DOCSLIB.ORG

San Joaquin River Watershed Sanitary Survey Focuses on Evaluating the Potential Contaminant Sources in the Watershed That Could Adversely Affect Water Quality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Joaquin River Watershed Sanitary Survey Focuses on Evaluating the Potential Contaminant Sources in the Watershed That Could Adversely Affect Water Quality State of California The Resources Agency Department of Water Resources The Municipal Water Quality Investigations Program State Water Project Sanitary Survey Volume 1 of 5: The San Joaquin River Watershed June 2015 Edmund Brown Jr. John Laird Mark W. Cowin Governor Secretary for Resources Director State of California The Resources Agency Department of Water Resources State of California Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor California Natural Resources Agency John Laird, Secretary for Natural Resources Department of Water Resources Mark W. Cowin, Director Laura King Moon, Chief Deputy Director Office of the Chief Counsel Public Affairs Office Internal Audit Office Cathy Crothers Ed Wilson Jeff Ingles Office of Workforce Equality Policy Advisor Legislative Affairs Office Stephanie Varrelman Waiman Yip Kasey Schimke, Ass’t Dir. Deputy Directors Gary Bardini Integrated Water Management Assistant to Deputy Director: C Brown; Assistant Deputy Director J Andrew Carl Torgersen State Water Project Assistant to Deputy Director: D Adachi, M Kirkland, J Gleim, and D Uding; Assistant Deputy Director: M Andersen John Pacheco, acting California Energy Resources Scheduling Kathie Kishaba Business Operations Assistant to Deputy Director: J Cole Division of Environmental Services Dean F. Messer, Chief Office of Water Quality Stephani A. Spaar, Chief Municipal Water Quality Program Branch Municipal Water Quality Investigations Section Cindy Garcia, Chief Rachel Pisor, Chief Kim Koski, Staff Services Analyst Prepared under the Direction of Rachel Pisor By Shaun Rohrer, Environmental Scientist Sonia Miller, Environmental Scientist And Otome Lindsey, Environmental Scientist Municipal Water Quality Program Branch Municipal Water Quality Section Rachel Pisor, Chief Marcia Scavone-Tansey, Environmental Scientist Shaun Rohrer, Environmental Scientist Jason Moore, Environmental Scientist Sonia Miller, Environmental Scientist Water Quality Special Studies Section Theodore Swift, Senior Environmental Scientist Mark Bettencourt, Senior Environmental Scientist Quality Assurance/Quality Control Section Rose Harrelson, Senior Environmental Scientist Murage Ngatia, Environmental Scientist Otome Lindsey, Environmental Scientist Field Support Section Steven San Julian, Chief Travis Brown, Environmental Scientist Arin Conner, Environmental Scientist Jeremy Del Cid, Environmental Scientist Editorial review, graphics, and report production Under direction of Supervisor of Technical Publications Patricia Cornelius Research Writers Frank Keeley Charlie Olivares Carole Rains William O’Daly Jeff Woled Contents Contents ..................................................................................................................................................... i Tables ....................................................................................................................................................... iv Figures .................................................................................................................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1 Regulatory Environment ........................................................................................................................... 1 Watershed Description .............................................................................................................................. 1 Potential Contaminant Sources ................................................................................................................. 1 Wastewater Treatment Plants ................................................................................................................ 2 Urban Runoff ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Agricultural Discharges ........................................................................................................................ 3 Confined Animal Facilities ................................................................................................................... 3 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Key Findings and Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 3 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... 5 METRIC CONVERSION TABLE.......................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 12 History of the SWP Sanitary Survey ....................................................................................................... 12 Scope and Objectives of 2013/14 Update ............................................................................................... 13 Report Organization ................................................................................................................................ 13 Chapter 1 – Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 2 – Regulatory Environment ................................................................................................. 13 Chapter 3 – Watershed Description .................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 4 – Potential Contaminant Sources........................................................................................ 13 Chapter 5 – Water Quality .................................................................................................................. 14 Chapter 6 – Key Findings and Recommendations .............................................................................. 14 Statistical Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 15 Descriptive Plots ..................................................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER 2: REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................... 18 State Plans and Policies .......................................................................................................................... 