State of the Yuba

An Assessment of the Yuba River Watershed

Prepared by:

The South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL) April 2006

Contributing author: Fraser Shilling, UC Davis

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 1 of 57

Table of Contents A. Developing Areas

B. Population Changes I. Summary C. Roads II. Introduction D. Logging III. Water Quality Information from the Yuba River E. Mining Monitoring Program Special Issue: Mercury Contamination in Fish i. Water Temperature F. Dams and Diversions ii. Dissolved Oxygen VII. Conducting a GIS-based Watershed Assessment iii. pH (acidity/alkalinity) A. Why Consider the Landscape iv. Total Dissolved Solids (conductivity) B. What Parameters to Include v. Total Suspended Solids, Turbidity C. Method for Analyzing the GIS Data vi. Contaminants D. Construction of the “Knowledge Base” for a. Arsenic Assessing Watershed Condition b. E. coli i. Terrestrial Environment Special Issue: Algae in the Yuba River Watershed ii. Aquatic Environment IV. Historic and Contemporary Flows E. Results of Analysis Special Issue: Flows in the Yuba River F. Conclusions V. Land Cover in the Watershed VIII. Bibliography VI. Human Disturbances in the Watershed

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 2 of 57

I. SUMMARY

The Yuba River is located on the west slope of the northern Sierra Nevada and is a tributary to the Feather River. It pours down 3 main stems (South, Middle, and North) from granitic basins through forested canyons to the Sacramento Valley. The watersheds for the South, Middle, and North Yuba Rivers are impacted by a variety of human activities, while the rivers themselves are some of the most regulated in the state (in terms of flows). Water quality tends to be high, when compared to rivers in the Central Valley. The Yuba River Monitoring Program and other monitoring projects have found specific contaminants associated with certain creeks, while generally reinforcing the claim that the water of the Yuba River is clean. However, low flows and high temperatures on the South and Middle Yubas and a legacy of sediment from hydraulic mining have contributed to problems for the cold-water adapted aquatic communities. There are a variety of risks posed to the Yuba watershed from human activities. These include a) a high concentration of roads associated with rural housing development, logging, and recreation, b) a patchwork of ownership making watershed-scale decisions more difficult, and c) substantial water regulation and withdrawals from the basin.

II. INTRODUCTION

The North Yuba flows from the Yuba Pass area, past Downieville, where it is joined by the Downie River, to New Bullards Bar Reservoir. The Middle Yuba originates from springs near Meadow Lake, passes through Jackson Meadow Reservoir, and enters Englebright Reservoir near Rice Crossing. The South Yuba River begins near Castle Peak/Donner Pass, parallels Interstate 80 until it merges with Spaulding Reservoir, and cascades down 40 miles of canyon until it enters Englebright Reservoir near Bridgeport.

There are more than 2,100 miles of streams, creeks, and rivers within the Yuba system. These range in elevation from around 9,000 feet at Castle Peak to under 100 feet in the Valley. They meander through steep-walled granite canyons, small towns, mined areas, conifer forests, oak woodlands, agricultural areas, and grasslands. The upper watershed receives over 80 inches of precipitation, much of which is as snow in the winter, while the lower (in the Valley itself) receives about 20 inches.

Most people don’t think about watersheds very much, or if they do, aren’t always sure where they start or end. The Yuba “watershed” is that part of the landscape that rain or melting snow runs off and into the Yuba River or its tributaries. The edge of the watershed is the ridgeline, however broad and ill-defined, that determines whether precipitation goes into the Yuba tributaries, or some neighboring river basin, like the Feather or Truckee River basins. The creek or river at the bottom of a valley or swale is the recipient of the precipitation and is therefore affected by activities on the landscape from which the water originates.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 3 of 57 Human Activity in the Yuba River Watershed

According to Wilson and Towne (1978), the Hill Nisenan occupied the Yuba basin until the mid-1800s (Anderson and Moratto, 1996). Several thousand individuals probably lived in villages in the foothills and mid-elevations, with seasonal residences at higher elevations. After the Gold Rush, most Native peoples had been killed or displaced by miners and settlers. There are no population estimates by watershed, but for Nevada County, the numbers oscillated between 10,000 and 20,000 residents from 1850 to 1950 (Duane, 1996). Since 1950, the number of County residents has increased five-fold to close to 100,000 people (Duane 1996).

The economy of the Yuba watershed since European-American settlement has included gold mining, logging, construction, recreation, rural housing development, and various agricultural operations. The relative socio-economic ranks of the counties within the watershed has changed radically over the last 50 years (Hoffmann and Fortmann, 1996). In 1950, Nevada County was one of the poorest in the state (per capita income), while Yuba County was in the top third. By 1992, these ranks had essentially been reversed. Sierra County went from the top third to the middle third.

The South Yuba and Deer Creek watersheds currently face a growth spurt in the “rural sprawl” that is spreading through the foothills from the Sacramento valley below. Nevada County is considered a recreation destination and a place for second and retirement homes. The prices of being an attractive place near Sacramento are fragmentation due to subdivision of parcels, grading the landscape for roads, driveways, and pads, and increasing demands for water and community services. The impact is likely to be felt by existing residents of the watershed as well as the natural resources and processes.

Watershed Assessments

The “State of the Yuba” report is essentially a “watershed assessment”. This includes evaluations of the human and cultural setting of the watershed as well as an evaluation of the condition of the water and landscape of the basin relative to numeric standards (e.g., drinking water standard) or “desired conditions”. Another way to think about this is a way to identify and prioritize places and processes in the watershed that may require restoration, increased management attention, or some other protective activity. Although there is no one standard way to conduct a watershed assessment, typically they are encyclopedia describing the condition of a part of the landscape that provides water to a particular water body.

III. WATER QUALITY INFORMATION FROM THE MONITORING PROGRAM

SYRCL has been water quality data from throughout the Yuba River watershed since 2001. The monitoring program is designed to detect impacts to waterways from natural and human activities in-stream and on the surrounding landscape. Results of the program at

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 4 of 57 this time can show areas of potential impact from land-use, but is the data yet remains too limited to allow for statements about long- term trends in condition.

Several waterways are potentially or actually impacted within the Yuba basin. For example, a tributary of the South Yuba, Humbug Creek, is listed under the Clean Water Act, 303(d) for sediment, mercury, copper, and zinc. The Upper Yuba is also considered a “priority watershed” for action by the state under the California Unified Watershed Assessment. There are many impacts within the watershed that contribute to these listings, including dams and diversions, abandoned mine lands, high road densities, and poor logging practices.

The goals of the Yuba River Monitoring Program have been revised to meet the growing needs of the watershed:

1) To provide baseline river monitoring data for:

 assessing existing conditions of the Yuba River Watershed

 understanding medium and long-term river trends, including land use practices, restoration actions, impact of climate change

 providing input to long-term management questions, such as restoring salmon populations, geomorphic changes.

2) To empower citizens to be responsible stewards and advocates for river health.

3) To educate the larger Yuba Watershed community regarding trends and issues.

4) To serve as a model citizen-based river monitoring organization by:

 Maintaining an on-going pool of trained monitors

 Educating citizens in state-of-the-art stream monitoring collection techniques and their relationship to a healthy watershed.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 5 of 57

5) To assess, identify and prioritize restoration opportunities and projects; and to evaluate project impact and performance.

6) To evaluate Yuba water and habitat quality in terms of specific criteria.

7) To guide local watershed management decisions.

The focus of the project is on habitat and chemical, physical and biological water quality measures that will identify the status of these aquatic resources. There are several components to SYRCL’s volunteer monitoring team. The monthly monitoring team collects periodic samples from all 33 sites (depending on weather and access). A subset of the monitoring team forms the Peak Flow Team. They collect the samples before, during and/or after storm events from priority sampling sites. Prioritization is based on a combination of site accessibility and position of the site in the watershed. A Macroinvertebrate Team collects aquatic insects from ten sites primarily on the South Yuba and three sites on the Middle and North Yuba. The monitoring teams have been extensively trained in water quality measurements, sampling, and riparian condition assessments. There are five to seven monitoring trainings each year. In addition, the River Monitoring Director accompanies monitoring teams every month in order to assess their techniques and to provide on-site training.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 6 of 57

Table 1: Water Quality Monitoring sites Site # Site Description Stream Location Monitoring Parameter code 1 NY01 Above Downieville North Yuba River Coliform, TPH ** 2 NY02 Below Downieville North Yuba River Coliform, Iron, TPH 3 NY03 Below Fiddle Creek at Hwy 49 North Yuba River Coliform 4 NT01 Lavezzola Creek Trib to North Yuba Coliform 5 MT02 Oregon Creek Trib - Middle Yuba Coliform, As, Cu, Zn, Iron 5B MY04 Middle Yuba above Oregon Ck. Middle Yuba River Coliform, As 7 MY01 Jackson Meadows, seasonal Middle Yuba River Coliform, As 9 MY03 Foote’s Crossing at Kanaka Creek Middle Yuba River Coliform, As, Cu, Zn 10 SY02 Near Indian Springs/Eagle Lakes South Yuba River Coliform, TPH 11 SY03 Langs Crossing South Yuba River Coliform 12 ST03 Humbug Creek Trib to South Yuba Coliform, Cu, Zn, As, Iron 13 SY05 Above Humbug Creek South Yuba River Coliform 14 SY06 Below Humbug Creek South Yuba River Coliform 15 SY08 Purdon Crossing South Yuba River Coliform 16 Y01 Parks Bar at Hwy 20 Lower Yuba River Coliform, TPH, As, Iron 18 Y02 Hallwood Blvd. Lower Yuba River Coliform, As, Iron 19 SY10 Jones Bar South Yuba River Coliform 20 Y03 Marysville, below water treatment plant Lower Yuba River Coliform, As , Iron, TPH 21 ST04 Spring Creek Trib to South Yuba Coliform, Iron

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 7 of 57 22 ST06 Lower Rock Creek Trib to South Yuba Coliform, Iron 23 ST02 Poorman Creek Trib to South Yuba Coliform, As, Cu, Iron 25 ST01 Scotchman Creek Trib to South Yuba Coliform, As, Cu, Zn, Iron 26 ST07 Shady Creek Trib to South Yuba Coliform, Iron, Cu, Zn, As 27 MT01 Kanaka Creek Trib - Middle Yuba Coliform, Arsenic 28 SY01 Upper South Yuba River Hampshire Rocks South Yuba River Coliform, Iron 29 SY04 Keleher Campground South Yuba River Coliform 30 SY07 Edwards Crossing South Yuba River Coliform 31 SY09 Hwy 49 Bridge South Yuba River Coliform 32 NT02 Canyon Creek Trib to North Yuba Coliform 33 SY11 Bridgeport South Yuba River Coliform, Iron, TPH 34 ST05 Upper Rock Creek, Above Lake Vera Trib to South Yuba Coliform, Iron 35 Lower Rush Creek, at Jones Bar Trib to South Yuba Coliform 36 Upper Rush Creek on Hwy 49 Trib to South Yuba Coliform, TPH

*All sites were monitored for dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, and temperature and turbidity. Total Suspended Solids are tested simultaneously with metals. ** Fecal Coliform tests yield results for Total Coliform Bacteria and E. Coli as an indicator for Fecal Coliform.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 8 of 57

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 9 of 57 Monitoring methods

All samples were taken and analyzed in accordance with the Quality Assurance Policy and Protocols, as approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Specific methods are listed below.

Parameter Method Location Comments

Dissolved Oxygen Winkler Titration method Field Samples fixed immediately in the field and titrated in the field or at the SYRCL office. PH Meter Field Meters were calibrated before every use. Dissolved solids/ Conductivity Meter Field Meters were calibrated before every use. salts Total suspended TSS (filtered on 0.45 micron filter, Lab TSS samples were analyzed by independent solids dried @ 75 ) professional laboratory. Coliform bacteria Membrane Filtration Lab Samples were analyzed by independent professional laboratory. Hydrocarbons Oil and Grease Lab Samples were analyzed by independent professional laboratory Metals AAS, ICP — OES, or ICP - MS Lab Samples were analyzed by independent professional laboratory. Temperature Digital Thermometer (-5 to 50 C) Field Meter was calibrated with standard (NIST) mercury thermometer. Turbidity La Motte 2020 Turbidimeter Office Turbidimeter calibrated before each use, samples read in office within 8 hours of collection.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 10 of 57 i. Water Temperature

The water temperatures on the North, South, Middle and Lower Yuba Rivers show a normal progression through the year. During the winter months, the Yuba River Watershed water temperatures are comparable. However, during the summer months the South Yuba River exhibits higher temperatures than the rest of the watershed, while the Lower Yuba River exhibits lower water temperatures due to the cold-water releases from New Bullards Bar and Englebright Reservoirs. The high temperatures in the South Yuba River are a direct result of low flows due to a significant amount of diversions and dams in the upper watershed. Temperature is significant because biochemical reactions, such as the uptake of oxygen by bacteria, proceed more rapidly at higher temperatures. Temperature also affects the solubility of oxygen in water with less oxygen available for aquatic life at higher temperatures. This means the aquatic life is more vulnerable during the summer period when flows are low and water temperatures are high. The South Yuba River is directly impacted because of the low flows and high temperatures, which significantly impact the structure and composition of the aquatic plant, microbial, and animal communities, and the natural ecological processes present. High temperatures determine which fish species are present, or potentially present, the rates and amount of algal growth, and the dissolved oxygen available to support aquatic life.

Please see Site Codes and Elevations for each site on the Table below.

South Yuba Sites 2000-6000 feet in elevation Tributaries to the South Yuba 2000-2800 feet in elevation 30 25 25 ST01 SY01 20 ST02 20 SY02 ST03 SY03 15 ST04 15 SY04 ST05 SY05 ST06 10 SY06 10 ST07

optimum Temperature (C) Water Temperature (C) Temperature Water 5 upper 5 optimum upper

0 0 Aug-00 Feb-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Aug-02 Feb-03 Aug-03 Feb-04 Aug-04 Feb-05 Aug-05 Aug-00 Feb-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Aug-02 Feb-03 Aug-03 Feb-04 Aug-04 Feb-05 Aug-05

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 11 of 57 ii. Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved Oxygen (DO), the amount of oxygen in the water, is essential for the survival of fish and other aquatic life and the dissolved oxygen chemical analysis is one of the most important indicators of pollution in rivers. It can also indicate whether there is excessive plant growth present. Normally water is 100% saturated with oxygen but if the oxygen is used up, either by polluting material or by plants that live in the water, the oxygen levels can decrease. Aquatic invertebrates, fish, and amphibians (especially their eggs and young) are negatively impacted in waters where dissolved oxygen levels fall too low. The presence of excessive plant life (i.e. algal blooms) can result in supersaturation (>100% dissolved oxygen levels) of the water as oxygen is given off during photosynthesis during the day. This is often accompanied by low night-time levels of dissolved oxygen as the plants respire.

The sites on the South Yuba River and site 7 on the Middle Yuba River exhibit the lowest saturation of dissolved oxygen in the watershed. Site 7 and Site 11, South Yuba River, are located below reservoirs and Sites 10 and 28, located along Interstate 80 have violated the lowest State Water Resources Control Board standards, 75% saturation of dissolved oxygen during the summer season. While sites on the South Yuba River never reach 100% saturation of dissolved oxygen, sites on the Lower and North Yuba Rivers measured over 100%, consistently during the summer season.

Low dissolved oxygen concentrations at sites below reservoirs are often the result of low flows, higher temperatures and oxygen depletion at the bottom of the reservoirs, where the water generally originates. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations in water released from reservoirs are often the result of oxygen depletion at the bottom of the reservoir, where the water may originate. This is due to chemical and/or biological depletion of oxygen, primarily due to rotting detritus deposited by incoming rivers and streams. Aquatic invertebrates, fish, and amphibians (especially their eggs and young) will be negatively impacted in water that is depleted in oxygen below 75% to 85% saturation.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 12 of 57 SY07 Lower Yuba Sites Below 200 feet in elevation Y01 South Yuba Sites 500-2000 feet in elevation 14 16 SY08

12 Y02 14 12 SY09 10 10 8 Y03 SY10 8 6 6 SY11 4 No 4

impairment Dissolved Oxygen in mg/L in Oxygen Dissolved Dissolved Oxygen in mg/L in Oxygen Dissolved 2 2 No 0 0 impairment Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Slight Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Slight 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 impairment 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 impairment

ST01 MT01 Tributaries of the South Yuba Middle Fork Sites and Tributaries 2000-2800 feet in elevation 1400-5800 feet in elevation ST02 MT02 14 16 ST03 14 12 MY01 12 10 ST04 10 MY02 8 ST05 8 6 MY03 ST06 6 4 4 MY04

ST07 Dissolved Oxygen in mg/L in Oxygen Dissolved Dissolved Oxygen in mg/L in Oxygen Dissolved 2 2 No 0 No 0 impairment Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- impairment Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 Slight 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 Slight impairment impairment

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 13 of 57 North Yuba and Tributaries NT01 2200-3500 feet in elevation 16 NT02

14 NY01 12

10 NY02

8 NY03 6

4 NY04

Dissolved Oxygen in mg/L in Oxygen Dissolved 2 No 0 impairment Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 Slight impairment

iii pH (acidity/alkalinity) A pH of 7 is “neutral” in terms of acidity/alkalinity, whereas the values observed for the Yuba River were relatively alkaline. Deviations in pH from neutral may result from weathering/erosion of rock and soil types that result in acid or alkaline salts, or biological activity. There were very few readings that were outside the range found for drinking water and most rivers in the Sierra Nevada (pH 7 to 8) or the range set as a goal by the SWRCB (pH 6.5 to 8.5). All sites fall into this range except three with pH values at 8.6, 8.8. and 8.9, Hallwood Blvd, Indian Springs and Oregon Creek, respectively, within a 0.5 pH unit of the goal. This small amount of fluctuation is not cause for concern when it is considered with all water quality parameters tested, and is always discussed with the SWRCB Technical Advisory Committee. Measures are taken for further testing if indicated. The low value of 3.96 was noted as a meter malfunction.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 14 of 57 MT01 12 MT02 MY01 10 MY02 MY03 8 MY04 NT01 6

pH NT02 NY01 4 NY02 NY03 2 NY04 ST01 0 ST02 Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- ST03 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 ST04

ST05 ST06

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 15 of 57 iv Total Dissolved Solids / Conductivity

Erosion of rock and soil by rainwater results in mineral salts dissolved in the creeks and rivers. This is the main source of “dissolved solids” in most rivers. Other sources are abandoned mines, road-salt, and waste discharge from municipal and agricultural operations. The Yuba River does not appear to have a problem with dissolved solids, with the vast majority of measurements being below the SWRCB goal of 150 micro-Siemens and well below the drinking water standard (>1,000 micro-Siemens). Kanaka Creek, a Middle Yuba Tributary shows the highest conductivity readings, ranging from 256 to 303 micro-siemens. Site 12, ST03, Humbug Creek Tributary to the South Yuba showed a wide range of conductivity with a high of 180 micro- Siemens and a low of 70. These creeks are downstream of historical mining activities. Lavezzola Creek, NT01, Site 4 also stood out as having high TDS concentrations in the 200 range. This creek originates from a relatively pristine watershed, so these values are probably due to natural erosion processes.

South Yuba Tributaries

200

180 ST01

160 ST02

140 ST03

120 ST04 100 ST05 80 Conductivity ST06 60 ST07 40

20

0 Aug-00 Feb-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Aug-02 Feb-03 Aug-03 Feb-04 Aug-04 Feb-05 Aug-05

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 16 of 57 Middle Yuba and Tributaries 1400-5800 feet in elevation North Yuba Sites and Tributaries 2200-3500 feet in elevation 350 250 300

250 200 MT01 NT01 MT02 200 NT02 MY01 150 NY01 MY02 150 NY02 MY03 Conductivity 100 NY03 MY04 Conductivity 100 NY04 50 50

0 0 Aug-00 Feb-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Aug-02 Feb-03 Aug-03 Feb-04 Aug-04 Feb-05 Aug-05 Aug-00 Feb-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Aug-02 Feb-03 Aug-03 Feb-04 Aug-04 Feb-05 Aug-05

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 17 of 57 Special Issue: Algae in the Yuba River Watershed

Algae growing on rocks in the South Yuba River is a common sight in the summer. To date there has been no record kept of the amount of algae, or whether it poses a risk to aquatic communities (i.e., when it dies and rots). During the summer of 2001, it was found that the South Yuba River had higher density of attached algae than in the Middle or North Yuba Rivers.

There was considerably greater algal mass (5 to 10-fold) adhered to cobbles in the South Yuba River (“SY-A and Weight of Algae Adhered to Cobbles in Yuba River SY-B”) than the North Yuba River (“NY-A and NY-B”), confirming visual evidence of this phenomenon. The algal mass on cobbles in the Middle Yuba River (“MY-A and MY-B”) was intermediate between values for the North and South Yuba Rivers. There were slight elevational and 300 geomorphological differences between the sites sampled. For example, the North Yuba River site was slightly higher, 250 but appeared more open to the sky/sun than the Middle and

200 South Yuba River sites, which were within canyons. The water temperature was lower for the North Yuba River

150 compared to the Middle and South Yuba Rivers. It is likely that the warmer water contributes to the greater growth of Weight/Area (g/m2) Weight/Area 100 algae in the South Yuba River relative to the North Yuba River. The warmer water is probably due to lower flows 50 originating from Spaulding dam (South Yuba River) relative

0 to the natural flows in the North Yuba River. There may

NY - A NY - B also be differences in nutrient concentrations between the

MY - A Dry Weight/Cobble Area MY - B two locations. These values are very high compared to other Dry Weight/Benthic Area Site location SY - A rivers. For example, at the mouths of the Eel River SY - B (Humboldt County), the Santa Clara River (Ventura/Los Angeles County line), and the San Luis Rey River (San Dry Weight/Benthic Area Dry Weight/Cobble Area Diego County), measurements of attached algae in the summer have been between 20 and 84 g/m2.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 18 of 57

v. Total Suspended Solids & Turbidity

Suspended sediment in creeks and rivers may come from natural erosion, roads, abandoned mine lands, logging operations, and housing development. Site 12, Humbug Creek, and Site 26, Shady Creek, stand out during monthly monitoring as having high TSS and Turbidity concentrations during high precipitation during storm events. The Humbug Creek watershed is home to the Malakoff Diggins Historical State Park and a variety of clearcuts on private lands. The abandoned mine lands in the State Park are eroding into the various tributary creeks and old drain tunnels that flow into Humbug Creek proper. Shady Creek also receives runoff from abandoned mines that result in increased sediment, turbidity and concentrations of metals, especially iron in this creek.

vi. Contaminants a. Arsenic

This pollutant is suspected of causing cancer in humans and is subject to a drinking water standard of 10 ppb (g/Liter). Kanaka Creek, MT01, a tributary to the Middle Yuba is listed under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as “impaired” due to Arsenic release from the “16 to 1 Mine”. As is evident in the graph, Kanaka Creek is introducing Arsenic into the Middle Yuba at a level that exceeds the standard. It is also noted that a few other sites carry this naturally-occurring pollutant. Site 5, MT02, Oregon Creek, another tributary to the Middle Yuba; Site 12, ST03, Humbug Creek flowing into the South Yuba; and Site 18, Y02 at Hallwood Blvd on the Lower Yuba had measurable concentrations of Arsenic in the water, though well under the water quality standard of 10 g/L.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 19 of 57 Kanaka Creek, MT01

Middle Yuba and Tributaries

1400- 5800 feet in elevation MT01

50 MT02 45 40 MY01 35 MY02 30

25 MY03 20 15 MY04 10 EPA Safe

ArsenicLevels ppbin 5 Drinking 0 Water Level Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 20 of 57 Tributaries of the South Yuba ST01 Lower Yuba Sites

2000-2800 feet in elevation Below 200 feet in elevation Y01 12 ST02 12

ST03 10 10 Y02

8 ST04 8

ST05 6 6 Y03

4 ST06 4

Arsenic Levels Arsenic Levels EPA Safe 2 ST07 PartsperBillion in 2 Drinking ArsenicLevels ppmin Water Level

0 EPA Safe 0 Drinking Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Water Level Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06

A study was conducted in March, 2006 to determine the effectiveness of the present schedule of metals testing using the standards in the table below. Based on these results, it has been determined that collecting data on Lead, Zinc or Copper may be reduced to one to four times per year.

EPA drinking water standard maximum Yuba Yuba max contaminant average stdev value site of Max level (ug/L) (ug/L) ug/L (ug/L) value Cu 1300 13 0.073 174 26 Lead 15 1 0.015 1.78 21 Zinc 500 9 0.075 107 12 Iron 300 992 11.318 34900 12 Arsenic 10 5 0.023 47.2 27

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 21 of 57

Kanaka Creek, Site 27 and Humbug Creek, Site 12 have concentrations in Arsenic as shown in this table. Arsenic sampling will be continued at these sites. Arsenic (ug/L) Values above 10 ug/L exceed the thresholds. Number Number of Percent of days days of sampled sampled samples above above max min average stdev standard Standard Site 27 47.2 4.1 21.55 13.46 32 25 78 Site 12 13.2 0 4.31 5.04 17 1 6

b. E. coli

Mammals have the bacteria Escherichea coli naturally-occurring in their intestines. Human or non-human waste can cause elevated levels of this bacterium in surface waters. Concentrations of live bacteria above 125 cells per 1/10 liter are considered potentially hazardous to human health. Certain strains of E. coli can cause nausea and even death. Site 26, ST07, Shady Creek, had the highest concentrations at 770 E. coli, May 2003, indicating contamination by human or non-human animal waste, followed by Site 12, ST03, Humbug Creek, January, 2003, and still measurable amounts of E coli at Site 19, SY10, Jones Bar, also in May, 2003. Oregon Creek on the Middle Yuba also had 461 E. coli present once in May, 2003. It appears there was a definite source of this species of bacteria on both the Middle and South Yuba in May, 2003.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 22 of 57 South Yuba and Tributaries 500-6000 feet in elevation

Safe Level 900 ST01

800 ST02 ST03 700 ST04 ST05 600 ST06

500 ST07 SY01

400 SY02 E. coli SY03 300 SY04 200 SY05 SY06 100 SY07 SY08 0 SY09 Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- Feb- Aug- 00 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 SY10 SY11

IV. Historic and Contemporary Flows

Flows in the managed portions of the Yuba River (all except the North Yuba above New Bullards Bar Reservoir) have been the subject of considerable contention primarily because water withdrawals from the basin and low flows at critical times for fisheries have endangered the native fish and other aquatic fauna of the River. Declining and threatened with extinction, the salmon entering the lower Yuba occasionally face only a couple of hundred cubic feet per second of flow coming upstream to the 23 foot high Daguerre Point dam. These foot-tall salmon are sometimes forced to navigate long stretches of 6-inch deep riffles. Low flows in the summer also mean a greater chance of injurious and even lethal water temperatures for aquatic organisms as the water warms in the sun. Although there is controversy over the extent to which the water management agencies are causing harm to the “beneficial uses” of the Yuba waters, what is clear is that harm is occurring at various times and places, in order to supply hydroelectric power, irrigation water, and drinking water to residents of the Sacramento Valley.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 23 of 57

Month Calculated Flow Actual Flow Percent of A. Modeled/Calculated Flows cfs ac-ft/month cfs (+ S.D.) ac-ft/month Calculated

