DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Resources and Hazards Volume II: Detailed Watershed Characteristics and Regulatory Framework Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Resources and Hazards Volume II: Detailed Watershed Characteristics and Regulatory Framework Analysis Natural Resources and Hazards Volume II: Detailed Watershed Characteristics and Regulatory Framework Analysis Prepared by DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners Natural Resources and Hazards Volume II: Detailed Watershed Characteristics and Regulatory Framework Analysis Prepared by DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners Table of Contents Introduction........................................................................................................................................1 1 South Fork of the Eel River Watershed.............................................................................................3 1.1 General Description of Watershed............................................................................................3 1.2 TMDL Targets and Recommendations.....................................................................................9 2 Lower Eel River Watershed ..............................................................................................................13 2.1 General Description of the Watershed....................................................................................13 2.2 Water Quality Concerns ..........................................................................................................20 3 Middle Fork Eel River Watershed....................................................................................................25 3.1 General Description of the Watershed....................................................................................25 3.2 Water Quality ...........................................................................................................................29 4 Lower Klamath Watershed...............................................................................................................35 4.1 General Description of the Watershed....................................................................................35 4.2 Water Quality Concerns ..........................................................................................................39 5 South Fork Trinity River Watershed...............................................................................................45 5.1 General Description of the Watershed....................................................................................45 5.2 TMDL Targets and Recommendations...................................................................................51 5.3 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................54 5.4 Development of Implementation Plan....................................................................................55 5.5 President’s Northwest Forest Plan...........................................................................................55 5.6 Other Ongoing Implementation Efforts .................................................................................56 6 Lower and Main Trinity Watershed ................................................................................................59 6.1 General Description of the Watershed....................................................................................59 6.2 Water Quality Concerns ..........................................................................................................65 6.3 Known Point Sources of Pollution..........................................................................................67 7 Van Duzen River Planning Watershed ...........................................................................................71 7.1 General Description of the Watershed....................................................................................71 7.2 Water Quality Concerns ..........................................................................................................77 7.3 TMDL Targets and Recommendations...................................................................................78 8 Redwood Creek Watershed..............................................................................................................81 8.1 General Description Of The Watershed..................................................................................81 8.2 Water Quality Concerns ..........................................................................................................88 8.3 NCWAP Recommendations and Requirements ....................................................................90 8.4 TMDL Targets ..........................................................................................................................90 9 Cape Mendocino Planning Watershed............................................................................................95 9.1 General Description of Watershed..........................................................................................95 10 Trinidad Watershed........................................................................................................................115 10.1 General Description ...............................................................................................................115 10.2 Summary of Water Quality Concerns...................................................................................117 11 Mad River Watershed.....................................................................................................................120 11.1 General Description ...............................................................................................................120 11.2 Summary of Water Quality Concerns...................................................................................124 11.3 Implications for Local Government Planning:.....................................................................125 12 Eureka Plain (Humboldt Bay) Watershed ....................................................................................128 12.1 General Description ...............................................................................................................128 12.2 Implications for Local Government Planning:.....................................................................134 13 Regulatory Framework ...................................................................................................................137 13.1 Federal Regulations ................................................................................................................137 13.2 State Agencies and Regulations .............................................................................................138 13.3 California’s