DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment of Aquatic Conditions in the Garcia River Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment of Aquatic Conditions in the Garcia River Watershed Assessment of Aquatic Conditions in the Garcia River Watershed Prepared in support of the Garcia River Watershed Water Quality Attainment Strategy for Sediment December 9, 1997 for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast Region 5550 Skylane Blvd., Suite A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Edited by Alydda Mangelsdorf Environmental Scientist December 16, 1997 Assessment of Aquatic Conditions in the Garcia River Watershed Prepared in Collaboration with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast Region 5550 Skylane Blvd., Suite A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 135 Ridgway Avenue P.O. Box 670 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Mendocino County Resource Conservation District 405 Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Pacific Watershed Associates P.O. Box 4433 Arcata, CA 95518 Forest, Soil & Water, Inc. P.O. Box 1802 Healdsburg, CA 95448 Contributing authors to this report include: Dr. Fred Euphrat, Forest, Soil & Water, Inc. Danny Hagans, Pacific Watershed Associates Kallie Kull, East-West Forestry Alydda Mangelsdorf, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Wendy Melgin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Matt O’Connor, O’Connor Environmental, Inc. Special thanks to: Suzanne Lang, GIS Technician California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for developing the Garcia GIS and producing all of the maps contained in this report Additional thanks to: The citizen members of the Garcia River Watershed Advisory Group, including: Jon Ambrose, Georgia-Pacific Corporation Craig Bell, Mendocino Watershed Service Carol Caughey, Garcia River Watershed Agricultural Landowners Group Leslie Dahlhoff, City of Point Arena Peter Dobbins, Friends of the Garcia William Hay, Jr., Bed Rock, Inc. John Hooper, Cal Trout Leonard Leum, Commercial Fisherman Alan Levine, Coast Action Group Jack Monschke, Coastal Forestlands, Ltd. Guido Pronsolino, Rancher Tom Schultz, Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Walter Stornetta, Dairyman Bob Whitney, Coastal Forestlands, Ltd. Limiting Factors Assessment Team, including: Robert Klamt, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Wendell Jones, California Department of Fish and Game Holly Lundborg, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Michael Maahs, Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Wendy Melgin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Frank Reichmuth, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Tom Schott, Natural Resource Conservation District Dennis Slota, Mendocino County Water Agency Tom Spittler, Division of Mines and Geology Bradley Valentine, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection And the many other regular participants in the Watershed Advisory Group process, including: Peter Cafferata, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Russel Caughey, Landowner Tess Dennis, California Farm Bureau Vern Finney, Natural Resource Conservation Service Alicia Galliani, Landowner Joe and Dorothy Halliday, Landowners Troy Kelly, California Department of Fish and Game Jim Little, Harwood Products Larry Stornetta, Landowner Julie Verran, Independent Coast Observer TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Introduction.......................................................................................................................1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................1 Method......................................................................................................................................2 Limiting Factors Assessment........................................................................................2 Resource Assessment....................................................................................................2 Synthesis........................................................................................................................3 Summary........................................................................................................................3 B.General Description of the Watershed...............................................................................4 Introduction................................................................................................................................4 Geology......................................................................................................................................7 Soil/Vegetation Regions..........................................................................................................13 Hydrology................................................................................................................................13 Drainage Area..............................................................................................................13 Precipitation.................................................................................................................20 Flooding.......................................................................................................................22 Summary..................................................................................................................................23 C.Limiting Factors Assessment............................................................................................24 Introduction..............................................................................................................................24 Defining Limiting Factors.......................................................................................................24 Methods...................................................................................................................................26 Channel Morphology...................................................................................................27 Slope................................................................................................................27 Substrate Composition.....................................................................................29 Width/depth ratio.............................................................................................31 Confinement.....................................................................................................35 Stream Channel Opening.................................................................................35 Aquatic Habitat........................................................................................................................38 Habitat Types and Distribution....................................................................................38 Instream