DOCSLIB.ORG

Experimental and Field Studies to Assess Pulsed, Water Flow Impacts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Experimental and Field Studies to Assess Pulsed, Water Flow Impacts Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor EXPERIMENTAL AND FIELD STUDIES TO ASSESS PULSED, WATER FLOW IMPACTS ON THE BEHAVIOR AND DISTRIBUTION OF FISHES IN THE SOUTH FORK OF THE AMERICAN RIVER EPORT R ONSULTANT Prepared For: California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research Program PIER C Prepared By: University of California, Davis March 2007 CEC-500-2005-172 Prepared By: University of California, Davis Principal Investigators: A. Peter Klimley, Ph.D. Joseph J. Cech, Jr., Ph.D. Lisa C. Thompson, Ph.D. Researchers: Sarah Hamilton Stephanie Chun Davis, California Contract No. 500-01-044 Prepared For: California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program Douglas E. Conklin, Ph.D. Contract Manager Joseph O’Hagan Program Area Team Lead Martha Krebs, Ph. D. Deputy Director ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION B.B. Blevins Executive Director DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. Acknowledgments We would like to thank many people for their help and guidance: Dennis Cocherell, Justin Graham, Dan Kratville, Javier Miranda, Gardner Jones, and Brian Hodge, from UC Davis who assisted and carried out much of the laboratory and field work. Ayako Kawabata, Max Fish, Leslie Kanemoto, Teresa MacColl, Rebecca Isquith, Ivonne Ortiz, Naoaki Ikemiyagi, Peter Allen, Anne Berg, Pat Crain, Peggy Davis, Debbie Elliott-Fisk, Pam Garcia, Emma Grigg, Erik Hallen, Jock Hamilton, Adam Hayashi, Joe Heublein, Carson Jeffries, Michael Karagosian, Levent Kavvas, John Kelly, Marjie Kirkman-Iverson, Paul Lutes, Karen Mabry, Jeff Mount, Peter Moyle, Kathy Stroud, Dirk Van Vuren, Mitchell Watnick, and James Wilson of UC Davis provided help at various stages of the study. Roger Bloom, Stafford Lehr, Glenn Sibbald, and Terry Smith of the Department of Fish and Game assisted us in obtaining our research permits and in-field discussions. Thomas Meckfessel from Clavey River Equipment helped us select rafting equipment while Henry Tam at Lotek Wireless provided technical guidance in our choice of radio transmitters. Beth Chasnoff, Tyler Gordon, Becky Riley, Noel Fruchtenicht from Outdoor Adventures, and Sam Drevo of Northwest River Guides trained us in rafting and safety techniques. Bill and Robin Center at Camp Lotus shared their knowledge of the American River with us. The Gold Rush rafting company, Mark Gibson from the Marshall Gold State Park, and the Gorilla Rock property steward allowed us to launch and/or remove our raft from the American River. Dennis Redfern from the American River Trout Hatchery supplied hatchery-raised trout and Tim Salamunovich of Thomas Payne and Associates assisted us with bank measurements for our laboratory studies. Dave Hanson, Pat Klein, and Sacramento Municipal Utility District provided information on creeks that were scheduled for pulsed flows, assisted with fieldwork at Silver Creek, and provided flow data for Camino Dam releases to Silver Creek. Funding for the analysis of water quality of Silver Creek was provided by the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Analytical Laboratory on the UC Davis campus. Finally, we would like to express our thanks to Douglas Conklin, Paciencia Young, and the Pulsed Flow Program Management team, the Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER) of the California Energy Commission, the Division of Water Rights of the State Water Resources Control Board, and the United States Bureau of Land Management. Please cite this report as follows: Klimley, A. P., J. J. Cech, Jr., L. C. Thompson, S. Hamilton, and S. Chun. 2007. Experimental and Field Studies to Assess Pulsed, Water Flow Impacts on the Behavior and Distribution of Fishes in the South Fork of the American River. University of California, Davis, for the California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-172. i Preface The Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program supports public interest energy research and development that will help improve the quality of life in California by bringing environmentally safe, affordable, and reliable energy services and products to the marketplace. The PIER Program, managed by the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) conducts public interest research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects to benefit the electricity and natural gas ratepayers of California. The Energy Commission awards up to $62 million annually in electricity-related RD&D, and up to $12 million annually for natural gas RD&D. The PIER program strives to conduct the most promising public interest energy research by partnering with RD&D organizations, including individuals, business, utilities, and public or private research institutions. PIER finding efforts are focused on the following six RD&D program areas: x Buildings End-Use Energy Efficiency x Industrial/Agricultural/Water End-Use Energy Efficiency x Renewable Energy Technologies x Environmentally Preferred Advanced Generation x Energy-Related Environmental Research x Energy Systems Integration Experimental and Field Studies to Assess Pulsed, Water Flow Impacts on the Behavior and Distribution of Fishes in the South Fork of the American River is the year one report for Contract 500-01-044, conducted by the University of California, Davis. The information from this project contributes to PIER’s Energy Systems Integration program area. For more information on the PIER Program, please visit the Energy Commission’s website at: www.energy.ca.gov/pier or contact the Energy Commission at 9l6-654-5164. ii Table of Contents Preface.................................................................................................................................................. ii Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... xi Executive Summary........................