have been refined and completed by the Institute for Forest and Watershed Management (IFWM) at Humboldt State University. They provide a sound scientific basis for gauge deployment and data management. (See appendix 2) In general, the study involved the placement and retrieval of temperature data loggers in upwards to two hundred locations throughout the Eel River’s 3,684 square mile watershed. After logger retrieval, the data was downloaded, archived in summary form, and made available to all “stake holders”. Many cooperators have assisted the HCRCD these past two years in accomplishing this very large project and our thanks to them, especially the California Department of Fish and Game, cannot be overstated. The real success of this project is being realized as researchers, watershed stewards, and landowners alike use this large data set to probe the health of the Eel River. Information gathered from the first two years of this study is presently being used by many of the Eel Rivers “share holders” including California Department of Fish and Game, researchers at the University of California (Berkeley), Redwood State Park, Trout Unlimited, Eel River Salmon Restoration, and several private landowners. Protocols and Quality Control In an effort to standardize fieldwork and logger accuracy with regard to stream temperature monitoring, the HCRCD has adopted the protocols as set forth by the IFWM at Humboldt State University. These protocols were designed with assistance from the Fish, Farms, and Forest Communities Technical Committee and adaptations from similar protocols in Washington and Oregon. Quality control tests were run on all HCRCD temperature data loggers prior to the field season. Results of these tests are available for review but are so voluminous they are not included here. The tests were conducted in the following manner. June 17, 2002 and May 23, 2003 the data loggers were “launched”, placed in a cooler and left for three hours. Gauges were then down loaded and checked for relative accuracy. This test proved to be very accurate with regard to the NIST traceable thermometer as temperatures “flat lined” for at least an hour. This type of procedure, without ice, tests the gauges in a relatively close thermal unit as encountered with the field Eel River Water Quality Monitoring Project (2002) 4 Humboldt County Resource Conservation District for the California Department of Fish and Game Agreement #P0110546 deployment. All gauges responded positively to this test and random sampling of gauge accuracy was found to be within the manufacturer’s specifications (+/-1 degree C). Cooperators Cooperators in the Eel River Temperature Monitoring Program for 2002 and the 2003 field seasons included: Pacific Lumber Company- SCOPAC, Scotia, CA. Robert Darby Barnum Timber, Arcata, CA. Robert Barnum University of California, Berkley Nature Center (Elder Creek). Camille McNeely, Peter Steele Mendocino Water Agency, Ukiah, CA. Dennis Slota California State Parks, North Coast Redwoods, Dyerville Section, Weott, CA. Rocco Fiori California Department of Fish and Game, Fortuna, CA. Trevor Tollefson California Department of Fish and Game, Willits, CA. Scott Harris Eel River Salmonid Restoration Project, Bill Eastwood and Harry Vaughn U.S. Forest Service, Eureka Field Office, Adam Dresser, Andrew Bundshu U.S. Forest Service, Covelo Ranger District, Covelo, CA. Round Valley Tribe, Covelo, CA. Skip Thompson, Warren Mitchell Kyle Keegan and Jack Monskie Assorted private landowners: Tom Long Road Association Many of the above cooperators have obtained their own gauges for internal studies and share their data with the HCRCD for this compilation. In addition to their own gauges the HCRCD loans out additional loggers to help cooperators extend their studies. The combined total of loggers successfully retrieved, downloaded and archived by these cooperators provides the HCRCD much better sampling coverage. Results of the 2002 and 2003 field seasons are presented with little discussion as this project was designed to coordinate the deployment of temperature data loggers and compile results. Attempts to interpret findings are beyond the scope of this project. Therefore, there will be no analysis provided here outside noting trends when evident. Each of the major sub-basins (Mainstem, South Fork, North Fork, Middle Fork, and Van Duzen) are treated independently and data are grouped to define the general progressive heating
Recommended publications
  • Final Upper Main Eel River and Tributaries (Including

    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.
  • Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus Kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report

    Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus Kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report

    Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission in partnership with the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Humboldt Redwood Company Summary Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Restoration Grant Program Grantee Agreement: P1210516 Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report Prepared by: David Lam and Sharon Powers December 2016 Abstract Monitoring of coho salmon population spatial structure was conducted, as a component of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Coastal Salmonid Monitoring Program, in the lower Eel River and its tributaries, inclusive of the Van Duzen River, in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Potential coho salmon habitat within the lower Eel River and Van Duzen River study areas was segmented into a sample frame of 204 one-to-three kilometer stream survey reaches. Annually, a randomly selected subset of sample frame stream reaches was monitored by direct observation. Using mask and snorkel, surveyors conducted two independent pass dive observations to estimate fish species presence and numbers. A total of 211 surveys were conducted on 163 reaches, with 2,755 pools surveyed during the summers of 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Coho salmon were observed in 13.5% of reaches and 7.5% of pools surveyed, and the percent of the study area occupied by coho salmon juveniles was estimated at 7% in 2013 and 2014, 3% in 2015, and 4% in 2016. i Table of Contents Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................
  • 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Opens a New Window