Cover.............................................................................................................40 Stream Temperature.....................................................................................................42 Barriers.........................................................................................................................43 Population Composition and Distribution...................................................................45 Water Quality...............................................................................................................47 Physical Disturbance....................................................................................................48 Potential Limiting Factors.......................................................................................................49 Summary of Potential Limiting Factors in each Planning Watershed.........................49 D.Resource Assessment.........................................................................................................59 Introduction..............................................................................................................................59 Methods...................................................................................................................................59 Geomorphology.......................................................................................................................60 Division of Mines and Geology...................................................................................60 Erosion Hazard Ratings...............................................................................................61 Summary of Geomorphology......................................................................................63 Riparian Functioning...............................................................................................................63 Stream Channel Opening.........................................................................................................63 Soil/Vegetative Regions..........................................................................................................63 Lower Garcia River.................................................................................................................64 Habitat Typing Data................................................................................................................66 Instream Cover Data................................................................................................................67 Summary of Riparian Functioning...........................................................................................67
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Garcia River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX GARCIA RIVER SEDIMENT TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD MARCH 16, 1998 APPROVED BY: ORIGINAL SIGNED Alexis Strauss Date Acting Director Water Division EPA Region IX TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................4 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................5 Problem Statement..........................................................................................................................8 Numeric Targets............................................................................................................................15 Source Analysis.............................................................................................................................24 Linkage Analysis...........................................................................................................................32 Loading Capacity and Allocation of Loads...................................................................................36 Margin of Safety............................................................................................................................40 Seasonal Variation.........................................................................................................................42 Critical Conditions.........................................................................................................................43
    [Show full text]
  • Navarro Watershed Restoration Plan
    NAVARRO WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN A JOINT PROJECT OF THE MENDOCINO COUNTY WATER AGENCY THE COASTAL CONSERVANCY THE ANDERSON VALLEY LAND TRUST Prepared by: Entrix, Inc. Pacific Watershed Associates Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. The Navarro Watershed Community Advisory Group Daniel T. Sicular, Ph.D. JUNE, 1998 NAVARRO WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN Published Jointly by: ANDERSON VALLEY LAND TRUST, INCORPORATED P.O. Box 1000 Boonville, CA 95415 (707) 895-2090 CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY 1330 Broadway Oakland, CA 94612-2530 (510) 286-1015 MENDOCINO COUNTY WATER AGENCY Courthouse Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 463-4589 This Document is Printed on Recycled Paper TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... List of Figures........................................................................................................................ Glossary ................................................................................................................................. Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................. Executive Summary............................................................................................................... 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Basis of Need for Restoration Plan...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Plan
    scanned for KRIS p p p F I N A L p p p GARCIA RIVER WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT PLAN Mendocino County Resource Conservation District October 1992 The Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Plan October 1992 Prepared for California State Coastal Conservancy by Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Ukiah, California Report Prepared by Jack Monschke Watershed Management Debra Caldon, William M. Kier Associates Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Board Members: Craig Blencowe Bill Johnson Gordon McBride Allan Mohr John Thomas With Support and Assistance from the Garcia River Watershed Advisory Group (WAG) Craig Bell Bill Elmore Bryan Gaynor Bill Hay, Jr. John Hooper Nicholas King Alan Levine Dave Rinaldo Tom Schultz Florence Silva Larry Stornetta Randy Swegle With Professional Assistance from Joseph F. Friedkin, Consulting Hydraulic Engineer Patrick Higgins, Consulting Fisheries Biologist Gary Peterson, Consulting Fisheries Biologist The District and the preparers of this report gratefully acknowledge the information, assistance and advice received in the preparation of this Work Plan from the following: Garcia Community Members Interviewed: Craig Bell Roy Bishop Lando Franchi Dick Fredericks Coleman Gilmore Bill Hay Vern Kendall Martin Laiwa Larry Mailliard Don McKenzie Guido Pronsolino Ase Stornetta Duke Stornetta Don Stuart Ernie Titus Clare and Leslie Wheeler Technical Advisors: Dennis Jackson, Mendocino Water Agency Tom Schott, Soil Conservation Service Rick Macedo, California Department of Fish and Game Bob Klamt, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Cecile Bryant, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Lyle Steffen, Soil Conservation Service Ed Schmidt, Soil Conservation Service David Howell, Soil Conservation Service David Patterson, Soil Conservation Service Ted Wooster, California Department of Fish and Game Freeman House, Mattole Watershed Alliance David Simpson, Mattole Watershed Alliance George Rau, Engineer Graham Matthews, Hydrologist and everyone else who contributed to this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Garcia River Gravel Managment Plan