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 6 1.1. Background ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.1.1. Longitudinal Displacement ..................................................................................... 6 1.1.2. Lateral Displacement................................................................................................ 7 1.2. Project Objectives ........................................................................................................... 8 1.3. Report Organization ...................................................................................................... 8 2.0 Project Approach ................................................................................................................. 9 2.1. Field Studies.................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1. Study Sites.................................................................................................................. 9 2.1.2. Fish Collection ...........................................................................................................18 2.1.3. Radio Tracking .......................................................................................................... 20 2.1.4. Snorkel Survey and VIE Marking........................................................................... 24 2.1.5. Laboratory Studies.................................................................................................... 27 3.0 Project Outcomes................................................................................................................. 43 3.1. Field Studies.................................................................................................................... 43 3.1.1. Radio Tracking Results ............................................................................................ 43 3.1.2. Snorkel Survey and VIE Marking Results ............................................................. 51 3.2. Laboratory Studies......................................................................................................... 60 3.2.1. Experiments in Longitudinal Flume ...................................................................... 60 3.2.2. Experiments in Lateral Displacement Flume........................................................ 68 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................. 75 4.1. Field Studies.................................................................................................................... 75 4.1.1. Radio-telemetry in South Fork of the American River.......................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTI8 SMITH, DIEECTOE WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 296 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA PART II. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OP JOHN C. HOYT BY B. D. WOOD In cooperation with the State Water Commission and the Conservation Commission of the State of California WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1912 NOTE. A complete list of the gaging stations maintained in the San Joaquin River basin from 1888 to July 1, 1912, is presented on pages 100-102. 2 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS IN SAN JOAQUIN RIYER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. By B. D. WOOD. INTRODUCTION. This gazetteer is the second of a series of reports on the* surf ace waters of California prepared by the United States Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the State of California as repre­ sented by the State Conservation Commission, George C. Pardee, chairman; Francis Cuttle; and J. P. Baumgartner, and by the State Water Commission, Hiram W. Johnson, governor; Charles D. Marx, chairman; S. C. Graham; Harold T. Powers; and W. F. McClure. Louis R. Glavis is secretary of both commissions. The reports are to be published as Water-Supply Papers 295 to 300 and will bear the fol­ lowing titles: 295. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part I, Sacramento River basin. 296. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part II, San Joaquin River basin. 297. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part III, Great Basin and Pacific coast streams. 298. Water resources of California, Part I, Stream measurements in the Sacramento River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Fish and Game Commission Designated Wild Trout Waters