    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.
  • Eel River Cooperative Cyanotoxin Analysis Summary 2013-2017

    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
  • Sedimentation of Lake Pillsbury Lake County California

    Sedimentation of Lake Pillsbury Lake County California

    Sedimentation of Lake Pillsbury Lake County California GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1619-EE Prepared in cooperation with the State of California Department of fFater Resources Sedimentation of Lake Pillsbury Lake County California By G. PORTERFIELD and C. A. DUNNAM CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1619-EE Prepared in cooperation with the State of California Department of fFater Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1964 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 Paw Abstract___________________________________________ EEl Introduction._____________________________________________________ 2 Location and general features--___-__-____-_-_-_---__--_--_---_- 2 Purpose and scope_____________________________________________ 2 Acknowledgments ________________'__________________--_-_______ 2 Drainage basin.___________________________________________________ 3 Physiography and soils.._______________________________________ 3 Climate ______________________________________________________ 4 Vegetation__ _--_-_____________-_-___---___-----__-_-_-_-____ 5 Dam and reservoir_____-__-__-_____________-______-___-_-__-_-_-_ 5 Dam_________________________________________________________ 5 Datum.______________________________________________________ 7 Reservoir___________________________________________________
  • Thirsty Eel Oct. 11-Corrections

    Thirsty Eel Oct. 11-Corrections

    1 THE THIRSTY EEL: SUMMER AND WINTER FLOW THRESHOLDS THAT TILT THE EEL 2 RIVER OF NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA FROM SALMON-SUPPORTING TO 3 CYANOBACTERIALLY-DEGRADED STATES 4 5 In press, Special Volume, Copeia: Fish out of Water Symposium 6 Mary E. Power1, 7 Keith Bouma-Gregson 2,3 8 Patrick Higgins3, 9 Stephanie M. Carlson4 10 11 12 13 14 1. Department of Integrative Biology, Univ. California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720; Email: 15 [email protected] 16 17 2. Department of Integrative Biology, Univ. California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720; Email: 18 [email protected]> 19 20 3. Eel River Recovery Project, Garberville CA 95542 www.eelriverrecovery.org; Email: 21 [email protected] 22 23 4. Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 24 94720; Email: [email protected] 25 26 27 Running head: Discharge-mediated food web states 28 29 Key words: cyanobacteria, discharge extremes, drought, food webs, salmonids, tipping points 30 31 Although it flows through regions of Northwestern California that are thought to be relatively well- 32 watered, the Eel River is increasingly stressed by drought and water withdrawals. We discuss how critical 33 threshold changes in summer discharge can potentially tilt the Eel from a recovering salmon-supporting 34 ecosystem toward a cyanobacterially-degraded one. To maintain food webs and habitats that support 35 salmonids and suppress harmful cyanobacteria, summer discharge must be sufficient to connect mainstem 36 pools hydrologically with gently moving, cool base flow. Rearing salmon and steelhead can survive even 37 in pools that become isolated during summer low flows if hyporheic exchange is sufficient.
  • An Estimation of Potential Salmonid Habitat Capacity in the Upper Mainstem Eel River, California

    An Estimation of Potential Salmonid Habitat Capacity in the Upper Mainstem Eel River, California

    AN ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL SALMONID HABITAT CAPACITY IN THE UPPER MAINSTEM EEL RIVER, CALIFORNIA By Emily Jeanne Cooper A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Natural Resources: Environmental and Natural Resource Science Committee Membership Dr. Alison O’Dowd, Committee Chair Dr. James Graham, Committee Member Dr. Darren Ward, Committee Member Dr. Alison O’Dowd, Graduate Coordinator May 2017 ABSTRACT AN ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL SALMONID HABITAT CAPACITY IN THE UPPER MAINSTEM EEL RIVER, CALIFORNIA Emily Jeanne Cooper In Northern California’s Eel River watershed, the two dams that make up the Potter Valley Project (PVP) restrict the distribution and production of anadromous salmonids, and current populations of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead trout (O. mykiss) in the upper mainstem Eel River are in need of recovery. In anticipation of the upcoming FERC relicensing of the PVP, this project provides an estimation of the extent of potential salmonid habitat and its capacity for steelhead trout and Chinook Salmon in the upper mainstem Eel River watershed above the impassable Scott Dam. Using three fish passage scenarios, potential Chinook Salmon habitat was estimated between 89-127 km (55-79 mi) for spawning and rearing; potential steelhead trout habitat was estimated between 318-463 km (198-288 mi) for spawning and between 179-291 km (111-181 mi) for rearing. Rearing habitat capacity was modeled with the Unit Characteristic Method, which used surrogate fish density values specific to habitat units (i.e. pools, riffles, runs) that were adjusted by measured habitat conditions.
  • Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Eureka Area Humboldt County, California