    scanned for KRIS Pier 35, The Embarcadero Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. San Francisco, CA 94133 Consultants in Hydrology Phone (415) 981-8363 Fax (415) 981-5021 GARCIA RIVER GRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared for Mendocino County Water Agency Prepared by Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. with Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. Steiner Environmental Consultants Leonard Charles Associates August 1996 #1041 #67/D;\#67FULL\1041GGMP.DO5 ms wp6.1 8/6/96 Environmental Hydrology Engineering Hydraulics Sediment Hydraulics Water Resources Printed on Recycled Paper Garcia River Gravel Management Consultant Team Joan Florsheim, Ph.D. Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. Hydrology & Geology Karen Gaffney Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. Riparian Resources (with Lynn Stafford Consulting, Birds) W. Park Steiner Steiner Environmental Consulting Fisheries Biology Leonard Charles, Ph.D. Lori Brooke Leonard Charles and Associates Non-stream sources of aggregate, market area, demand and resource conservation TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. SUMMARY 3 2. INTRODUCTION 4 3. HISTORIC RIVER TRENDS 6 3.1 HISTORIC TRENDS IN FLUVIAL GEOMORPHOLOGY 6 3.3.1 Historic Photographs 6 3.1.2 Historic Cross-sections 7 3.2 HISTORIC PREVALENCE OF COHO AND STEELHEAD 9 3.3 HISTORIC CONDITIONS IN THE RIPARIAN ZONE 10 4. EXISTING RIVER CONDITIONS 12 4.1 FLUVIAL GEOMORPHOLOGY 12 4.1.1 Hydrology 12 4.1.2 Dominant Discharge 13 4.1.3 Geomorphic Processes and Channel Morphology 14 4.1.4 Role of Gravel Bars in Gravel Bed Rivers 15 4.1.5 Gravel Replenishment 17 4.2 EXISTING RIVER CONDITIONS: FISHERIES 20 4.2.1 Life Histories 20 4.2.2 Present Abundance of Salmonids (1990-96) 22 4.2.3 Physical Habitat Requirements of Salmonids 23 4.2.4 Present Conditions of Garcia River Salmonid Habitat 25 4.2.5 Hydrologic and Geomorphic Factors Affecting Garcia River Salmonid Habitat 26 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page No.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Proclamation (Boundary Enlargement)
    PROCLAMATION 9089 BOUNDARY ENLARGEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL NATIONAL MONUMENT - - - - - - - BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION Through Proclamation 7264 of January 11, 2000, President Clinton established the California Coastal National Monument (monument) to protect the biological treasures situated offshore on thousands of unappropriated or unreserved islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and pinnacles owned or controlled by the Government of the United States within 12 nautical miles of the shoreline of the State of California. These dramatic features contribute to California's awe- inspiring coastal scenery and provide havens for significant populations of seabirds and marine mammals. The monument protects feeding and nesting habitat for an estimated 200,000 breeding seabirds. Development on the mainland has forced seabirds that once fed and nested in the shoreline ecosystem to retreat to these protected areas. The monument also protects forage and breeding habitat for California sea lions, southern sea otters, and northern (Steller) sea lions. As President Clinton noted in his proclamation, although these offshore habitats may appear distinct from nearby shoreline habitats, they are dependent upon each other, with vital and dynamic exchange of nutrients and organisms being essential to maintaining their healthy ecosystems. The addition of the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands as the first shoreline unit of the monument would expand the monument to include coastal bluffs and shelves, tide pools, onshore dunes, coastal prairies, riverbanks, and the mouth and estuary of the Garcia River. The expanded monument would present exemplary opportunities for geologists, archeologists, historians, and biologists to use the historic and scientific objects in these lands to further illuminate the evolving relationship between California's abundant coastal resources and its human inhabitants.
    [Show full text]
  • Garcia River Watershed Water Quality Attainment Action Plan for Sediment
    Reference Document for the Garcia River Watershed Water Quality Attainment Action Plan for Sediment prepared by staff of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast Region 5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A Santa Rosa, California 95403 September 21, 2000 (Revision to 12/09/97 Garcia River Watershed Water Quality Attainment Strategy for Sediment) PREFACE The Reference Document for the Garcia River Watershed Water Quality Attainment Action Plan for Sediment (Reference Document) is a revised version of the Garcia River Watershed Water Quality Attainment Strategy for Sediment (Strategy) dated December 9, 1997. The title has been modified in order to clarify the relationship between the Reference Document and the Garcia River Watershed Water Quality Attainment Action Plan for Sediment (Action Plan) and to avoid confusion between the two documents. The Action Plan consists of the portions of the Strategy that were modified and adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board as an amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan in December, 1998. This clarification also required all references to the “Strategy” be modified to refer to the either the “Reference Document” or the Action Plan.” Other clarifications to the Reference Document include the addition of several sections into the Load Allocation chapter of the Reference Document. These sections include the General Discussion, Technical Rational for the Load Allocations, Analysis of the Load Allocation Contained in the Proposed Action Plan, and the Margin of Safety sections. These sections were produced for the December 1998 Regional Water Board Hearing and are now included in the Reference Document for ease of reference and technical support.