Management Measures for Polluted Runoff (CAMMPR)...............................142 13.4 Local Government..................................................................................................................145 14 Review of Watershed Management Studies in Humboldt County.............................................149 14.1 Regional Water Quality Control Board ................................................................................149 14.2 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) (TMDLs)...........................................................................151 14.3 State Water Resources Control Board Watershed Management Areas...............................152 14.4 Mattole River Watershed .......................................................................................................154 14.5 Humboldt Bay Watershed Management Area......................................................................157 14.6 Eel River Watershed Management Area ...............................................................................160 14.7 Trinity River Watershed Management Area.........................................................................163 Figures List Figure 1-1 South Fork Eel Planning Watershed.......................................................................................11 Figure 2-1: Lower Eel Planning Watershed..............................................................................................23 Figure 3-1: Middle Main Eel Planning Watershed ..................................................................................33 Figure 4-1: Lower Klamath Planning Watershed.....................................................................................43 Figure 5-1: South Fork Trinity Planning Watershed...............................................................................57 Figure 6-1: Lower Trinity Planning Watershed .......................................................................................69 Figure 7-1: Van Duzen Planning Watershed............................................................................................79 Figure 8-1: Redwood Creek Planning Watershed....................................................................................93 Figure 9-1: Cape Mendocino Planning Watershed................................................................................113 Figure 10-1: Trinidad Planning Watershed............................................................................................118 Figure 11-1: Mad River Planning Watershed.........................................................................................126 Figure 12-1: Eureka Plain Planning Watershed .....................................................................................135 Figure 14-1: Management Areas for the Integrated Watershed............................................................153
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Efforts to Restore the Mattole River and Its Watershed Chad Buran
    Efforts to restore the Mattole River and its watershed Chad Buran Introduction Up and down the Pacific Coast of the Northwest United States, the salmon and steelhead populations have been severely impacted by the increased timber harvesting and road construction along the streams that the fish depend on for spawning. The Mattole River is one example of how these activities have descimated the fishery. The efforts to restore the Mattole watershed is one of the first citizen-initiated watershed restoration projects in North America. For more than twenty years, the inhabitants of the watershed have worked to improve the ecological health of streams, fisheries, forests, and soils of the watershed. The Mattole Salmon Group (MSG) was formed by citizens of the watershed in the 1970s in response to the decline in the Mattole salmon fishery. The initial restoration efforts began in 1980, to provide substitute spawning habitat. In the mid-1980s, the Mattole Restoration Council (MRC) was founded to link the various restoration efforts already underway and to coordinate those efforts in the context of the whole basin. These groups have used a variety of restoration techniques to improve the spawning habitat and the health of the Mattole River. The objective of this paper is to describe the restoration approaches that these two Mattole River groups have used and to review the success of these techniques in this location. I will also describe how techniques have been used in different contexts in the watershed and how they have worked in under various conditions of river flow in these locations. Geographic Setting and Historical Context The Mattole River drains a 304-square-mile (787-square-kilometer) watershed in the Coast Ranges of northwestern California.
    [Show full text]
  • Geomorphometric Delineation of Floodplains and Terraces From
    Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 369–385, 2017 https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-369-2017 © Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Geomorphometric delineation of floodplains and terraces from objectively defined topographic thresholds Fiona J. Clubb1, Simon M. Mudd1, David T. Milodowski2, Declan A. Valters3, Louise J. Slater4, Martin D. Hurst5, and Ajay B. Limaye6 1School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9XP, UK 2School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Crew Building, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JN, UK 3School of Earth, Atmospheric, and Environmental Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK 4Department of Geography, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK 5School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, East Quadrangle, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK 6Department of Earth Sciences and St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA Correspondence to: Fiona J. Clubb ([email protected]) Received: 31 March 2017 – Discussion started: 12 April 2017 Revised: 26 May 2017 – Accepted: 9 June 2017 – Published: 10 July 2017 Abstract. Floodplain and terrace features can provide information about current and past fluvial processes, including channel response to varying discharge and sediment flux, sediment storage, and the climatic or tectonic history of a catchment. Previous methods of identifying floodplain and terraces from digital elevation models (DEMs) tend to be semi-automated, requiring the input of independent datasets or manual editing by the user. In this study we present a new method of identifying floodplain and terrace features based on two thresholds: local gradient, and elevation compared to the nearest channel.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern California Coast Northern Focus Area