February 9,112 524,117 4,176 (+ 334) 240,182 46% There have been calculations made by March 6,082 373,982 4,584 (+ 731) 281,839 75% the California Department of Water April 6,469 384,931 2,951 (+ 181) 175,597 46% Resources of the “full natural flows” that would enter the lower Yuba May 5,983 367,879 2,265 (+ 192) 139,269 38% River if no dams and diversions were June 1,794 106,721 1,707 (+ 131) 101,574 95% present. The modeled flows in the July 584 35,882 1,655 (+ 87) 101,762 284% table below are for the Yuba River at August 173 10,641 1,734 (+ 179) 106,620 1002% Smartville, below Englebright September 309 18,392 1,173 (+ 212) 69,798 380% Reservoir/Dam October 694 42,656 1,012 (+ 200) 62,225 190% (http://cdec.water.ca.gov/snow/curren November 567 33,760 1,013 (+ 70) 60,278 179% t/flow/fnfinfo.html). The actual December 728 44,735 970 (+ 60) 59,643 133% measured flows from Englebright, are January 726 44,660 888 (+ 48) 54,601 122% from data collected manually by the February 1,606 92,350 758 (+ 271) 43,600 47% US Army Corps of Engineers for March 3,341 205,437 731 (+ 27) 44,947 22% 2000 to 2001. April 3,298 196,244 928 (+ 97) 55,220 28% May 3,385 208,123 914 (+ 116) 56,200 27% June 426 25,357 936 (+ 46) 55,689 219%

What is obvious from the values in the last column (“Percent of Calculated”) in this table is that the flows in the Lower Yuba are far from the natural condition. There is often “too little” water in the winter and spring and “too much” in the summer, at least averaged over each month in the water year 2000 – 2001. There have also been times in summers past when too little water has been released from Englebright Dam, or too much diverted at Daguerre Point Dam, resulting in rapidly warming low flows that pose severe risks to anadramous and non-anadramous fish alike. Low flows in the winter, when flows would naturally be high, means that flushing of bed sediments does not occur, resulting in sand, gravel, and rocks becoming “embedded” in the river bottom, making life very difficult for aquatic insects and fish that rely on these sediments moving around easily.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 24 of 57

B. Differences between DWR and USGS measurements at Marysville

Both the US Geological Services and California Department of Water Resources describe their online data as “draft” or “provisional”. It would therefore not be fair to criticize the magnitude of the flow found by each. Both sets of measurements correspond very well at high rates of flow (>1,000 cfs).

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 25 of 57 Flows at Marysville: USGS vs. DWR

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000 Flow (cfs)

5,000

0

1

19 37 55 73 91

109 127 145 163 181 199 217 235 253 271 289 307 325 343 361 379 397 415 433 451 469 487 505 523 541 Time (days since February 2, 2000)

USGS DWR

It is interesting though that over the same period and in roughly the same location (near Marysville) each agency could find different values for flow at the lower rates (<1,000 cfs). This would be of only academic interest except for the fact that the lowest flows are the ones most critical to maintain for salmonid migration and reproduction. Given the ~25% difference at the lowest flows (<400 cfs), depending on the requirements for salmonids and which values one chose to use, flows above or less than legal requirements could conceivably be found. The difference is probably due to gaging station differences and ways of collecting data. The magnitude of the difference also decreases for higher rates of flow, reinforcing the idea that it is due to gaging procedures.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 26 of 57 Flow at Marysville: Fine detail

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600 Flow(cfs) 400

200

0

1 6

11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96

101 106 111 116 121 Time (days since April 1, 2001)

USGS DWR

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 27 of 57

Special Issue: Flows in the Yuba River

Diversions from the upper Middle and South Yuba River to Spaulding Reservoir, and from there to the Bear and American Rivers may have considerable impact on the ecology of the upper and lower Yuba Rivers. Water going to Spaulding Powerhouse 1 (A) leaves the watershed, resulting in low flows in the upper South Yuba (B) and the lower Middle (C) and South (D) Yuba Rivers. This will result in higher temperatures and lower rates of sediment movement than would occur naturally.

A Mean Monthly Flows Spaulding Dam PowerHouse 1 B Mean Monthly Flows below Spaulding (1982-2000) (1971-2000) 25

700 20 600 500 15 400 10

300 Flow Flow (cfs)

200 5 Flows (cfs) 100 0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Month

Mean Monthly Flows Middle Yuba C D Mean Monthly Flows at Jones Bar (Our House Dam, 1969-2000) (1927 - 2000) 1000 400 900 350 800 300 700 250 600 500 200 400 150 Flows (cfs) 300 Flows Flows (cfs) 100 200 50 100 0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Month

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 28 of 57

V. Land Cover in the Watershed

a. Vegetation/Plant Communities

The Yuba basin is home to many different plant species and “plant communities”. This term refers to the complex of plant species that make up a particular type of community, such as blue oak woodland. Usually the community is described using the name of the dominant plant type, which is helpful in separating the myriad different combinations of plants into units that are both useful as categories and are meaningful ecological units.

The following table lists the major plant communities and land cover types in the watershed and the area of each. The map shows the distribution of these communities throughout the watershed. The data for the table and the map came from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection – Fire Resource Assessment Program (2002).

Plant Community/Land Cover Name Area (acres) Agriculture 9,030 Montane Riparian 2,311 Annual Grassland 27,590 Ponderosa Pine 41,094 Barren 29,627 Red Fir 77,309 Blue Oak Woodland 27,437 Riverine 42 Blue Oak-Foothill Pine 3,983 Sierran Mixed Conifer 295,175 Closed-Cone Pine-Cypress 227 Subalpine Conifer 1,069 Douglas-Fir 84,800 Unknown Conifer Type 22 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 348 Unknown Shrub Type 319 Jeffrey Pine 2,237 Urban 12,825 Lodgepole Pine 6,881 Valley Foothill Riparian 3,768 Mixed Chaparral 7,417 Valley Oak Woodland 1,908 Montane Chaparral 41,953 Water 15,911 Montane Hardwood 100,405 Wet Meadow 3,145 Montane Hardwood-Conifer 43,975 White Fir 29,121

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 29 of 57 Yuba River Watershed

Major Plant Communities North Yuba

N !"49 Middle Yuba W E

S

South Yuba

!"49 !"20 ,-.80 Deer Creek Lower Yuba Major Vegetation Groups !"20 Agriculture Barren/Other Nevada City Conifer Forest Hardwood Forest Hardwood Woodland Herbaceous Highways Yuba City/Marysville Shrub Urban Streams and Rivers 5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Water Yuba River Wetland Sub-watershed boundaries

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 30 of 57

b. Invasive species

The following weeds occur in Nevada, Placer, Sutter, and Yuba Counties: Boca weed, Dalmation toadflax (Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), Klamathweed (Hypericum perforatum), Musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris), Scotch thistle (Onopardium acanthium), Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), gorse (Ulex europaeus), Skeletonweed (Chondrella juncea), Coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), and Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata). (http://endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/weeds/countylist.asp)

VI. Human Disturbances in the Watershed

A. Developing Areas

About 1/3 of the Yuba River watershed is in Nevada County, which is one of the fastest growing counties in the Sierra Nevada. The three counties that make up most of the basin (Yuba, Sierra, Nevada) are at the forefront of changing land-uses from extractive industries and agriculture to rural and urban development and recreation. The policies, allowable land-uses, and ordinances in these counties will have the most impact of the potential stressors on health and condition of the watershed, especially in the privately- owned parts of the watershed.

One half of the watershed is owned by private individuals or corporations. There are a huge number of uses that these lands are put to, from logging to vineyards to large backyards. The activities on these lands are regulated by the counties, the state, and to a limited degree by the federal government. There is no watershed basis for the regulations, making consistency among regulatory requirements for watershed protection challenging.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 31 of 57 The county general plans displayed below show that the lower third of the watershed is intended for agricultural, industrial, commercial, or housing development uses. General plans can be modified, but give a sense for how development may proceed across a region. Low and medium density residential development is planned for certain areas of the watershed near highways 20 and 49. There are also areas of “planned development” which tends to mean slightly higher densities of houses (~1 per acre) than found in low-density rural residential areas (~1 per 5 – 20 acres). The “open space” designation in the eastern third of the watershed includes a variety of land use types, from US Forest Service thinning practices, to private timberland clear-cutting, to ranching in the lower foothills. Thus the actual condition of the lands will vary depending on the ownership and actual land use. Only the public lands in the upper watershed and lightly grazed ranches at lower elevations will provide any assurance of protection for the watershed. The rate of parcel subdivision that is occurring in the southern part of the watershed adjacent to highways 49 and 20 suggests that the general plan map is an underestimate of the development pressure that the watershed will experience once the Nevada County general plan is updated. Once subdivision has occurred and the county is subsequently pressured to plan for residential development, it will become much harder to plan and implement conservation actions (e.g., purchase of conservation easements on agricultural lands) because of fragmented ownership and higher prices per acre. The best way to improve this condition and conserve the watersheds natural resources and beauty is by improving zoning (e.g., putting more areas into agricultural or open space designation) and limiting rates of subdivision. El Dorado County has begun to address this issue and is limiting new subdivision of parcels.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 32 of 57 Yuba River Watershed North Yuba County General Plans

49 N !" Middle Yuba W E

S South Yuba

!"20 !"49 ,.-80 Deer Creek Lower Yuba 20 General Plan Designations !" agriculture Nevada City industry high-dens comm low-dens comm Lakes high-dens resid Highways med-dens resid Streams and rivers Yuba City/Marysville low-dens resid Yuba River 5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles pub & op space Sub-watershed water boundaries urban reserve planned dev

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 33 of 57 B. Population Changes

According to data from the Census Bureau (2000) the population density in census blocks (“neighborhoods”) within the watershed ranges from 0 to >1,000 people per square mile. The highest densities are in the highway corridors and within towns (e.g., Nevada City). As is the case with the Bear River watershed to the south, alignment of the parcel map with population density shows that there are places in the watershed where populations are low, but the number of parcels is high, indicating threat of new development.