    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________________________________________
  • Salmonid Habitat and Population Capacity Estimates for Steelhead Trout and Chinook Salmon Upstream of Scott Dam in the Eel River, California

    Salmonid Habitat and Population Capacity Estimates for Steelhead Trout and Chinook Salmon Upstream of Scott Dam in the Eel River, California

    Emily J. Cooper1, Alison P. O’Dowd, and James J. Graham, Humboldt State University, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, California 95521 Darren W. Mierau, California Trout, 615 11th Street, Arcata, California 95521 William J. Trush, Humboldt State University, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, California 95521 and Ross Taylor, Ross Taylor and Associates, 1660 Central Avenue # B, McKinleyville, California 95519 Salmonid Habitat and Population Capacity Estimates for Steelhead Trout and Chinook Salmon Upstream of Scott Dam in the Eel River, California Abstract Estimating salmonid habitat capacity upstream of a barrier can inform priorities for fisheries conservation. Scott Dam in California’s Eel River is an impassable barrier for anadromous salmonids. With Federal dam relicensing underway, we demonstrated recolonization potential for upper Eel River salmonid populations by estimating the potential distribution (stream-km) and habitat capacity (numbers of parr and adults) for winter steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and fall Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) upstream of Scott Dam. Removal of Scott Dam would support salmonid recovery by increasing salmonid habitat stream-kms from 2 to 465 stream-km for steelhead trout and 920 to 1,071 stream-km for Chinook salmon in the upper mainstem Eel River population boundaries, whose downstream extents begin near Scott Dam and the confluence of South Fork Eel River, respectively. Upstream of Scott Dam, estimated steelhead trout habitat included up to 463 stream-kms for spawning and 291 stream-kms for summer rearing; estimated Chinook salmon habitat included up to 151 stream-kms for both spawning and rearing. The number of returning adult estimates based on historical count data (1938 to 1975) from the South Fork Eel River produced wide ranges for steelhead trout (3,241 to 26,391) and Chinook salmon (1,057 to 10,117).
  • Initial Study Report for FERC Projects

    Initial Study Report for FERC Projects

    Potter Valley Project FERC Project No. 77 Initial Study Report September 2020 ©2020, Potter Valley Project Notice of Intent Parties California Trout Humboldt County Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Round Valley Indian Tribes Sonoma County Water Agency This Page Intentionally Left Blank POTTER VALLEY PROJECT NOTICE OF INTENT PARTIES Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 77 Initial Study Report September 2020 ©2020, Potter Valley Project Notice of Intent Parties California Trout Humboldt County Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Round Valley Indian Tribes Sonoma County Water Agency This Page Intentionally Left Blank Potter Valley Project, FERC Project No. 77 Initial Study Report TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 FERC Requirements for Proposed Modification to Approved Studies and New Studies .................................................................................................... 1-4 SECTION 2.0 STATUS OF FERC-APPROVED STUDIES AND PROPOSED STUDY MODIFICATIONS .............................................. 2-1 2.1 AQ 1 – Hydrology .......................................................................................... 2-3 2.2 AQ 2 – Water Temperature ........................................................................... 2-5 2.3 AQ 3 – Water Quality ...................................................................................
  • Are California'! Orth Coast River

    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
  • Appendix L Wild and Scenic River Evaluation

    Appendix L Wild and Scenic River Evaluation

    APPENDIX L WILD AND SCENIC RIVER EVALUATION INTRODUCTION Congress passed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 to preserve riverine systems that contain certain exceptionally outstanding features such as scenery, recreation, geology, fish and wildlife, historic and cultural resources. Selected rivers and their immediate environments are to be preserved in a free flowing condition and are to be managed for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. In October 1979, an Environmental Message from the President directed the Department of the Interior (USDI) to inventory all potential Wild and Scenic rivers and directed agencies to assess the suitability of the inventoried rivers for additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) was conducted by the Heritage, Conservation and Recreation Service, USDI (now the National Park Service). The Middle Fork of the Eel River, which originates on the Mendocino National Forest, was the only river on the Mendocino National Forest included on the preliminary (Phase I) NRI in 1980. In January 1981, the Secretary of the Interior designated five California rivers as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System under Section 2 (a) (il) of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The lower 23.5 miles of the Middle Fork of the Eel River was included in this designation and is currently managed as a Wild River. The upper 14.5 miles, which includes the headwaters of the Middle Fork of the Eel River, had not been analyzed for designation. This upper segment lies within the Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness.