DOCSLIB.ORG

Middle Hayfork and Salt Creek

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Middle Hayfork and Salt Creek TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 ONE Characterization .............................................................................................................1-1 Section 2 TWO Issues and Key Questions.............................................................................................2-1 Section 3 THREE Current Conditions.........................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Erosional Processes.................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Geology........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.2 Mass Wasting Features ................................................................ 3-2 3.1.3 Soils ............................................................................................. 3-4 3.2 Water Resources ...................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.1 Phyiographic Setting.................................................................... 3-6 3.2.2 Stream Channel Conditions ......................................................... 3-6 3.2.3 Hydrology .................................................................................... 3-8 3.2.4 Water Quality............................................................................. 3-12 3.3 Human Use and Heritage Resources...................................................... 3-14 3.4 Vegetation.............................................................................................. 3-15 3.4.1 Landscape Ecology .................................................................... 3-17 3.4.2 Description of Vegetative Types ............................................... 3-17 3.6 Wildlife Habitat ..................................................................................... 3-19 3.5 Fish Habitat............................................................................................ 3-22 3.6 Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, Survey and Manage, and Protection Buffer Species ...................................................................... 3-25 3.6.1 Plant and Fungi Species............................................................. 3-25 3.6.2 Wildlife Species......................................................................... 3-33 3.7 Fire and Fuels......................................................................................... 3-42 3.7.1 Fire Hazards and Risks .............................................................. 3-44 3.7.2 Effects of Fire Exclusion ........................................................... 3-47 3.7.3 Plantations.................................................................................. 3-47 3.8 Transportation........................................................................................ 3-48 Section 4 FOUR Reference Conditions.....................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Erosional Processes.................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Geology........................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.2 Soils ............................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Water Resources ...................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Hydrology .................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Stream Channels .......................................................................... 4-1 4.2.3 Water Quality............................................................................... 4-2 4.2.4 Riparian Reserves ........................................................................ 4-2 4.3 Human Use and Heritage Resources........................................................ 4-2 4.3.1 Prehistory ..................................................................................... 4-2 4.3.2 Historic......................................................................................... 4-3 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.4 Vegetation................................................................................................ 4-4 4.4.1 Forest Health Trends.................................................................... 4-4 4.5 Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, Survey and Manage, and Protection Buffer Species ........................................................................ 4-5 4.5.1 Noxious Weeds ............................................................................ 4-6 4.6 Wildlife / Biodiversity ............................................................................. 4-6 4.6.1 Fisheries ....................................................................................... 4-7 4.7 Fire and Fuels........................................................................................... 4-8 4.8 Commercial Timber................................................................................. 4-9 Section 5 FIVE Synthesis and Interpretation .........................................................................................5-1 5.1 Riparian Management.............................................................................. 5-1 5.1.1 General Trends............................................................................. 5-1 5.1.2 Key Questions.............................................................................. 5-2 5.2 Water Quality and Watershed Enhancement ........................................... 5-2 5.2.1 General Trends............................................................................. 5-2 5.2.2 Key Questions.............................................................................. 5-5 5.3 Fire and Fuels........................................................................................... 5-6 5.3.1 General Trends............................................................................. 5-6 5.3.2 Key Questions.............................................................................. 5-7 5.4 Commercial Wood Production – Forest Vegetative Dynamics............... 5-9 5.4.1 General Trends............................................................................. 5-9 5.4.2 Key Questions............................................................................ 5-10 5.5 Late Successional Habitat Protection and Enhancement....................... 5-11 5.5.1 General Trends........................................................................... 5-11 5.5.2 Key Questions............................................................................ 5-12 5.6 Threatened and Endangered, Forest Service Sensitive, Forest Service Endemic, and Survey and Manage or Protection Buffer Plant and Fungi Species......................................................................... 5-13 5.6.1 General Trends........................................................................... 5-13 5.6.2 Key Questions............................................................................ 5-14 5.7 Noxious, Invasive and Exotic Weeds .................................................... 5-14 5.7.1 General Trend ............................................................................ 5-14 5.7.2 Key Questions............................................................................ 5-14 Section 6 SIX Recommendations .........................................................................................................6-1 6.1 Management Recommendations.............................................................. 6-1 6.1.1 Riparian Management.................................................................. 6-1 6.1.2 Water Quality and Watershed Enhancement ............................... 6-1 6.1.3 Fires and Fuels ............................................................................. 6-2 6.1.4 Commercial Wood Production – Forest Vegetative Dynamics ..................................................................................... 6-3 6.1.5 Late Succession Habitat and Enhancement ................................. 6-5 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.1.6 Threatened and Endangered, Forest Service Sensitive, Forest Service Endemic, and Survey and Manage or Protection Buffer Plant and Fungi Species.................................. 6-6 6.1.7 Noxious Weeds ............................................................................ 6-6 Section 7 SEVEN References ......................................................................................................................7-1 Appendices Appendix A Fire Family Plus data Appendix B Descriptions of Fuel Models Appendix C List of Preparers List of Figures 1-1 Land Allocations 3-1 Topographic Map 3-2 Riparian Reserves 3-3 Vegetation Size and Density 3-4 Dispersal Habitat 3-5 Northern Spotted Owl Habitat 3-6 Fish Bearing Streams 3-7 Fires Greater Than 100 Acres 3-8 Fires Less Than 100 Acres 3-9 Fuel Models 3-10 Roads and Trails List of Tables 1-1 Land Allocation 1-2 List of Federally Threatened and Endangered, Forest Service Sensitive, Forest Service Endemic, and Northwest ROD “Survey and Manage” Plant Species Know or With the Potential to Occur in the Middle Hayfork/Salt Creek Analysis Area 1-3 List of Federally Threatened, Special Concern, Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive, Northwest ROD “Protection Buffer,” and “Survey and Manage” Wildlife Species Known or Suspected to Occur in the Middle Hayfork/Salt Creek Analysis Area
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prologue: the Green Prison
    Prologue The Green Prison Jedediah Strong Smith was one of the famous mountain men who traveled the west in search of beaver in the decades before the California gold rush. In 1826, he reached the Mexican province that was to become California, and two years later, he traveled through northwest California on his second expedition. While in the Sacramento Valley, he and his party of 20 men and 300 horses and mules turned west off the Great Indian Trail near Red Bluff and headed for an inviting gap in the mountains. He reasoned that the mountains to the west held the river that would take them to Trinidad Bay. From there he planned to follow the coast north to the Columbia River. Trinidad Bay was a prominent feature on maps of Smith's day, based on the landings of Bruno Heceta and Juan Francisco Bodega y Cadra in '775- Jedediah Smith knew that trappers of the Hudson's Bay Company were finding beaver and other furbearers in Oregon in the early 1800s. Would northwest California be next? Indeed, trappers entered the upper Klamath River watershed in 1826. The next year Fran~oisPeyette led a small band of trappers downstream to the Yurok village of wec@es (Weitchpec), which will play an important role in the coming gold rush years. After leaving the Great Indian Trail, the Smith party left the deep grass- lands of the Sacramento Valley and entered the eastern foothills of north- west California. They encountered woodlands and chaparral similar to that of the Sierra Nevada and to those they had encountered on leaving the Presidio of Monterey at the beginning of their trip (Map 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering Our Past to Secure Our Future