    14.1 Description of Area 14.1.1 The Land The Northern California Coast - Northern Focus Area is composed of coastal Del Norte and Humboldt counties. The boundary extends eastward from the Pacific coast to the top of the first inland mountain range, and encompasses many of the region's existing and former wetlands. The focus area also includes a few important riparian and floodplain areas adjacent to major coastally draining rivers (Figure 13). In this northernmost California County, the coastline tends to be composed of rocky cliffs and high bluffs which rise steeply into the coastal mountain ranges with their deeply cut 14.0 canyons. Two major rivers drain the interior mountain ranges and empty into the Pacific Ocean within the boundary of Del Norte County: the Smith River, which has its origins in north- eastern Del Norte County and southern Oregon, and the Klamath River with headwaters much farther to the NORTHERN north and east in south central Oregon. Humboldt County, to the south, includes portions of CALIFORNIA the California Coast Range and the southern Klamath Mountains. The most extensive coastal wetlands are associated with floodplains in the lower Eel River COAST─ Valley and the Humboldt Bay area. Other significant wetland habitats include Mad River Estuary, Little River Valley, Redwood Creek Estuary, Big Lagoon, NORTHERN Stone Lagoon, and Freshwater Lagoon. Major rivers and streams draining the mountain ranges of Humboldt County include the Eel River, Van Duzen FOCUS AREA River, Mad River, Trinity River, Klamath River, Mattole River, Bear River, and Redwood Creek. Like the Klamath River, the Trinity and Eel rivers have large drainage basins within the Coast Range and the Klamath Mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • King Range National Conservation Area Case Study
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Books, Reports, and Studies Resources, Energy, and the Environment 2004 King Range National Conservation Area Case Study Ann Morgan Doug Cannon University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, and the Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons Citation Information Ann Morgan & Doug Cannon, King Range National Conservation Area Case Study (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). Ann Morgan & Doug Cannon, KING RANGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA CASE STUDY (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. KING RANGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA CASE STUDY Ann Morgan and Doug Cannon Natural Resources Law Center January 9, 2004 Table of Contents BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 1 PUBLIC LAW 91-476....................................................................................................................... 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water Temperatures in the South Fork Trinity River Watershed in Northern California
    Water Temperatures in the South Fork Trinity River Watershed in Northern California PREPARED FOR: The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for their consideration during the development of the South Fork Trinity River TMDL. PREPARED BY: Stuart Farber Timber Products Company Mt. Shasta, California Darrel Rankin USFS - Shasta Trinity National Forest Redding, California Tim Viel Natural Resource Conservation Service Weaverville, California October 1, 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 5 2.1 GEOGRAPHIC RANGE ................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 TOPOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................ 5 2.3 CLIMATE ................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 LANDSCAPE VEGETATION ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Bibliography of Klamath Mountains Geology, California and Oregon
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY A bibliography of Klamath Mountains geology, California and Oregon, listing authors from Aalto to Zucca for the years 1849 to mid-1995 Compiled by William P. Irwin Menlo Park, California Open-File Report 95-558 1995 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards (or with the North American Stratigraphic Code). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. PREFACE This bibliography of Klamath Mountains geology was begun, although not in a systematic or comprehensive way, when, in 1953, I was assigned the task of preparing a report on the geology and mineral resources of the drainage basins of the Trinity, Klamath, and Eel Rivers in northwestern California. During the following 40 or more years, I maintained an active interest in the Klamath Mountains region and continued to collect bibliographic references to the various reports and maps of Klamath geology that came to my attention. When I retired in 1989 and became a Geologist Emeritus with the Geological Survey, I had a large amount of bibliographic material in my files. Believing that a comprehensive bibliography of a region is a valuable research tool, I have expended substantial effort to make this bibliography of the Klamath Mountains as complete as is reasonably feasible. My aim was to include all published reports and maps that pertain primarily to the Klamath Mountains, as well as all pertinent doctoral and master's theses.
    [Show full text]
  • Elements of Recovery
    ELEMENTS OF RECOVERY An Inventory of Upslope Sources of Sedimentation in the Mattole River Watershed with Rehabilitation Prescriptions and Additional Information for Erosion Control Prioritization Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game by the Mattole Restoration Council P.O. Box 160 Petrolia, CA 95558 December 1989 ELEMENTS OF RECOVERY Erosion is as common an aspect of life in the Coast Range as Pacific sunsets. As the mountains rise up out of the soft ocean bottom, a tenuous and fluid equilibrium is established -- most of each year's uplift is washed or shaken back into the sea. An inch of soil which took a hundred years to build can wash away in a single storm unless held in place by grasses, shrubs, and trees. The streams and rivers are conduits for all this material on its way downhill. Yet under conditions of equilibrium, no more sediment enters the stream than can be easily stored or quickly transported through the system. The Mattole in prehis- toric times was able to move thousands of yards of sediment each year and still be called "clear water," the meaning of the word Mattole in the native tongue. To give an idea of how much ma- terial is moving through the fluvial system, one geologist has estimated that Kings Peak would be 40,000 feet high were it not for this "background" erosion. It doesn't take much to create a disturbance in such a deli- cately balanced system. The erosive power of water increases in proportion to the square of its volume. A midslope road poorly placed, or built on the cheap, or lazily maintained, or aban- doned, can divert large volumes of water from one drainage to another, or onto a slope unarmored by large rock or tree roots.
