DOCSLIB.ORG

Eel River Action Plan 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eel River Action Plan 2016 Eel River Forum THE EEL RIVER ACTION PLAN The mission of the Eel River Forum is to coordinate and integrate conservation and recovery efforts in A COMPILATION OF INFORMATION the Eel River watershed to conserve AND its ecological resilience, restore its RECOMMENDED ACTIONS native fish populations, and protect other watershed beneficial uses. These actions are also intended to PREPARED FOR enhance the economic vitality and THE EEL RIVER FORUM sustainability of human communities in the Eel River basin. PREPARED BY Charter Members EEL RIVER FORUM MEMBERS California Trout CA Department of Fish and Wildlife CA State Parks REVISED DRAFT Coastal Conservancy Eel River Recovery Project MARCH 2016 Eel River Watershed Improvement Group Environmental Protection Information Center Friends of the Eel River Friends of the Van Duzen River Humboldt County Resource Conservation District Mendocino County Resource Conservation District National Marine Fisheries Service North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Pacific Gas and Electric Company Potter Valley Irrigation District Round Valley Indian Tribe Salmonid Restoration Federation Sonoma County Water Agency US Bureau of Land Management US Fish and Wildlife Service US Forest Service Wiyot Tribe EEL RIVER ACTION PLAN FINAL REPORT 2016 2 | P a g e EEL RIVER ACTION PLAN FINAL REPORT 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 6 1: INTRODUCTION: THE EEL RIVER AND THE EEL RIVER FORUM ......................................................... 9 THE EEL RIVER WATERSHED ......................................................................................................................................... 11 CURRENT STATUS OF SALMONID POPULATIONS ............................................................................................................... 13 2: WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................... 16 SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE .............................................................................................................................................. 16 EEL RIVER HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................................................................ 16 LOW SUMMER STREAMFLOWS ...................................................................................................................................... 18 WATER POLICY AND REGULATIONS PROTECTING STREAMFLOWS ........................................................................................ 20 BRIEF SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... 22 PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR EEL RIVER FORUM .................................................................................................................... 22 3: WATER QUALITY ......................................................................................................................... 25 SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE .............................................................................................................................................. 25 SUMMARY OF CLEAN WATER ACT ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................................ 26 WATER TEMPERATURE ................................................................................................................................................ 26 ADDITIONAL IMPAIRMENTS ALUMINUM, DISSOLVED OXYGEN, AND MERCURY ..................................................................... 28 NUTRIENT ASSESSMENTS/STUDIES ................................................................................................................................ 28 CYANOBACTERIA (BLUE-GREEN ALGAE) ........................................................................................................................... 29 SURFACE WATER AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM (SWAMP) ....................................................................................... 30 EEL RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT (ERRP) .......................................................................................................................... 31 PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR EEL RIVER FORUM .................................................................................................................... 31 4: SEDIMENT IMPAIRMENT AND TMDL IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................. 33 SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE .............................................................................................................................................. 33 CALIFORNIA BOARD OF FORESTRY’S FOREST PRACTICE RULES ............................................................................................ 34 REGIONAL WATER BOARD TMDL IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................ 35 CURRENT STATUS OF SEDIMENT REDUCTION EFFORTS ...................................................................................................... 38 PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR EEL RIVER FORUM .................................................................................................................... 40 5: HABITAT RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT ............................................................................. 43 SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE .............................................................................................................................................. 43 CURRENT STATUS OF HABITAT RESTORATION PLANNING ................................................................................................... 44 PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR EEL RIVER FORUM .................................................................................................................... 46 6: THE EEL RIVER DELTA AND ESTUARY ............................................................................................ 47 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................. 47 HISTORICAL CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 50 CURRENT CONDITION IN THE ESTUARY ........................................................................................................................... 