    The following waters are designated by the Commission as "wild trout waters": 1. American River, North Fork, from Palisade Creek downstream to Iowa Hill Bridge (Placer County). 2. Carson River, East Fork, upstream from confluence with Wolf Creek excluding tributaries (Alpine County). 3. Clavey River, upstream from confluence with Tuolumne River excluding tributaries (Tuolumne County). 4. Fall River, from Pit No. 1 powerhouse intake upstream to origin at Thousand Springs including Spring Creek, but excluding all other tributaries (Shasta County). 5. Feather River, Middle Fork, from Oroville Reservoir upstream to Sloat vehicle bridge, excluding tributaries (Butte and Plumas counties). 6. Hat Creek, from Lake Britton upstream to Hat No. 2 powerhouse (Shasta County). 7. Hot Creek, from Hot Springs upstream to west property line of Hot Creek Ranch (Mono County). 8. Kings River, from Pine Flat Lake upstream to confluence with South and Middle forks excluding tributaries (Fresno County). 9. Kings River, South Fork, from confluence with Middle Fork upstream to western boundary of Kings Canyon National Park excluding tributaries (Fresno County). 10. Merced River, South Fork, from confluence with mainstem Merced River upstream to western boundary of Yosemite National Park excluding tributaries (Mariposa County). 11. Nelson Creek, upstream from confluence with Middle Fork Feather River excluding tributaries (Plumas County). 12. Owens River, from Five Bridges crossing upstream to Pleasant Valley Dam excluding tributaries (Inyo County). 13. Rubicon River, from confluence with Middle Fork American River upstream to Hell Hole Dam excluding tributaries (Placer County). 14. Yellow Creek, from Big Springs downstream to confluence with the North Fork of the Feather River (Plumas County).
    [Show full text]
  • Floods in Northern California, January 1997
    science for a changing world &2CV FLOODS IN NORTHERN fl' CALIFORNIA, JANUARY 1997 Photo by John Trotter, Jan.4, 1997/Sacramento Bee Photo: The community of Olivehurst was inundated with water after a levee failed on the Feather River INTRODUCTION Flooding in California in recent years has been increased evaporation from the warmer surface water. attributed mostly to climate conditions referred to as the The result is an increase in the number and intensity of "El Nino" effect. However, floods in California also have storms. La Nina, characterized by colder than average been associated with other climate conditions (table 1). ocean temperatures, does not entirely prevent storms of The flood of January 1997 occurred during a weak "La sufficient precipitation to cause flooding in California. Nina" or near-normal (average) climate condition (U.S. Precipitation in the Sierra Nevada mountain range Department of Commerce, 1997). These climate produced an above-normal snowpack and saturated conditions are based on sea-surface water temperatures soils during November and December 1996. A series of and trade-wind velocities in the Pacific Ocean. storms from December 29, 1996, through January 4, Precipitation from storms during any climate condition 1997. brought heavy and relatively warm precipitation generally increases with orographic uplift as the storms across much of California. Precipitation totals of up to move easterly across the mountains of California. 24 inches were recorded for the week. Virtually all of During El Nino, trade winds diminish, and upwelling of this precipitation was rain because temperatures were colder water in the ocean is inhibited along the Pacific above freezing at elevations as high as about 9,000 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild and Scenic Rivers: Status of Evaluations and Comprehensive River Management Plans C-1
    National Forests in the Sierra Nevada: A Conservation Strategy Appendix C: Wild and Scenic Rivers: Status of Evaluations and Comprehensive River Management Plans C-1 APPENDIX C WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS: STATUS OF EVALUATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE RIVER MANAGEMENT PLANS Eldorado National Forest The planning record shows that a comprehensive eligibility evaluation was part of the 1988 Eldorado Forest Plan, although suitability studies and recommendations were not completed for several eligible streams. The Plan/ROD recommended a segment of the Rubicon River for designation, found eligible but did not recommend the North and Middle Forks of the Cosumnes River, and deferred the suitability determination of the eligible segments of the North Fork Mokelumne upstream of Salt Springs Reservoir to the Stanislaus Forest Plan (which subsequently recommended the upper segment). The North Fork Mokelumne below Salt Springs was studied in a separate EIS. This separate study/EIS was published in 1994, recommending 6.5 miles of the North Fork for designation, but not recommending another 10.5 miles further downstream due to a perceived conflict with the potential Devil’s Nose dam project. In response to appeals (see decision for appeals #89-13-00-0008 and 0016, dated 7/16/91), the Forest Service agreed to consider eligibility of additional rivers. In a letter dated 3/3/98, the Forest found 11 additional streams to be eligible. In addition, the appeals decision remanded the Forest Plan decision not to recommend segments of the North and Middle Forks of the Cosumnes River and the Forest was directed to reevaluate the suitability of the river segments in either a plan amendment or project level NEPA analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetics of Central Valley O. Mykiss Populations: Drainage and Watershed Scale Analyses