The following map shows change in population from 1990 to 2000 by creek watershed. This gives a sense for where people are moving to and from. There are actually parts of the watershed where people are leaving (negative change in population). The highway corridors and existing towns (e.g., Washington) are apparently a draw for new residents to the watershed. With a large influx of people will come demand for amenities and infrastructure, which has a ripple effect on the amount of development in the watershed.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 34 of 57 Yuba River Watershed

Population Change North Yuba

N !"49 Middle Yuba W E

S

South Yuba

!"20 !"49 ,.-80 Deer Creek Lower Yuba !"20 Nevada City

Population Change (1990 - 2000) -100 - -50 Lakes -50 - -10 Yuba City/Marysville Highways -10 - 10 Streams and rivers 5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles 10 - 100 Yuba River >100 Sub-watershed boundaries

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 35 of 57 C. Roads

Roads can have a variety of effects on natural environments (Trombulak and Frissell, 2000). Road placement can affect surface water flows and stream channel morphology. Runoff from roads may contain dust, salt, and various metals and hydrocarbons. Roads fragment wildlife habitat and provide corridors for invading species. Roads are considered essential by many human users of the landscape, for economic and recreational reasons. This valuation has contributed to development of the >6.2 million kilometers of roads in the U.S. and the potential impact by roads of 20% of the U.S. landscape (Forman, 2000).

The fragmentation effects of roads on natural habitats has been studied primarily in terms of the creation of new edges when a road is built. Roads pose a barrier to species dispersal and migration through aversion effects (“habitat alienation”, e.g., Mac et al., 1996), direct mortality from traffic (Madsen, 1996; Putman, 1997; Rubin et al., 1998), and traffic noise-induced effects (Reijnen et al., 1997; Gill et al., 1996). The combination of edge and barrier can reduce the effective area for species that depend on intact habitat in the interior of patches. Because roads are often accompanied by other development activities, there may be additional fragmentation effects beyond just the linear extent of the road (Theobald et al., 1997). Mitigation efforts for these fragmentation effects have been made in particular geographic locations by installing underpasses and overpasses intended for use by large mammals (e.g., Clevenger and Waltho, 2000) and by promoting post-harvest logging road closures to protect large mammals.

There are over 3,200 miles of roads in the Yuba River watershed. This watershed has one of the highest road densities in the Sierra Nevada (>2.4 miles/mile2), primarily due to logging and ranching roads. This density is an underestimate because of the unknown extent of private roads in the watershed. Densities range from 0 miles/mile2 in unroaded areas to >8miles/mile2 in urban areas.

There are very few areas with zero or low road densities in the watershed, clumped in the lower foothills and in the upper watershed near the Sierra Buttes and Lavezzola Creek. These areas would be the primary refuges for wildlife and natural processes sensitive to the presence of roads and traffic, for example, deer fawning areas and forest carnivores that avoid humans. Deer migration and wintering are sensitive to road densities greater than 2 miles/mile2.

Traffic volumes on major highways (20, 80, and parts of 49) in the watershed far exceed values thought to be thresholds for movement of large mammals (>4,000 cars per day). This means that migration of mammals such as deer, bears, and mountain lions up and down the watershed will be impeded at certain highways. The only way currently known to even partially mitigate these impacts is to build bridges/large culverts and overpasses to accommodate wildlife in their attempts to cross highways.

Road effects on aquatic ecosystems have been measured primarily in terms of the deposition of contaminants from the traffic or road surface to waterways. Metals, hydrocarbons, and de-icing salts originating from roadways have all been found in nearby

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 36 of 57 streams (Gjessing et al., 1984; Hoffman, et al., 1981) and can alter aquatic community processes (Wilcox, 1986; Maltby et al., 1995). Airborne pollutants (e.g., dust or metals) originating from road surfaces or automobile traffic are detectable and may be deposited near roads (Bell and Ashenden, 1997). Roadbeds and road-related infrastructure can also impinge upon the physical characteristics and processes of fluvial systems. Failure of roads above streams, contributing sediment to the stream itself, is probably the most obvious potential impact. Stream crossings by roads can contribute sediment to the streams and become weak points in the stream/road system interface. Roads can also limit recovery of stream channels from grazing impacts (Myers and Swanson, 1995), species richness in wetlands up to 2 km from roaded forests (Findlay and Houlahan, 1997), and disrupt riparian vegetation leading to reduced bird species richness and density. Unpaved road surfaces have limited infiltration, resulting in runoff of excess rainfall (Ziegler and Giambelluca, 1997).

A majority of the stream system in the watershed is within a few hundred meters of a road. Because of the extent of the road system interactions with the stream system in the watershed, it is very likely that there are significant impacts on fluvial and riparian functions. Although it is conceivable that these impacts have been mitigated somehow by “best-management practices” and other measures, it is unlikely. A solution to this question would be to begin assessing impacts in specific areas representative of the watershed as a whole and prioritize road/stream interactions for remediation. Remedial actions could take the form of increasing culvert sizes, out-sloping roads, removing excess roads, and installing bridges. Monitoring of the effectiveness of past actions as well as the effectiveness of mitigation and remediation actions is critical to understanding the actual impacts of roads in the watershed.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 37 of 57 Yuba River Watershed Roads

North Yuba

49 N !" Middle Yuba

W E

S South Yuba

!"20 !"49 ,.-80 Deer Creek Lower Yuba !"20 Nevada City Lakes Highways Streams and rivers Yuba City/Marysville Roads Yuba River 5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Sub-watershed boundaries

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 38 of 57 D. Logging

Logging on private lands has great potential to cause harm to aquatic organisms, terrestrial wildlife, and the natural functioning of the ecosystems within the watershed. This is primarily due to the tendency for these logging operations to use clearcutting practices, operate during wet and dry times of the year, and generally have relatively weak standards, compared to practices on adjacent public forest lands. The logging on public lands in the watershed is now almost exclusively “thinning” and “salvage” operations. Fire risk is the primary reason given for removing as many as half of the trees in any given stand. Although negative impacts to wildlife (e.g., small carnivores) and natural processes (e.g., soil nutrients and water retention) have been shown to occur with these practices, the impacts are harder to measure, resulting in the continuation of the activities without understanding potential damage in the long-term.

The following timber harvest plans were filed within a 7-month period from 2001 to 2002 for the Yuba basin and indicate both where and how much (4,766 acres) logging is planned for the private forests. Given that the privately-owned conifer forests constitute 243,000 of the 870,000 acres in the basin, this logged area would make up 2% of this area. If the 7 months were extended to a year, this rate of cut is roughly equivalent to a 30-year logging rotation cycle, possibly the shortest in the state. Information from web site maintained by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection http://www.fire.ca.gov/ResourceManagement/THPStatusUpload/THPStatusTable.html

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 39 of 57 Timber Harvest Total Waterbody Name, CALWATER THP Filed Map Location Land Owner(s) Plan # Acres watershed ID# 2-01-103-SIE3 07/12/01 1215 Haypress Creek (5517.540203 ) MD: T19N R13E Sec.1, 13; SIERRA PACIFIC MD: T19N R14E Sec.7, 17 INDUSTRIES 2-01-118-NEV3 08/03/01 83 Buckeye Ridge (5516.340304 ); MD: T16N R9E Sec.13, 24; Individuals Clipper Creek (5516.340302 ) MD: T16N R10E Sec.18 2-01-197-YUB3 11/18/01 1130 Costa Creek (5517.130102 ); MD: T19N R6E Sec.12, 13; SILLER BROTHERS Ponderosa Reservoir (5518.220201) MD: T19N R7E Sec.7, 18 INC 2-01-207-SIE3 11/19/01 196 Upper Slate Creek (5517.520103 ) MD: T22N R10E Sec.16, BAMFORD INC 20, 21 2-01-219-YUB3 12/06/01 776 Brushy Creek (5517.520201 ); MD: T20N R8E Sec.1, 2, SILLER BROTHERS Gold Run (5517.520202 ); 10, 12, 15, 22, 23 INC; SOPER Lewis Flat (5518.230001 ) WHEELER COMPANY 2-01-223-PLA3 12/09/01 160 Clipper Creek (5514.510001 ); MD: T13N R9E Sec.11, 14 T W SMITH FAMILY Gas Canyon (5514.410401 ) LLC 2-01-228-YUB3 12/21/01 138 Lower Duncan Creek (5524.360501 ); MD: T18N R7E Sec.8 SILLER BROTHERS Upper Duncan Creek (5524.360502 ); INC Upper Reading Creek (1106.310302) 2-01-231-YUB3 02/03/02 724 Indian Creek (5517.510203 ); MD: T19N R7E Sec.13, 14, SILLER BROTHERS Mill Creek (5517.510202 ) 23, 24, 26 INC 2-01-232-PLA3 02/07/02 114 Lower Steephollow Creek MD: T15N R10E Sec.5 WETSEL OVIATT (5516.340201 ) LUMBER CO 2-02-004-YUB3 02/11/02 155 Costa Creek (5517.130102 ) MD: T19N R6E Sec.13; AFFILIATED MD: T19N R7E Sec.18 CHURCH UNION SUN; BAMFORD INC 2-02-006-NEV3 02/11/02 40 Poorman Creek (5516.340303 ) MD: T15N R9E Sec.11 Individuals 2-02-013-NEV3 02/25/02 35 Little Deer Creek (5517.200102 ) MD: T16N R9E Sec.17 Individuals