    “To destroy in whole or in part”: Remembering Our Past to Secure Our Future Jack Norton Abstract This essay proposes that the history of California includes the intended destruction and decimation of native cultures, including their forced removal, illegal land acquisition, slavery, separation of families, and outright murder enacted by the private citizenry and governmental agencies during European contact can be defined as genocide as outlined by the United Nations Geneva Convention, 1948. The lasting legacy of contact on ab- original lifeways and tradition, as well as the recent resurgence of native traditions and culture is addressed to suggest that the health and healing of native communities lies in reconciling the past to make passage into the future. Introduction Each summer I return to northern California, to the land of the Hupa, Yurok, and Karuk. I return to pray and dance within the centers of our world. I join my cousins, my sons, my grandchildren, nephews and friends, to sing and dance once again upon the grounds cleansed and purified by spiritual energy eons ago. It is a time of renewal, to be amongst the energy of creation, to be re-created, born anew, and cleansed of a year’s accumulation of stress, anxieties, and distorted information, negative thoughts, or projections onto others for what we have failed to become. For ten days my wife and I stand within the radiance of ancestral memory as we visit, eat, and enjoy the company of those we have missed throughout the year. Yet, within this aura of renewal, I often feel a
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Klamath Mountains Province Summer Steelhead
    KLAMATH MOUNTAINS PROVINCE SUMMER STEELHEAD Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus Critical Concern. Status Score = 1.9 out of 5.0. Klamath Mountain Province (KMP) summer steelhead are in a state of long-term decline in the basin. These stream-maturing fish face a high likelihood of extinction in California in the next fifty years. Description: Klamath Mountains Province (KMP) summer steelhead are anadromous rainbow trout that return to select freshwater streams in the Klamath Mountains Province beginning in April through June. Summer steelhead are distinguishable from winter steelhead by (1) time of migration (Roelofs 1983), (2) the immature state of gonads at migration (Shapovalov and Taft 1954), (3) location of spawning in higher-gradient habitats and smaller tributaries than other steelhead (Everest 1973, Roelofs 1983), and more recently, genetic variation in the Omy5 gene locus (Pearse et al. 2014). Summer steelhead are nearly identical in appearance to the more common winter steelhead (see Northern California coastal winter steelhead). Taxonomic Relationships: For general relationships of steelhead, see Northern California coastal winter steelhead account. In the Klamath River Basin, salmonids are generally separated primarily by run timing, which has been shown recently to have a genetic basis (Kendall et al. 2015, Arciniega et al. 2016, Williams et al. 2016, Pearse et al. In review). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not classify Klamath River basin steelhead “races” based on run- timing of adults, but instead recognizes two distinct reproductive “ecotypes.” Steelhead ecotypes are populations adapted to specific sets of environmental conditions in the Klamath Basin based upon their reproductive biology and timing of spawning (Busby et al.
    [Show full text]
  • 9691.Ch01.Pdf
    © 2006 UC Regents Buy this book University of California Press, one of the most distinguished univer- sity presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institutions. For more information, visit www.ucpress.edu. University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England © 2006 by The Regents of the University of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sawyer, John O., 1939– Northwest California : a natural history / John O. Sawyer. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-520-23286-0 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Natural history—California, Northern I. Title. QH105.C2S29 2006 508.794—dc22 2005034485 Manufactured in the United States of America 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 10987654321 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum require- ments of ansi/niso z/39.48-1992 (r 1997) (Permanence of Paper).∞ The Klamath Land of Mountains and Canyons The Klamath Mountains are the home of one of the most exceptional temperate coniferous forest regions in the world. The area’s rich plant and animal life draws naturalists from all over the world. Outdoor enthusiasts enjoy its rugged mountains, its many lakes, its wildernesses, and its wild rivers. Geologists come here to refine the theory of plate tectonics. Yet, the Klamath Mountains are one of the least-known parts of the state. The region’s complex pattern of mountains and rivers creates a bewil- dering set of landscapes.