51 AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE DELTA-ESTUARY ................................................................................................................ 52 RESTORING THE EEL RIVER ESTUARY .............................................................................................................................. 52 BRIEF SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 53 PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR EEL RIVER FORUM .................................................................................................................... 54 7: THE POTTER VALLEY PROJECT ...................................................................................................... 56 SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE .............................................................................................................................................. 56 3 | P a g e EEL RIVER ACTION PLAN FINAL REPORT 2016 ANNUAL HYDROGRAPHS AND WATER VOLUMES .............................................................................................................. 59 BLOCK WATER ........................................................................................................................................................... 59 STATUS AND TRENDS OF FISHERY RESOURCES IN THE UPPER EEL RIVER ............................................................................... 62 PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR EEL RIVER FORUM .................................................................................................................... 64 ACTIONS IDENTIFIED BUT NOT AGREED UPON BY MEMBERS OF THE EEL RIVER FORUM.......................................................... 68 8: MONITORING .............................................................................................................................. 70 SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE .............................................................................................................................................. 70 STATUS OF FISHES IN THE EEL RIVER ............................................................................................................................... 74 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING ........................................................................................................................................... 78 HABITAT MONITORING ................................................................................................................................................ 81 CITIZEN BASED MONITORING ....................................................................................................................................... 83 PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR EEL RIVER FORUM CONSIDERATION ............................................................................................ 85 9: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION-SHARING
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]
  • Eel River Cooperative Cyanotoxin Analysis Summary 2013-2017
    Eel River Cooperative Cyanotoxin Analysis Summary 2013-2017 By: Eli Asarian and Patrick Higgins Edited by: Diane Higgins Performed for: The Eel River Recovery Project August 2018 Business Sponsors of ERRP Cyanotoxin Analysis Thanks to Individual Crowdfunding Donors and Those Who Contributed Off-line to Support ERRP Cyanotoxin Work: Barbara & David Sopjes Dr. Andrew Stubblefield Mary Power Ree Slocum Bill Dietrich Ben Middlemiss Dean & Sharon Edell Judy Schriebman Jack Crider Daron Pedroja Tim Talbert Gil Anda Ken Miller Will Parrish Dani Walthall Chris McBride Zane and Amanda Ruddy Christina Tran Brett Lovelace Sarah Ottley Ken Vance-Borland Karen & Scott Welsh Thomas Daugherty Pureum Kim Keith Bouma-Gregson Alex Christie Lee McClellan Matthew Amberg Charlie Liphart Eric Damon Walters April Mason Amy Collette Jason Hartwick Marissa Adams Kristin McDonald John Filce Carl Zichella Robert Leher Thanks also to experiment.com, our crowdfunding host that raises funds for scientific research throughout the World: https://experiment.com/projects/when-does-the-eel-river-turn-toxic- patterns-in-cyanotoxin-occurrence-2013-2016. This study was postponed a year so we could collect 2017 cyanotoxin data. Thanks for your patience. Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Background
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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___________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • 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 ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Are California'! Orth Coast River
    1u i A7 .( ARE CALIFORNIA'! I 19 ORTH COAST RIVER: On the Impacts 1 Of River Diversion Published in Arcata, California, 1982 Printing by Neuberg Photography & Printing Hayfork. California Available From: Rivers Paper - Northcoast Environmental Center 1091 H Street ,, Arcata, Calif. 9552 1 (707) 822-69 18 postal orders: $2°0/copy wholesale prices available 0 1982 .*. .. i ;(i,{.,~TVl ..' EASii.4 RESOURCE LIBRARY ARE CALIFORNIA'S NORTH COAST RIVERS REALLY "WASTING AWAY TO SEA?" By: Paul Bodin, Geologist William Brock, Fishery Biologist Phillip Buttolph, Estuarine Biologist Harvey KeIsey, GeoIogi st Thomas Lisle, Hydrologist Bruce Marcot, WlIdlife Biologist $amy Reichard, ~~drologis~ Robert ~Lnner.Plant Ecologist Table of Contents Preface .............................................1 Summary ............................................1 Introduction ..........................................2 The Potter Valley Project .................................3 The Proposed Dos Rios Diversion and the Existing Trinity Diversion: Project Descriptions .................3 Effects of Impoundment and Diversion on Sediment Transport ...........................4 Effects of a Dos Rios Dam on HiIIsIope Stability ................................9 Effects of Impoundment and Diversion on Fishery Resources ............................9 Potential Effects of the Dos Rios Project on the Middle Fork Eel River Fishery ...............10 Economic Evaluation of the Middle Fork Eel Fishery .............................11 Potential Effects of the Dos Rios Project on the
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]