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 40 of 57 E. Mining

There is no single database for active and abandoned mines in the watershed. Three databases that have data are the Principal Areas of Mine Pollution system (PAMP), the Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS), and Minerals Availability System/Minerals Industry Location System (MAS/MILS). There are 75 PAMP, 397 MRDS, and 477 MAS/MILS points in the watershed (Figure ). There may be multiple locations indicated for a single “mine”. The MAS/MILS database provides information on locations of mines, their operational status, and information about the minerals at those locations. The data includes name of deposit, deposit type, current status, location, and point of reference for all sites. The MRDS data originates not only from USGS studies but also from other federal and state agencies and primarily pertains to mineral commodities. The data included contains mine name, location, deposit type, mineral age, commodities, products, and tectonics information. The PAMP data set is a compilation of 2,422 mining operations and their potential water-quality problems. This information was originally compiled in 1972 by the Division of Mines and Geology for the State Water Resources Control Board. It was published in a series of volumes of tabular data. The data set includes operations where production exceeded $100,000 or where other factors indicated a high potential for pollution.

Historic mining Historically-mined areas in the Yuba basin are potential and actual contributors of sediment, mercury, arsenic, other metals, and acidic waters to the various creeks and rivers in the watershed. Hydraulic and hard-rock mining occurred in the basin, though it is the hydraulic mining that left the largest impacts and provided the most obvious scars on the landscape.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 41 of 57 # Yuba River Watershed Mines ### # # #### # # ###### # ##### # ### ## # # # #### # # # # # #### # # # # # # # # ## ## # ## # # # # # # # # ##### ### ## # # # North Yuba # # # # # ## ## ## # # # # # # ## # ### ## # ## ## # ## # # # # # ### # # ## # ## # ## # # # # # ### # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # ### # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # ## # # ## #### # # ## # # # ## # # # # ## # ## # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #### # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # ## ## # ## # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # #### ## # # # # # # # # #### ### ## # # # ### ##### ### # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # ## # ## # # # # ### # ## ## ## ### # # # ## # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # ## 49 ## #### ### ## # ## N ## # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # #### ## #!"# ##### ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # #### # # # ## ##### ## # # # ## # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## # #### # # # ### # # ######### # ## # Middle Yuba ## # # # # ## # # # ### # # # ## # # ## # # # ## # ### # ## ## # # # # ######## # W E # # # # ### # # # ####### # # # ############# # # # # # # # ########## ####### # # # # # # ### ### # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # ## ## ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ###### # # # ## # # # ## # ### # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # ## # # ## ##### # # # ### # # S # # ## ## # ## ## # ##### # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## ### ## # # # ## # # ## ## # # # ## # # ## # #### # # ## # ### # ### ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # South Yuba ## # # # ## # # # # # ## # # ## # ## # # #### # # ## # # # # # ## # # ### # ## ## # ### # ## # # # ## # # # ## ### ## # # ### ## # # # # # ## # # # # ### # # # # # ## # ## ## ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # ### # # # #### # ## # # # ### # # # # # ## ## ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # ## ### # # ## # # # # # # # # # 20 # # # # # #!" # # ## # 49 # # ## # 80 ### "# # # # # # ! # # # # # ## # # ## ### # # . # #### # # ,- # # ### # ## # #### # # # ##### ### ### # #### # ### # # ####### ### ###### # # ## ### ## # ########## # # Deer Creek # # ## ## # # # ## # # # # ############# # ## # # # # ######## ### # # # # ## # ### #### ##### #### ### # # # # ####### #### ## # # Lower Yuba # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ### ### # # # # # ## # ## ## # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # ##### # ## # # ## ### ## # # 20# ##### # # # !" ## ## # # # # # # # Nevada City # Mines/mining industry # # # # Lakes Highways Yuba City/Marysville Streams and Rivers Yuba River 5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Sub-watershed boundaries

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 42 of 57 Contemporary mining Gravel mining

Commercial gravel mining occurs in several places in the watershed. Where hillsides are removed in the process, it is hard to imagine there being no impacts to watershed processes and values. In the lower Yuba, off-stream mining occurs in the Yuba Goldfields for gravels. These activities may not have negative impacts on the watercourses as long as disturbance of mercury containing sediments does not occur and surface contour modifications are minimized. In other watercourses (e.g., Cache Creek), gravel mining near the stream channel can result in changes in water temperature and water levels in the vicinity of mine pits.

Suction dredging

Suction dredging is a largely recreational activity, with some economic benefits to the avid practitioner. The miner trucks a large pump on pontoons down to the river within his/her patented claim area, moors it to the bank, and proceeds to move the bed of the river aside to reach the sediments that settled out during the hydraulic mining era. These sediments (<2” in diameter) are vacuumed from the benthos and beneath the benthos through a sluicing mechanism to recover the heavy gold particles. The hope is that sufficient gold remains in these sediments to pay for at least the cost of the machinery. Although it is not clear how many miles of the rivers and streams of the Yuba River basin are patented with claims, within the Tahoe National Forest it is estimated to be >95%.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 43 of 57

Special Issue: Mercury Contamination in Fish

Historic hydraulic mining and the use of mercury to remove gold through amalgamation has left Sierra Nevada rivers and watersheds with a legacy of eroding hillsides, mercury, and excess sediment. Mercury originates from abandoned mines in the Sierra Nevada because miners would pour mercury directly into sluices in order to recover fine gold particles. The excess mercury would end up in the soil on the mine lands, in pits, sluices, and tunnels remaining on abandoned mine lands (AMLs), in the creek beds, and in the sediments behind any retention structures (dams) downstream. There are no measurements of the actual amount of mercury on the land or in the water in the hydraulically-mined areas of the Sierra Nevada. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that up to 8,000,000 of the 26,000,000 lbs used in the Sierra Nevada may have been “lost” during gold recovery. The mercury is transported by erosion and runoff in dissolved ionic form (e.g., Hg2+), adsorbed to particles, and as droplets of the metal. This pool of mercury can be converted by microbial action into methylmercury, which can then be absorbed by microbes, plants, and animals. As methylmercury makes its way up the food chain (bioaccumulation) it is concentrated (biomagnification), so that in larger predatory fish (e.g., trout and bass) concentrations can exceed levels of concern for human consumption (>0.3 parts per million, ppm).

The values found in the most recent and comprehensive survey of fish in the Yuba watershed meet or exceed the EPA/OEHHA and the FDA levels in some cases and places: 1) Englebright Reservoir: all smallmouth and spotted bass that were >1 foot and >250 grams (1/2 lb) had levels >0.3 ppm 2) Scotts Flat Reservoir: most largemouth bass >1 foot and 500 grams (1 lb) had levels >0.3 ppm 3) Little Deer Creek at Pioneer Park: ½ of brown trout sampled >10 inches and >200 grams had levels >0.3 ppm

The US Geological Survey and others are conducting measurements of mercury and methylmercury in the biota, sediments, and water in reservoirs and near/within abandoned mine lands of the Yuba system (see their excellent website at http://ca.water.usgs.gov/mercury/bear-yuba). There are currently no measurements of the atmospheric deposition of mercury. There also are few measurements taking place and little data for the waters and sediments of the upper Yuba Rivers and their tributaries. This is also true for the vast majority of streams and rivers below the historically and currently mined areas in the Sierra Nevada. The extent of current knowledge is that the mercury is at minimum leaking gradually from abandoned mine tunnels, sluice boxes, and pits. Dredge tailings are also thought to be potential hot-spots, as is sediment disturbance during secondary mining near abandoned mine features, or in contaminated sediments. Mercury is also assumed to be slowly migrating downstream in the creeks and rivers, temporarily lodging in the benthic sediments and pockets in the channel bedrock. This migration is aided by the binding of mercury compounds to sediment particles carried by the movement of water, at rates that vary with the flow rate. During high flow/flood events this movement may be very rapid and the amount of mercury very high. There are a variety of planning processes and proposals for reducing mercury in the watershed and in the fish, though none have been implemented

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 44 of 57 F. Dams and Diversions

There are over 100 “jurisdictional” dams or diversions in the watershed. Jurisdictional dams are over 25’ tall or hold more than 50 acre-feet of water. The diversions convey water within the watershed to users who are remote from the waterway of origin as well as to convey water to another watershed (e.g., the North Fork American River).

Along with the Bear River basin, this watershed is one of the most heavily managed for water conveyance in California. Besides providing hydroelectric power, water storage, and limited flood control, the dams block fish passage, change temperature, pH, and nutrient conditions and create methylation sites for mercury.