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork Trinity River and Hayfork Creek Sediment Total Maximum Daily Loads
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 9 SOUTH FORK TRINITY RIVER AND HAYFORK CREEK SEDIMENT TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS December 1998 APPROVED BY: Alexis Strauss Date Acting Director Water Division EPA Region 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1. Introduction ................................................................... 1 2. Problem Statement ............................................................. 11 3. Numeric Targets ............................................................... 16 4. Source Analysis ............................................................... 31 5. Linkage Analysis .............................................................. 45 6. Loading Capacity and Allocation of Loads ........................................... 49 7. Margin of Safety, Seasonal Variation and Critical Conditions ............................. 52 8. Public Participation ............................................................ 56 9. Implementation and Monitoring Recommendations ..................................... 57 10. References ................................................................... 60 11. Glossary .................................................................... 64 South Fork Trinity River/Hayfork Creek Sediment TMDLs, December 1998 i LIST OF FIGURES 1. South Fork Trinity River General Location Map ........................................ 2 2. South Fork Trinity River Subwatershed Area Boundaries ................................. 4 3. Land Ownership ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DIAMONDS and MANTLE SOURCE ROCKS in the WYOMING CRATON with a DISCUSSION of OTHER U.S. OCCURRENCES by W
    WYOMING STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gary B. Glass, State Geologist DIAMONDS AND MANTLE SOURCE ROCKS IN THE WYOMING CRATON WITH A DISCUSSION OF OTHER U.S. OCCURRENCES by W. Dan Hause} Report of Investigations No. 53 1998 Laramie, Wyoming WYOMING STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Lance Cook, State Geologist GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BOARD Ex Officio Jim Geringer, Governor Randi S. Martinsen, University of Wyoming Don J. Likwartz, Oil and Gas Supervisor Lance Cook, State Geologist Appointed Nancy M. Doelger, Casper Charles M. Love, Rock Springs Ronald A. Baugh, Casper Stephen L. Payne, Casper John E. Trummel, Gillette Computer Services Unit Publications Section Susan McClendon - Manager Richard W. Jones - Editor Jaime R. Bogaard - Editorial Assistant Geologic Sections Lisa J. Alexander - Sales Manager James c. Case, Staff Geologist - Geologic Hazards Fred H . Porter, III - Cartographer Rodney H . De Bruin, Staff Geologist - Oil and Gas Phyllis A. Ranz - Cartographer Ray E. Harris, Staff Geologist - Industrial Minerals Joseph M. Huss - GIS Specialist and Uranium W. Dan Hausel, Senior Economic Geologist - Metals and Precious Stones Supportive Services Unit Robert M. Lyman, Staff Geologist - Coal Susanne G. Bruhnke - Office Manager Alan J. Ver Ploeg, Senior Staff Geologist - Geologic Joan E. Binder - Administrative Assistant Mapping This and other publications available from: Wyoming State Geological Survey P.O. Box 3008 Laramie, WY 82071-3008 Phone: (307) 766-2286 Fax: (307) 766-2605 Email: [email protected] Web Page: http://wsgsweb.uwyo.edu People with disabilities who require an alternative form of communication in order to use this publication should contact the Editor, Wyoming State Geological Survey at (307) 766-2286. TTY Relay operator 1(800) 877-9975.
    [Show full text]
  • 9.0 Investigation of Anadromous Fish Genetics in the Klamath Hydroelectric Project Area
    9.0 INVESTIGATION OF ANADROMOUS FISH GENETICS IN THE KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AREA 9.1 DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE The life history variation and existing population genetic studies of coho and Chinook salmon, coastal steelhead, and nonandromous Oncorhynchus mykiss (O. mykiss) spp. in the Upper and Lower Klamath River basins were reviewed. The primary goals of this section are to assess the evidence of reproductive isolation (genetic distinctiveness) between populations or groups of populations of salmonids throughout the Project area and evaluate whether there is sufficient evidence to determine if resident trout populations above Iron Gate dam are genetically similar to anadromous trout downstream of the Project. Additional information on the genetic impacts from operation of Iron Gate fish hatchery and disease-related information is presented. This information, along with comments from interested stakeholders, were used to identify genetic data gaps and additional questions necessary for making scientifically informed management decisions about restoring anadromous runs above Iron Gate dam. Restoring salmonid runs in the Project area will require significant additional genetic studies, as well as an evaluation of the ecological factors underlying the feasibility of establishing self-sustaining salmonid populations above Iron Gate dam. Further genetic studies are necessary to identify (1) if independent lineages of O. mykiss are found in the Upper Klamath River basin, and (2) areas that will be opened to migration, if restoring steelhead is planned above Iron Gate dam. Long-term genetic monitoring of all anadromous salmon runs above Iron Gate dam will be critical to managing these new populations, given the potential for inbreeding depression (reduction in fitness) and for effective population sizes to drop below levels that can support viable salmonid populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath Basin Magnuson-Stevens
    Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act Klamath River Coho Salmon Recovery Plan Prepared by The National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region July 10, 2007 An online version of this report is available at: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/salmon/MSRA_RecoveryPlan_FINAL.pdf Literature citation should read as: National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act Klamath River Coho Salmon Recovery Plan. Prepared by Rogers, F. R., I. V. Lagomarsino and J. A. Simondet for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Long Beach, CA. 48 pp. Cover illustration is a work of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, made during the course of an employee’s official duties. As works of the U.S. Federal Government, all NOAA images are in the public domain. Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act Klamath River Coho Salmon Recovery Plan Prepared by The National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region July 10, 2007 NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of the Department of Commerce, is the federal agency responsible for the stewardship of the nation's living marine resources and their habitat. NMFS is responsible for the management, conservation and protection of living marine resources within the United States' Exclusive Economic Zone (coastal water 3 to 200 miles offshore). Using the tools provided by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA), NMFS assesses and predicts the status of fish stocks, ensures compliance with federal fisheries regulations and works to reduce wasteful fishing practices. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS works to conserve protected marine species (i.e., whales, turtles) and protected anadromous species (i.e., salmon) without unnecessarily impeding economic opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Hayfork Creek Watershed Analysis – March 1996
    Lower Hayfork Creek Watershed Analysis – March 1996 STEP 1: CHARACTERIZATION Purpose · To identify the dominant physical, biological, and human processes and features of the watershed that affect ecosystem function or condition. · To relate these features and processes with those occurring in the river basin or province. · To provide the watershed context for identifying elements that need to be addressed in the analysis. · To identify, map and describe the most important land allocations, plan objectives, and regulatory constraints that influence resource management in the watershed. Discussion The Lower Hayfork Creek landscape is located on the Hayfork Ranger District, Shasta-Trinity National Forests. The legal description is sections 4 thru 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, and 29 of T2N, R8E; sections 6 and 7 of T2N, R12W; sections 1, 12, 13, 24 and 25 of T3N, R6E; sections 1, 4 thru 9, 12 thru 30, and 32 thru 36 of T3N, R7E; sections 4 thru 9, 16 thru 21, and 28 thru 33 of T3N, R8E; sections 3 thru 10, 14 thru 23, 26 thru 34 of T3N, R12W; sections 31, 32, and 36 of T4N, R7E; sections 31 thru 33 of T4N, R8E; and sections 29 thru 33 of T4, R12W, Humboldt Baseline and Meridian and Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian. Lower Hayfork Creek landscape assessment area is approximately 48,769 acres in size. It is bounded by Hyampom to the west, Hayfork Creek to the south, Pattison Peak and Hayfork Bally to the north, and Thompson Peak to the east. The Lower Hayfork Creek landscape has been changed by both timber harvesting and wildfires.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Hayfork Creek Watershed Inventory Hayf Ork Ranger District 1991-92 Lower Hayfork Creek Watershed Lnventorv,, 1991-92