    Genetics of Central Valley O. mykiss populations: drainage and watershed scale analyses Jennifer L. Nielsen, Scott A. Pavey, Talia Wiacek, and Ian Williams U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center [email protected] ABSTRACT Genetic variation at 11 microsatellite loci described population genetic structure for Oncorhynchus mykiss in the Central Valley, California. Spatial and temporal variation was examined as well as rela- tionships between hatchery and putative natural spawning anadromous stocks. Genetic diversity was analyzed at two distinct spatial scales: fine-scale within drainage for five populations on Clear Creek; between and among drainage diversity for 23 populations. Significant regional spatial structure was apparent, both within Clear Creek and among rainbow trout populations throughout the Central Valley. Significant differences in allelic frequencies were found among most river or drainage systems. Less than 1% of the molecular variance could be attributed to differences found between drainages. Hatch- ery populations were shown to carry similar genetic diversity to geographically proximate wild popula- tions. Central Valley M = 0.626 (below the M < 0.68 threshold) supported recent population reductions within the Central Valley. However, average estimated effective population size was relatively high (Ne = 5066). Significant allelic differences were found in rainbow trout collected above and below impass- able dams on the American, Yuba, Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers. Rainbow trout sampled in Spring Creek were extremely bottlenecked with allelic variation at only two loci and an estimated effective population size of 62, suggesting some local freshwater O. mykiss stocks may be declining rapidly. These data support significant genetic population structure for steelhead and rainbow trout populations within the Central Valley across multiple scales.
    [Show full text]
  • Final 070313, YSS Landscape Strategy
    Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions Collaborative Landscape Strategy March 2013 Picture Descriptions, clockwise from top right Top right – California spotted owls Next right –Mi-Wok Ranger District Smaller right – Faust Cabin Meadow, Mi-Wok Ranger District Bottom right – Clavey River Center bottom – Clavey River Lower left – Small logs, Granite Stewardship, Groveland Ranger District Smaller left – California mule deer Upper left – Overly dense ponderosa pine plantation, 1987 Stanislaus Complex, Mi-Wok Ranger District Backdrop – Recently thinned forest with pine regeneration and varied habitat i Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions Collaborative Landscape Strategy Executive Summary Of all the natural areas in America, the Yosemite region is known worldwide for the scenic beauty of its mountain landscape and for its snowmelt-driven waterfalls. Over four million people visit Yosemite National Park each year, and millions more benefit from recreation in the nearby lands of the Stanislaus National Forest and Bureau of Land Management. Countless people in the San Francisco Bay Area and the Central Valley depend upon the Yosemite region as a prolific source of pure, fresh water. The area is truly iconic in many ways. And yet, this broad region west and northwest of Yosemite National Park is also unique for having suffered intensely through massive wildfires that have significantly degraded the ecosystem and damaged important watershed values. This region is the Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions Collaborative Landscape Area (YSS Landscape). Naturally, the region features dry foothill grasslands and chaparral that rise up into oak woodlands and then into moist conifer forests. Over recent decades, however, epic wildfire conflagrations have consumed vast areas of the forest habitat and have set back natural processes outside of the range of natural variability.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical and Present Distribution of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California
    Historical and Present Distribution of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California Ronald M. Yoshiyama, Eric R. Gerstung, Frank W. Fisher, and Peter B. Moyle Abstract Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) formerly were highly abundant and widely distributed in virtually all the major streams of California’s Central Valley drainage—encompassing the Sacramento River basin in the north and San Joaquin River basin in the south. We used information from historical narratives and ethnographic accounts, fishery records and locations of in-stream natural barriers to determine the historical distributional limits and, secondarily, to describe at least qualitatively the abundances of chinook salmon within the major salmon-producing Central Valley watersheds. Indi- vidual synopses are given for each of the larger streams that histori- cally supported or currently support salmon runs. In the concluding section, we compare the historical distributional limits of chinook salmon in Central Valley streams with present-day distributions to estimate the reduction of in-stream salmon habitat that has resulted from human activities—namely, primarily the con- struction of dams and other barriers and dewatering of stream reaches. We estimated that at least 1,057 mi (or 48%) of the stream lengths historically available to salmon have been lost from the origi- nal total of 2,183 mi in the Central Valley drainage. We included in these assessments all lengths of stream that were occupied by salmon, whether for spawning and holding or only as migration cor- ridors. In considering only spawning and holding habitat (in other words, excluding migration corridors in the lower rivers), the propor- tionate reduction of the historical habitat range was far more than 48% and probably exceeded 72% because most of the former spawn- ing and holding habitat was located in upstream reaches that are now inaccessible for salmon.