Earthen dam under construction

Water diversions decrease the flows available for in- stream natural processes. This results in sediment aggradation in stream channels, higher water temperatures, a lack of flushing, and other negative impacts.

Concrete irrigation/conveyance canal

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 45 of 57 Yuba River Watershed

Dams and Diversions S North Yuba S S S S SS S S S S S S S S S S S S S SSS S SS S S S SS SSS S S SSSS S S S SS S SS SS SS S S S SS S S S S S SSS S SS S S S S S SSSSS SSS S S SS S S S S S SS SSS SS S S S S S SSSS S SS SS SSS S SS S S SSS 49 S S SS SS S S S SS !" S S N S S S S S S S S S S S SS SSS S S SS S S S SS SSS S Middle Yuba S SSS S S S S S S SS S S SS SS S SS S SS S W E S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SSS S S S S SS S S S S S S S S S S S S SS SS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SS S SS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SS SS S S S S S S South Yuba SS S SS SSS S S S S S S S SSSS SSS S SS S S S S SSS S S S S S S S S S S S S SSS S S S S SSS S S SS S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SSS S S SSS S 4S S S S SS S S S S S S 9 S S 2S0S S S S S S !" S "! S S S S S SS SSS SS S S S 8S0S S S S S S S S S S S SS S S S S SS S S . S S S S S ,- S SS SS SS S SS SS S S S S SS S S S Deer Creek S S S S S S S S S S S SSS S S Lower Yuba S S S S S S S SS S SS S S S S S S S SS S SS S S S S S S S 20 S "! S S S S S S S Nevada City S Dams and diversions S Lakes Highways Yuba City/Marysville Streams and rivers 5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Yuba River Sub-watershed boundaries

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 46 of 57

V. Conducting a GIS-based Watershed Assessment

Geographic information can be combined in new and interesting ways with the improvement over the last decade of “geographic information systems” (GIS). For example, the locations of abandoned mines, dams, dirt roads, private forestlands, towns, and other centers of human activity can tell a lot about the risks that particular waterways and watersheds face. In this study, we combined data about the natural and human landscape in order to understand the “condition” of the Yuba watershed and the risks to “watershed health” from various human activities.

A. Why Consider the Landscape

Watersheds are one way of describing a landscape. The Yuba watershed is our landscape for analysis. It includes terrestrial (e.g., distribution of soil types) and aquatic components (e.g., locations of streams). By considering these interacting components independently and together, we can learn different things about our landscape. The condition of the terrestrial landscape can have a dramatic effect on the health of the waterways, for example, in terms of sediment movement and water chemistry. When desiring to understand watershed processes, it is not enough to just analyze processes and problems in the waterbodies, it is also critical to monitor changes and activities on the land.

B. What Parameters to Include

The terrestrial landscape can be described in a variety of ways, from the distribution of different forest types to the patterns of roads and other human structures. The analysis was composed of assessments of both the “natural” and “human” features. We included the following types of information about the Yuba watershed, which reflects the most readily available data about this landscape (data sources in parentheses).

As is the case with the terrestrial world, the aquatic system can be represented by a series of specific information about both natural processes and human structures and activities interacting with the hydrologic system. The following list is of the information we included in the GIS analysis, while recognizing that it is not exhaustive, but rather representative.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 47 of 57 C. Method for Analyzing the GIS Data

One way to organize thinking about a place or problem is to use a “knowledge base”. This is a way of taking a question or issue, such as “is the Yuba watershed in good condition?” and breaking it down into its parts. What do we mean by “watershed” and “condition”, let alone “good”? How do we describe and qualify these terms? The watershed is composed of interacting terrestrial and aquatic elements, so the first thing done in this study was to separate questions and data into these two piles.

Terrestrial “condition” could be a function of the natural state of plant and wildlife communities and the risks posed to that state by human activities (the primary source of risks). So, terrestrial ecosystem condition was separated into independent assessments of the natural community and the distribution of humans and their structures and activities. The same was done for the aquatic system. The resulting knowledge base explicitly displays the assumptions made in this study and the distinctions made among various types of information.

D. Construction of the “Knowledge Base” for Assessing Watershed Condition

Landscape condition will be a product of the ecological value of the particular area and the human development impacts. Because there is no single map or model calculating actual landscape condition (e.g., actual health of forests), surrogates for condition must be used. Urban areas, freeways and highways with high traffic volumes, and areas of relatively high human population density were not considered to be in “good” condition. Areas that are not yet developed may be under threat of development. The knowledge base used for this analysis is shown in figure X. Watershed condition was considered to be a function of either aquatic ecosystem or terrestrial ecosystem condition. The rules for the knowledge base and the data used are described in the following pages. i. Terrestrial Environment

Actual development was calculated based on human population density, traffic volumes on interstates and state highways, and actual extent of urbanized areas. Population data was from the Census 2000 and populations greater than 250 people/mi2 were considered to be a negative impact. Traffic volumes came from the CA Department of Transportation (1999) and volumes greater than 4,000 cars per day were considered to be a threat to movement of wildlife (e.g., deer). Urban area expanse came from the California Farmland Mapping Project, these areas being considered threats to watershed condition.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 48 of 57 Threat potential was calculated based on private vs. public ownership, public/private ownership edge density, road density, general plan designation, and population change (1990 to 2000). Ownership status and complexity for areas in the watershed came from the Gap Analysis Project (1996), which shows private and public ownership. Privately-owned lands are more likely to be developed in a way that negatively impacts the watershed than publicly-owned lands. Also, complex ownership patterns make conservation actions more challenging due to the need for agreement among multiple parties. Areas with road densities greater than 10 mi/ mi2 were considered to be under threat of damaging uses. Lands designated under county general plan to be used for medium or high-density residential development or commercial/industrial uses were considered threatened. Sub-watersheds (i.e., for creeks and streams) were evaluated for population change from 1990 to 2000, and increase in population was determined to be threatening to watershed condition.

Forest Integrity was calculated to be represented by either occurrence of Late Successional Old-Growth (LSOG), large “patches” of forest, or high percentage of oak woodlands. Old-growth was defined as the “older forest emphasis areas” map from the US Forest Service Sierra Nevada Framework which includes existing old-growth forests (LSOG 4 & 5), mapped during the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (1996), as well as areas that were not mapped and areas of younger forest that have older forest attributes (e.g., LSOG 3). Forest patches were defined by the road or other edge that bounded them, the larger the patch, the more likely the forest retained its integrity. Extent of oak woodlands was from the CA Department of Forestry-FRAP hardwoods mapping program (1994) that maps vegetation for the foothills using 25 meter blocks.

Terrestrial Vertebrate Habitat was defined as areas actually used by deer and other wildlife, potential habitat for a variety of carnivores, and wildlife species richness (# of different species). The higher the habitat score, the higher score given for “watershed condition”. For each suite of species in the Wildlife Habitat Relations (WHR) database -- birds, amphibians, mammals, reptiles – and for each area in the watershed, we found the number of species that potentially used the area as high-quality habitat. For carnivores, we used habitat models for pine marten and Pacific fisher from US Forest Service Sierra Nevada Framework (1999) and habitat models for gray wolf, wolverine, and grizzly from Carlos Carroll (Oregon State University) for determining the biological feasibility of restoration of these species in California and Oregon (Carroll et al. 2001) California Spotted Owl: Data was obtained from Carlos Carroll (1999). Locations of deer wintering area areas was obtained from the CA Department of Fish and Game. These areas (primarily in the foothills) are considered vital to the persistence of deer herds in the Sierra Nevada. The Natural Diversity Database from the CA Department of Fish and Game has information for occurrences of plants, plant communities, and wildlife that are rare, threatened, endangered, or of management concern.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 49 of 57 ii. Aquatic Environment

Human Activity was defined as a combination of potential impacts from mines and dams and diversions in sub-watersheds. Each creek watershed was evaluated for mine density using the Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS), and Minerals Availability System/Minerals Industry Location System (MAS/MILS).

Fish and Amphibians Two independent maps were created by selecting native fish and amphibian maps from the USFS list of the “Aquatic GAP” project (Principal Investigator Peter Moyle) where confidence in the accuracy of the information was described as “>0”. Areas were more “true” (scored higher) for aquatic fauna as fish and amphibian species richness increased.

Potential Road Impacts Road proximity to stream was determined using a road map from the Teale Data Center and stream maps (from the National Hydrological Database). As roads got nearer to streams the area was given a lower score. Roads on steep slopes was determined. The statement that the “road is on a steep slope” was more true as slope steepness increased to the maximum for the area.

Dam and Reservoir Influenced To determine the river and stream reaches potentially impacted by dams and reservoirs, we used the State Water Resources Control Board dam/diversions point coverage and queried for storage capacity > 0 to create the dam coverage. We then queried for stream segments within 400m of a dam and converted these stream segments into 500m grid cells. (0=U, 1=T)

Terrestrial Vertebrate Habitat

Species Richness For each suite of species in the Wildlife Habitat Richness (WHR) database — birds,amphibins, mammals, reptiles — we found the number of species that have a rank of 4 or 5 (out of 5) for each vegetation area. Species richness for each taxon was then determined, the higher the richness, the “truth value” or score.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 50 of 57 Marten and Fisher: Data was obtained from USFS’ Sierra Nevada Framework. Data for the public lands was “expanded” by 3km to fill in private ownership gaps in the public lands. (http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/sncf/)

Gray wolf: Data was obtained from a model developed by Carlos Carroll for determining the biological feasibility of wolf restoration in California and Oregon (Carroll et al., 2001).