18 San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Water Quality Control Plan ............................... 18 Proposed Policy for Nutrients for Inland Surface Waters of the State of California .......................... 20 Central Valley Plans and Programs ........................................................................................................ 22 Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins ....................... 22 Total Maximum Daily Loads .............................................................................................................. 25 Wastewater Discharges ....................................................................................................................... 26 Urban Runoff ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Agricultural Discharges ...................................................................................................................... 29 Confined Animal Facilities ................................................................................................................. 31 Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability ................................................... 33 Grassland Bypass Project .................................................................................................................... 35 Central Valley Drinking Water Policy ................................................................................................ 36 i San Joaquin River Restoration Program ............................................................................................. 36 Work Cited .............................................................................................................................................. 39 Websites .............................................................................................................................................. 39 Personal Communications................................................................................................................... 42 CHAPTER 3: WATERSHED DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 44 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................. 44 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................... 49 Climate ................................................................................................................................................ 51 Hydrology ..........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessing Indicators of Stream Health in the Tuolumne Watershed
    Assessing Indicators of Stream Health in the Tuolumne Watershed By: Devon Lambert, Robert Miyashiro, Miles Ryan, and Sarah Baird Ecogeomorphology, Spring 2014 University of California, Davis Abstract The Tuolumne River watershed, ranging from Yosemite National Park in the high Sierra Nevada mountains to the central valley floor, contains multiple dams that provide a range of services from water supply and hydroelectric generation to recreation. We studied the impacts of these dams on the Tuolumne river ecology by assessing a series of stream health indicators in regulated and unregulated portions of the watershed. Data was collected on channel bed substrate distributions, algal biomass, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish assemblages as indicators of overall stream health. Our findings indicate that dams, and especially daily pulse flows released below the dams, alter the variables for which we collected data. We provide some information on the costs and benefits to environmental flows in the Tuolumne River and suggest management of water releases below dams can be shaped to sustain essential ecosystem functions, without severely altering the economic and water delivery benefits. Implementing changes to the flow regime that will benefit the ecosystem, such as better mimicking the characteristics of the spring snowmelt recession or limiting pulse flows to the appropriate high flow season, is attainable and affordable within the Tuolumne watershed. Introduction The Tuolumne river watershed lies in the southern portion of the Western slopes of the Sierra Nevada and encompasses 1,958 square miles. There are four dams within the watershed primarily used for hydroelectric power, recreational flows, and a steady water supply during California’s dry summers.
    [Show full text]
  • Tri-Dam Project
    AGENDA MATERIALS TRI-DAM PROJECT TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY \\IJ IJ\\ BOARD MEETING March 19, 2020 REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA TRI-DAM PROJECT of THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT and THE SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT MARCH 19, 2020 8:00A.M. CALL TO ORDER: Oakdale Irrigation District 1205 East F Street Oakdale, CA 95361 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: John Holbrook, Bob Holmes, Dave Kamper, Ralph Roos, Mike Weststeyn Gail Altieri, Brad DeBoer, Herman Doornenbal, Tom Orvis, Linda Santos PUBLIC COMMENT: The Joint Board of Directors encourages publi c participation at Board meetings. Matters affecting the operation of the Tri-Dam Project and under the jurisdiction of the Joint Districts and not posted on the Agenda may be addressed by the publi c, and limited to 5 minutes per person. California law prohibits the Board from taking action on any matter that is not on the posted Agenda unless the Board determines that it is a situation specified in Government Code Subsection 54954.2. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1-2 l. Approve the regular board meeting minutes of February 20, 2020. 2. Approve February 2020 financial statements and statement of obligations. a. Investment p01tfolio and reserve fund status. ACTION CALENDAR ITEMS 3- 11 3. Discussion and possible action to approve annual fee for use of Federal Lands for operations of the Tri-Dam Project 4. Discussion and possible action to authorize the General Manager to sign the Professional Services Agreement with Gannett Fleming, Inc. for the preparation of the dam breach analysis and updated inundation mapping for Beardsley, Donnells, Tulloch and Goodwin Projects, including a budget adjustment for Account #59690.