    [Show full text]
  • 7.8 Recreation Resources
    Yuba County Water Agency Yuba River Development Project FERC Project No. 2246 7.8 Recreation Resources 7.8.1 Overview This section provides information regarding existing recreation opportunities related to Yuba County Water Agency’s (YCWA or Licensee) Yuba River Development Project (Project). Sections 7.8.2 and 7.8.3 provide information regarding opportunities at Project facilities and features and in river reaches potentially affected by the Project, respectively. Section 7.8.4 provides information regarding recreation use levels and occupancy rates at recreation facilities in the Project Area.1 Section 7.8.5 describes recreation needs identified in pertinent resource management plans. Section 7.8.6 lists other regionally or nationally significant recreation areas in the Project Vicinity.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas and National Scenic Trails are discussed in the Land Use section of this Preliminary Information Package (Section 7.9.2.8). River segments listed by the United States Department of Interior (USDOI) National Park Service’s (NPS) Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) are also discussed in the Land Use section. Other relevant information discussed in the Land Use section includes: 1) Licensee’s existing shoreline buffer zone policy; and 2) Licensee’s existing policy regarding permitting of piers, boat docks and landings, bulkheads, and other shoreline facilities on Project reservoirs and land (Section 7.9.3). 7.8.2 Existing Project Recreation Facilities and Opportunities Recreation facilities and opportunities in the Project Vicinity are discussed below, and are shown on the 1:24,000 series maps included in Appendix D of this Preliminary Information Package.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.3 Tuolumne River System and Downstream Water Bodies
    5.3 Tuolumne River System and Downstream Water Bodies 5.3 Tuolumne 5.3 River 5. WSIP Water Supply and System Operations – Setting and Impacts 5.3 Tuolumne River System and Downstream Water Bodies Section 5.3 Subsections 5.3.1 Stream Flow and Reservoir Water Levels 5.3.2 Geomorphology 5.3.3 Surface Water Quality 5.3.4 Surface Water Supplies 5.3.5 Groundwater 5.3.6 Fisheries 5.3.7 Terrestrial Biological Resources 5.3.8 Recreational and Visual Resources 5.3.9 Energy Resources (References included under each section) 5.3.1 Stream Flow and Reservoir Water Levels The following setting section describes the streams and reservoirs in the Tuolumne River watershed and downstream that could be affected by the WSIP. The impact section (Section 5.3.1.2) provides a description of the changes in stream flow and reservoir water levels that would result from implementation of the WSIP. 5.3.1.1 Setting The Tuolumne River flows from the crest of the Sierra Nevada westward to its confluence with the San Joaquin River. The San Joaquin River flows north to the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Water from the Delta discharges to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and the Pacific Ocean. Surface water bodies in the Tuolumne River system that could be affected by the proposed program include the Tuolumne River, Cherry Creek, Eleanor Creek, and a quarter-mile reach of Moccasin Creek. Several reservoirs could be affected by the WSIP, including Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, Lake Lloyd, Lake Eleanor, and Don Pedro Reservoir. Because the Tuolumne River drains to the San Joaquin River and the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, these water bodies could also be affected by the WSIP.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    SIERRA WATERSHED COMMUNITY DIRECTORY SEPTEMBER 2008 Table of Contents Introduction – 2 Sierra Watershed Map – 4 List of Watershed Efforts by Group Type – 5 List of Watershed Efforts by Watershed – 6 Sierra Nevada Alliance Watersheds Program – 7 Directory – 8 1 Introduction The following is a directory of watershed councils, organizations, coordinated resource management processes, and conservation groups that work to conserve, protect, and restore watershed health in the Sierra Nevada. The Sierra Nevada Alliance prepared this directory to assist watershed groups, agencies and others in locating watershed groups in the Sierra Nevada and learning more about what watershed work is happening in the region. We work to build capacity