Wolverine: Data was obtained from a model developed by Carlos Carroll for determining the biological feasibility of wolverine recovery in California and Oregon (Carroll et al., 2001).

Grizzly Bear: Data was obtained from a model developed by Carlos Carroll for determining the biological feasibility of grizzly restoration in California and Oregon (Carroll et al., 2001).

California Spotted Owl: Data was obtained from the USFS’ Sierra Nevada Framework (http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/sncf/ )

Deer Habitat: Deer wintering area data was obtained from the CA Department of Fish and Game. These data are from their telemetry studies and surveys. Polygons were converted to grid. (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer.html)

NDDB: Natural Diversity Database from CA DF&G. These data are for occurrences of plants and wildlife of management concern. Occurrence polygons were converted to grid. (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/cnddb.html)

Human Population density: Data from 1990 census blocks. Number of persons per square mile. (http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/2khome.htm)

GAP Management Status: From the CA GAP analysis project; protection/management status = 1-4; status=1-2 considered already protected; status=4 is private lands. (http://www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/projects/gap/gap_home.html)

Road density: Road data from the Teale Data Center. Used the GRID command LINEDENSITY to calculate density of roads for a 1km circle around each grid cell.

Ownership edge density: Ownership data from CA GAP analysis project. Built polygons as lines then used the GRID command LINEDENSITY to calculate density of ownership boundaries.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 51 of 57 Stream Density: Stream data from the National Hydrography Database. Used the GRID command LINEDENSITY to calculate density of streams. (http://nhd.usgs.gov/)

Under-represented Plant Communities: First we created representation percentage goals for all Holland vegetation community types (based on the goals of Andelman et al., 1999). Then we intersected the GAP management status polygon coverage with the GAP vegetation polygon coverage using ARC command INTERSECT. We then found: a) the total area of each Holland vegetation community type and b) the total area of each Holland vegetation community type in a GAP management status 1 or 2. From this we found the percent of each vegetation type already protected, then the percentage of the representation goal already protected.

E. Results of Analysis

The “watershed condition” analysis is expressed in two ways in the following pages. The first shows the distribution of condition values in ¼ square kilometer blocks. White indicates comparatively poor condition, while green indicates comparatively good condition. The most conservative use of the condition information is for relative risk analysis within the watershed, that is comparing among areas within the watershed. However, the rules governing the analysis process are derived from our understanding of the potential and actual impacts of various human activities and processes. For example, as we humans spread out across the landscape, we tend to want roads, houses on improved lots, sanitation facilities and other infrastructure. The initial and sustained impacts of human presence inevitably and fairly predictably impact the surrounding terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

The second portrayal shows watershed condition expressed for individual creek and stream sub-watersheds. This depiction allows for a comparison among sub-watersheds of relative risk to watershed health. This is important for deciding where to focus limited planning and restoration funding and effort. The following creeks and River reaches had the worst score for watershed condition: (North Yuba) Packer Creek, (Middle Yuba) Kanaka Creek, Moonshine Creek, (South Yuba) South Yuba River from Spaulding Reservoir to Poorman Creek, Fall Creek, Diamond/Scotchman Creek, Washington Creek, Rock Creek, Humbug Creek, Spring Creek, Rush Creek, Little Shady Creek, Kentucky Ravine, (Deer Creek) Deer Creek between Scotts Flat Reservoir and Lake Wildwood, Little Deer Creek, Slate Creek, Grub Creek, and the entire Lower Yuba River sub-watershed. Many of these places also happen to be places where water quality monitoring is ongoing and has revealed problems; various local, state, and federal agencies and non-profit organizations like SYRCL have been advocating for restoration of damaged landscapes in these areas.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 52 of 57 Yuba River Watershed Condition

North Yuba

49 N !" Middle Yuba W E

S South Yuba

!"49 !"20 ,-.80 Deer Creek Lower Yuba !"20 Nevada City

Watershed condition 53 - 476 (poor) Lakes 477 - 526 Yuba City/Marysville Highways 527 - 555 Streams and rivers 5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles 556 - 594 595 - 752 (good) Yuba River Sub-watershed boundaries

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 53 of 57 Yuba River Watershed Condition

North Yuba

4 N !"9 Middle Yuba W E

S

South Yuba

!"49 !"20 ,.-80 Deer Creek Lower Yuba !"20 Nevada City

Watershed condition 106 - 480 (poor) Lakes 480 - 533 Yuba City/Marysville Highways 533 - 552 Streams and rivers 5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles 552 - 582 Yuba River 582 - 643 (good) Sub-watershed boundaries

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 54 of 57

F. Conclusions

The Yuba River is one of the most managed waterways in the Sierra Nevada. Its watershed has also experienced some of the worst treatments of any in the range, from hydraulic mining and water diversion to extensive road-building and highly fragmented ownership. Three of the four counties that contain its landscape are among the most rapidly growing and subdivided in the region. The threats to this still magnificent river are many and continuing. The critical juncture that the Yuba has arrived at is what the humans will do now that they are beginning to understand the damage that has been done and the risks that still face the watershed.

This report has laid out the cultural and natural landscape of the Yuba watershed. It describes the state of the place as of the year 2001, updated with water quality data collected between 2001 and 2006. As more information is gathered, the analyses will change and new conclusions may be reached. For now, we can state confidently that without remedial action on the parts of local, state, and federal agencies, many of the values we take for granted in the watershed may become or remain severely degraded or even be lost altogether. How long will the salmon flourish in the lower reaches when they are continuously denied passage to historic spawning grounds and face low flows? When will our cold water fishery no longer pose risks to children through mercury contamination, let alone no longer face its own problems with high summer temperatures and massive algal growth?

Another face on the problem is that with the understanding that there are still wild and restorable places in the basin, we can hope to maintain its natural vigor and encourage the spread of this healthy condition throughout the watershed. Not only is it important for the aesthetic benefits of swimming in clear pools and witnessing wildlife, but also for maintenance of the social and economic fabric that humans in the watershed depend upon.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 55 of 57 VIII. Bibliography

Bell, S., and T.W. Ashenden. 1997. Spatial and temporal variation in nitrogen dioxide pollution adjacent to rural roads. Water Air and Soil Pollution, 95(1-4): 87-98.

Clevenger, A.P. and N. Waltho 2000. Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology, 14(1): 47-56.

Findlay, C.S. and J. Houlahan. 1997. Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conservation Biology, 11(4): 1000-1009.

Forman, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conservation Biology, 14(1): 31- 35.

Gill, J.A., W.J. Sutherland, A.R. Watkinson. 1996. A method to quantify the effects of human disturbance on animal populations. Journal of Applied Ecology, 33(4): 786-792.

Gjessing, E., E. Lygren, L. Berglind, T. Gulbrandsen, and R. Skanne 1984. Effect of highway runoff on lake water quality. Science of the Total Environment, 33: 247-257.

Hoffman, R.W., C.R. Goldman, S. Paulson, and G.R. Winters 1981. Aquatic impacts of deicing salts in the central Sierra Nevada Mountains, California. Water Resources Bulletin, 17: 280-285.

Mac, R.D., J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, L.J. Lyon, and H. Zuuring. 1996. Relationships among grizzly bears, roads and habitat in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Journal of Applied Ecology, 33(6):1395-1404.

Madsen, A.B. 1996. Otter Lutra lutra mortality in relation to traffic, and experience with newly established fauna passages at existing road bridges. Lutra, 39(2): 76-88.

Maltby, L., A.B.A. Boxall, D.M. Farrow, P. Calow, and C.I. Betton 1995. The effects of motorway runoff on freshwater ecosystems. 2. Identifying major toxicants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 14: 1093-1101.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 56 of 57 Myers, T. J., S. Swanson. 1995. Impact of deferred rotation grazing on stream characteristics in Central Nevada: A case study. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 15(2): 428-439.

Putman, R. J. 1997 Deer and road traffic accidents: Options for management. Journal of Environmental Management, 51(1): 43-57.

Reijnen, R., Foppen, Ruud, Veenbaas, Geesje. 1997. Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: Evaluation of the effect and considerations in planning and managing road corridors. Biodiversity and Conservation, 6(4): 567-581.

Rubin, E.S., W.M. Boyce, M.C. Jorgensen, S.G. Torres, C.L. Hayes, C.S. O’Brien, D.A. Jessup. 1998. Distribution and abundance of bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26(3): 539-551.

Theobald, D.M., J.R. Miller, N.T. Hobbs. 1997. Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. Landscape and Urban Planning, 39(1): 25-36.

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology, 14(1): 18-30.

Wilcox, D.A. 1986. The effects of deicing salts on vegetation in Pinhook Bog, Indiana. Canadian Journal of Botany, 64: 865-874.

Ziegler, A.D. and T.W. Giambelluca. 1997. Importance of rural roads as source areas of runoff in mountainous areas of northern Thailand. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 196(1-4): 204-229.

State of the Yuba—April 2006 Page 57 of 57