    Lower Hayfork Creek Watershed Inventory Hayf ork Ranger District 1991-92 Lower Hayfork Creek Watershed lnventorv,, 1991-92 Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service P.O. Box 159 Hayfork, California 96041 (91 6) 628-5227 Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Responsible Official: Karyn Wood, District Ranger Hayfork Ranger District For Further Information Call: Annetta Mankins, Watershed Specialist Hayfork Ranger District Prepared by: /'Ji Fi'ZJ ' --- ... -~e~---··- 1cfl.'L Forestry Technician ...__/ Oate Reviewed uy: Reviewed by: Date Approved by: Date INTRODUCTION This is a final report that summarizes assessment work by the Hayfork Ranger District on erosional problems on the Lower Hayfork Creek Subbasin of the South Fork Trinity River Basin. It includes descriptions of inventory work, data analysis, prioritization of specific problems, and recommendations on specific enhancement and restoration work projects. The Trinity River Basin project began in 1984 with Public Law 98-541. The goal was to assist in the restoration of fisheries resources to conditions that existed prior to implementation of the Central Valley Project. The Shasta-Trinity National Forests contracted with the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a basinwide watershed assessment of the South Fork Trinity River Basin. This basin falls under Action Item #6 of the annually updated Trinity River Basin Three-Year Action Plan. The South Fork Trinity River is located in Northern California in Trinity and Humboldt Counties. The Federal Government, principally the U.S. Forest Service, administers approximately 79% of the total basin area of 970 square miles. The balance, approximately 21%, is in private ownership.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL MAP OF THE CHANCHELULLA ROADLESS AREA, TRINITY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By Donald F. Huber Scott C. Nelson Luis A. Fraticelli U.S. Geological Survey and Scott A. Stebbins U.S. Bureau of Mines U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-506 1983 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Under the provisions of the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577, September 3, 1964) and related acts the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines have been conducting mineral surveys of wilderness and primitive areas. Areas officially designated as "wilderness," "wild," or "canoe" when the act was passed were incorporated into the National Wilderness Preservation System, and some of them are presently being studied. The act provided that areas under considertion for wilderness designation should be studied for suitability for incorporation into the Wilderness System. The mineral surveys constitute one aspect of the suitability studies. The act directs that the results of such surveys are to be made available to the public and be submitted to the President and the Congress. This report discusses the results of a mineral survey of the Chanchelulla Roadless Area (5220), Trinity National Forest, Trinity County, California. The Chanchelulla Roadless Area was classified as a further planning area during the Second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) by the U.S. Forest Service, January 1979. SUMMARY Based on mineral surveys in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, the Chanchelulla Road­ less Area has an inferred subeconomic resource of about 7,200 tons containing 0.084 oz gold per ton, 0.84 oz silver per ton, and accessory copper at the Chanchelulla prospect.
    [Show full text]
  • Anticipated Sediment Release from Klamath River Dam Removal Within the Context of Basin Sediment Delivery Final Report
    Anticipated Sediment Release from Klamath River Dam Removal within the Context of Basin Sediment Delivery Final Report Prepared for California Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Prepared by Stillwater Sciences 850 G Street, Suite K Arcata, California 95521 April 2010 Sediment Delivery in the Klamath Basin Acknowledgement We thank the California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) for support of studies related to dam removal on the Klamath River and the guidance from SCC’s project manager, Michael Bowen. Blair Greimann and Brian Cluer provided peer review. Suggested citation: Stillwater Sciences. 2010. Anticipated sediment release from Klamath River dam removal within the context of basin sediment delivery. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Arcata, California for California Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, California 8 April 2010 Stillwater Sciences i Sediment Delivery in the Klamath Basin Executive Summary Introduction Four dams on the Klamath River owned by PacifiCorp (Iron Gate, Copco 1 and 2, and J.C. Boyle) are being considered for removal to improve fish passage and water quality. Numerical modeling under various scenarios predicted that dam removal could release up to 3.2 million tons of reservoir sediment to downstream reaches, the majority of which would be released in the first year following removal (GEC 2006, Stillwater Sciences 2008). Little sedimentation or increase in flood stage heights are expected to occur downstream of Iron Gate Dam (Stillwater Sciences 2008). Additional studies assessed the potential effects of dam removal on fish and water quality in the lower Klamath River (Stillwater Sciences 2009a, Stillwater Sciences 2009b). This study was commissioned by the California State Coastal Conservancy to place the anticipated sediment release from dam removal into the context of background sediment delivery from watershed sources.
    [Show full text]