of conservation organizations in the Sierra and want to keep in touch with each active watershed group in the region. In other words, we want to stay in touch. Please send any changes to the Sierra Nevada Alliance and we will update our website and future additions. The main directory is listed in alphabetical order by group name. If you do not know the name of the group you are looking for, but know the region you are interested in, check the map of the Sierra’s 24 watersheds on page 3 or the list of groups and efforts by region. You can also search the list of groups or efforts by their type. The Sierra Nevada is made up of 24 major watersheds, according to Calwater, California’s system of identifying and delineating watershed boundaries. There is a map on page 3 of these major watersheds. Sierra Nevada Conservancy Regions The Sierra Nevada Conservancy will establish funding for environmental preservation while providing support for economic sustainability across 25 million acres from the Oregon border to Kern County.
    [Show full text]
  • Bacteria Contamination of Surface Waters Due to Livestock Grazing in the Stanislaus National Forest, California (Fourth and Fifth Year of Study)
    Bacteria Contamination of Surface Waters Due to Livestock Grazing in the Stanislaus National Forest, California (Fourth and Fifth Year of Study) Summary of 2012 and 2013 Results Lindsey Myers, staff biologist Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center P.O. Box 396, Twain Harte, CA 95383 (209) 586-7440 [email protected] Surface waters were tested for pathogenic bacteria indicators (i.e., E. coli, fecal coliform bacteria, and total coliform bacteria) for the fourth and fifth consecutive years within commercial cattle grazing allotments in the Stanislaus National Forest. Water samples were collected from four allotments, with four sample sites in three wilderness areas (or wild areas directly adjacent to designated wilderness areas). The sample sites from the first three years of sampling, 2009 through 2011, focused on comparative sampling done at a specific site before cattle presence and then at the same site after the arrival of cattle. The results showed that individual and average concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria in surface waters were consistently below regulatory thresholds at all sites before cattle presence or where no livestock grazed during the season. Shortly after cattle were released into the national forest to graze in allotments, fecal coliform concentrations were much higher, and in places exceeded state standards. E. coli and total coliform concentrations followed the same pattern. Reports at the end of study field seasons in 2009 and again in 2010 both focused on documenting the violations of state standards for fecal coliform concentrations in recreational contact waters. The 2011 report highlighted the difference in E. coli and fecal coliform concentrations detected in waters when cattle were not present compared to the E.
    [Show full text]
  • Tuolumne-Stanislaus Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    Tuolumne-Stanislaus Integrated Regional Water Management Plan August 2013 Updated Fall 2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ ES-1 Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background ........................................................................................ 1-1 1.2.1 Regional Features ................................................................... 1-1 1.2.2 Primary Focal Points for the IRWM Plan ................................. 1-1 1.2.3 Formation of the IRWM Region ............................................... 1-4 1.3 Governance ........................................................................................ 1-5 1.3.1 Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) ....................... 1-5 1.3.2 Planning Grant Committee (PGC) ........................................... 1-7 1.4 Stakeholder Coordination and Outreach ............................................ 1-7 1.4.1 Overview of the Stakeholder Coordination and Outreach Process ................................................................................... 1-7 1.4.2 Stakeholders ........................................................................... 1-8 1.4.2.1 Municipal and County Governments ................... 1-10 1.4.2.2 Wholesale and Retail Water Purveyors,
    [Show full text]