    [Show full text]
  • Final CESA NC Summer Steelhead Petition
    FRIENDS OF THE EEL RIVER Working for the recovery of our Wild & Scenic River, its fisheries and communities. Friday, September 28, 2018 California Fish and Game Commission P.O. Box 944209 Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 Dear Commissioners, This is a petition to list Northern California summer steelhead under the California Endangered Species Act, (CESA, FGC § 2050 et seq.), as an endangered species. Under CESA, “Endangered species” means a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease. (F&GC § 2062) Northern California summer steelhead (NC summer steelhead) are a native subspecies of fish in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all of its range due to causes including loss of habitat and change in habitat. These extraordinary fish are superlative in many ways. They include the largest adult steelhead, as well as fish capable of handling the highest water velocities and of jumping the highest barriers of any salmonids. NC summer steelhead include the southernmost summer steelhead. They are able to tolerate water temperatures higher than any other anadromous salmonids. In their recent comprehensive review of the status and threats to salmonids in California, Moyle et al assessed the status of NC summer steelhead as being of Critical Concern, with a Status Score of 1.9 out of 5.0: Northern California (NC) summer steelhead are in long-term decline and this trend will continue without substantial human intervention on a broad scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project (Oregon State
    Oregon State University Extension Service Special Report 1037 December 2002 Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001: An Assessment of Natural Resource, Economic, Social, and Institutional Issues with a Focus on the Upper Klamath Basin William S. Braunworth, Jr. Assistant Extension Agriculture Program Leader Oregon State University Teresa Welch Publications Editor Oregon State University Ron Hathaway Extension agriculture faculty, Klamath County Oregon State University Authors William Boggess, department head, Department of William K. Jaeger, associate professor of agricul- Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon tural and resource economics and Extension State University agricultural and resource policy specialist, Oregon State University William S. Braunworth, Jr., assistant Extension agricultural program leader, Oregon State Robert L. Jarvis, professor of fisheries and University wildlife, Oregon State University Susan Burke, researcher, Department of Agricul- Denise Lach, codirector, Center for Water and tural and Resource Economics, Oregon State Environmental Sustainability, Oregon State University University Harry L. Carlson, superintendent/farm advisor, Kerry Locke, Extension agriculture faculty, University of California Intermountain Research Klamath County, Oregon State University and Extension Center Jeff Manning, graduate student, Department of Patty Case, Extension family and community Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University development faculty, Klamath County, Oregon Reed Marbut, Oregon Water Resources
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Evidence
    Distribution of Anadromous Fishes in the Upper Klamath River Watershed Prior to Hydropower Dams— A Synthesis of the Historical Evidence fisheries history Knowledge of the historical distribution of anadromous fish is important to guide man- agement decisions regarding the Klamath River including ongoing restoration and regional recovery of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Using various sources, we determined the historical distribution of anadromous fish above Iron Gate Dam. feature Evidence for the largest, most utilized species, Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus ABSTRACT tshawytscha), was available from multiple sources and clearly showed that this species historically migrated upstream into tributaries of Upper Klamath Lake. Available infor- mation indicates that the distribution of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) extended to the Klamath Upper Basin as well. Coho salmon and anadromous lamprey (Lampetra tri- dentata) likely were distributed upstream at least to the vicinity of Spencer Creek. A population of anadromous sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) may have occurred historically above Iron Gate Dam. Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), and eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) were restricted to the Klamath River well below Iron Gate Dam. This synthesis of available sources regard- ing the historical extent of these species’ upstream distribution provides key information necessary to guide management and habitat restoration efforts. Introduction John B. Hamilton Gary L. Curtis Gatschet’s statement is that salmon ascend the Klamath river twice a year, in June and again in autumn. This is in agreement with my information, that the run comes in the middlefinger Scott M. Snedaker month [sic], May–June, and that the large fish run in the fall...They ascend all the rivers David K.