    [Show full text]
  • Point Arena Mendocino County, California
    ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR 43400 HATHAWAY CROSSING (APN 27-211-02) POINT ARENA MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA prepared for Denise and Andy Fisher P.O. Box 1048 Point Arena, CA 95468 prepared by Heidi Koenig, M.A., RPA P.O. Box 702 Inverness, CA 94937 [email protected] 415/663-8945 September 2006 INTRODUCTION Denise and Andy Fisher have proposed a single-family dwelling and related improvements on a 24.25-acre parcel located approximately one mile northeast of the city of Point Arena in Mendocino County, California. The project includes the designation of 9.75 acres of conservation land for the Point Arena Mountain Beaver — listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an endangered animal in 1991 [see the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Fisher and Fisher 2006) for a complete discussion of the proposed project, findings, and requirements]. This report documents the archaeological survey conducted within the study area. The purpose of this archaeological study, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, was: • to identify and record archaeological sites within the study area; • to make evaluations of significance; • to recommend procedures for avoidance or mitigation of adverse effects to potentially significant cultural resources. This study was completed by Heidi Koenig who has an M.A. in Cultural Resources Management, is a Registered Professional Archaeologist, and has seven years of archaeological experience throughout California. Koenig meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeologist. A collapsed barn, five intermittent fencelines, and a short, poorly-defined road segment were recorded in the study area.
    [Show full text]
  • North Fork Garcia River CALWAA Sediment Source Assessment
    North Fork Garcia River CALWAA Sediment Source Assessment Garcia River Forest, Mendocino County, California PWA Report No. 09073501 January 2009 CDFG Fisheries Restoration Grant Program Salmon and Steelhead Trout Restoration Account Contract # P0530404 Prepared for: The Conservation Fund 14951 “A” Caspar Road, Box 50, Caspar, CA 95420 California Department of Fish and Game 306 East Redwood Street, Fort Bragg, CA 95437 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 5550 Skylane Blvd, Suite A, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Prepared by: Shannon C. Butler, Staff Geologist Joel R. Flynn, Professional Geologist #8276 Danny K.Hagans, Principal Earth Scientist Pacific Watershed Associates Inc. PO Box 2070, Petaluma, CA 94953 [email protected] / (707) 773-1385 North Fork Garcia River CALWAA Sediment Source Assessment January 2009 Garcia River Forest, Mendocino County, California Pacific Watershed Associates Report No. 09073501 CONTENTS 1 PROJECT SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 3 2 CERTIFICATION AND LIMITATIONS............................................................................... 4 3 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 5 4 FIELD DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT AREA ..................................................... 7 4.1 Location and Travel Directions to the Field Area........................................................... 7 4.2 Climate, Terrain, and Local
    [Show full text]
  • Garcia River Forest Integrated Resource Management Plan
    Cover photograph: Garcia River, Mendocino County, California Photo by Jenny Griffin For more information about this report, please contact: The Conservation Fund Chris Kelly, California Director PO Box 5326 Larkspur, CA 94977 Suggested citation: The Conservation Fund. 2006. Garcia River Forest Integrated Resource Management Plan. Larkspur, California. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The purchase and protection of the Garcia River Forest and the collaborative development of this management plan represent the work of many individuals and organizations. In particular, we thank those who have dedicated their work over many decades to the Garcia’s forests, fish, and wildlife, including Friends of the Garcia, Garcia River Watershed Coordinator Craig Bell, Peter Dobbins, Alan Levine, Leslie and Eric Dahlhoff, John Hooper, Chuck Henderson, and Nick King. For making the acquisition possible and for guidance along the way, we thank the California State Coastal Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Board, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, supporters of The Conservation Fund, and the previous landowner, Richard Padula. Special thanks to The Nature Conservancy for a dynamic and productive planning partnership in addition to acquisition funding. For generous support of our planning efforts, we thank the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund, the Bella Vista Foundation, and the Dean Witter Foundation. For their dedication to and support of the vision of sustainable forestry and ecological vitality,
    [Show full text]