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork Eel River & Tributaries PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC
    Management Agency: South Fork Eel River & Tributaries Bureau of Land Management ~ BLM Arcata Field Office PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC RIVERS University of California ~ Angelo Coast Range Reserve These proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers support threatened Location: Mendocino County and endangered populations of salmon and steelhead and CA 2nd Congressional District rare plants. They also provide outstanding research Watershed: opportunities of nearly pristine undeveloped watersheds. South Fork Eel River Wild & Scenic River Miles: South Fork Eel River – 12.3 miles South Fork Eel River—12.3 The South Fork Eel River supports the largest concentration Elder Creek—7 of naturally reproducing anadromous fish in the region. East Branch South Fork Eel River—23.1 Cedar Creek—9.6 Federal officials recently identified the river as essential for the recovery of threatened salmon and steelhead. The Outstanding Values: upper portion of this segment is located on the Angelo Anadromous fisheries, ecological, Biosphere Reserve, hydrological, wildlife, recreation Preserve managed for wild lands research by the University of California. Angelo Reserve access roads are open to For More Information: public hiking. The lower portion flows through the existing Steve Evans—CalWild [email protected] South Fork Wilderness managed by the BLM. The river (916) 708-3155 offers class IV-V whitewater boating opportunities. The river would be administered through a cooperative management agreement between the BLM and the State of California. Elder Creek – 7 miles This nearly pristine stream is a National Natural Landmark, Hydrologic Benchmark, and a UN-recognized Biosphere Reserve. A tributary of the South Fork Eel River, the creek is an important contributor to the South Fork’s anadromous Front Photo: South Fork Eel River fishery.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 3 Trinity River Fish and Wildlife Background
    TRINITY RIVER FLOW EVALUATION - FINAL REPORT CHAPTER 3 Trinity River The life histories of anadromous species have two Fish and Wildlife distinct phases, one in freshwater and the other in salt Background water. Newly hatched young remain in the river of their birth for months to years before migrating to the ocean to grow to their adult size. Adult salmonids 3.1 Fish Resources return from the ocean to their natal rivers to spawn. Although steelhead, coho salmon, and chinook salmon Commercial, Tribal, and sport fisheries depend on healthy require similar instream habitats for spawning, egg populations of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), coho incubation, and salmon (O. kisutch), and chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha). rearing, the The following sections describe the habitat requirements Commercial, Tribal, and timing of their and life histories of these fish species and document their sport fisheries depend on life history decline. Any recommended measures to restore and healthy populations of events varies maintain the Trinity River fishery resources must consider steelhead (Oncorhynchus (Figure 3.1). these life histories and habitat requirements. mykiss), coho salmon Published values (O. kisutch), and chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha). 13 CHAPTER 3: TRINITY RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE BACKGROUND JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Chinook Spring-run Chinook Fall-run Chinook Adult Coho Coho Migration and Holding Steelhead Summer-run Steelhead Fall-run Steelhead Winter-run Steelhead Steelhead Half pounders Steelhead Steelhead Chinook Spring-run Chinook Fall-run Chinook Spawning Coho Coho Coho Steelhead All runs Steelhead Chinook Chinook Chinook Egg incubation Coho Coho Coho Steelhead Steelhead Chinook Chinook Fry Emergence Coho Coho Steelhead Steelhead Chinook Chinook Coho Juvenile age 0 Coho Rearing age 1 Coho Steelhead age 0 Steelhead age 1, age 2 Steelhead Chinook Chinook Smolt Out- Coho Coho migration Steelhead Steelhead * A small percentage of chinook in the Trinity River overwinter and outmigrate at age 1, similar to coho age 1 life history.
    [Show full text]