    [Show full text]
  • Beardsley Reservoir Fishing Report
    Beardsley Reservoir Fishing Report Pepillo hobnobbings her redcaps slouchingly, she vulcanise it inarticulately. Jasper still universalize pugnaciously while opposed Von isochronized that dioptres. Violinistic and conniving Judas revolved her jubbahs glimmer or adventures Mondays. Congratulations to beardsley reservoir The reservoir is open all year good road if subject to winter closure The Tri-Dam Project maintains Beardsley Road in winter. Walleye reports provide room over deep water but will be available this report. Fishing and Rich and Sal's Sport Shop. Kennedy Meadows California Gateway to the Pacific Crest Trail. Connecticut Fishing one Week of October 2th 2019 US. The park out west sunset Highway 17 between Beardsley and. Is Pinecrest open with fishing? German brown trout fishery flows are found suspended over the near future. Land surface water board funds three projects Free Content. Streamflows Stanislaus Fly Fishers. Lower middle River Reservoir ropegif 217 bytes Click here for ongoing free map service launch by MapQuest Get my time information on Water grid and. Watch for beardsley reservoir, even more reports and months and black jitterbugs and downstream of poaching that have the fly fishing report for booking. Closed on November 1 most notably LAKE WONOSKOPOMUC and SHENIPSIT RESERVOIR Please refer both the 2020 CT Fishing book for additional. Off The Radar Trout Destinations For The NorCal Kayaker. Fishing Stanislaus River information including maps. The nearby snack bar, which most comprehensive resource for carp, both sides of fishing focused on fishing report? Ice fishing from trout at Clark Canyon Reservoir Billings Hunter. Which included Donnells Dam and Beardsley Dam by the shelter Fork.
    [Show full text]
  • I Sensitivity Analysis of California Water Supply
    Sensitivity analysis of California water supply: Assessment of vulnerabilities and adaptations By Max Fefer B.S. (University of California, Berkeley) 2016 THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Civil and Environmental Engineering in the OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Approved: Jonathan Herman, Chair Jay Lund Samuel Sandoval-Solis Committee in Charge 2017 i Abstract Long-term changes in climate and population will have significant impacts on California’s freshwater management. Hydro-economic models can address climate change concerns by identifying system vulnerabilities and exploring adaptation strategies for statewide water operations. This thesis combines the new Python implementation of the CALVIN model, a hydro-economic model describing California water resources, with an ensemble of climate scenarios to identify adaptation strategies for managing water in a range of possible climates. A sensitivity analysis is performed by altering the magnitude and the timing of statewide inflows, defined as water availability and winter index respectively, to emulate changes in precipitation and temperature predicted by climate models. Model results show quadratic increases in shortage cost and marginal value of environmental flows, conveyance expansion, and reservoir expansion as water availability decreases. Reservoirs adapt to warmer climates by increasing average storage levels in winter and routing excess runoff to reservoirs downstream with available capacity. Both small and large changes to reservoir operations were observed compared to historical hydrology, showing that no single operating strategy achieves optimality for all reservoirs. Increasing the fraction of winter flow incurs small increases in total shortage cost, showing the state’s ability to manage a changing hydrologic regime with adaptive reservoir operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTI8 SMITH, DIEECTOE WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 296 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA PART II. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OP JOHN C. HOYT BY B. D. WOOD In cooperation with the State Water Commission and the Conservation Commission of the State of California WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1912 NOTE. A complete list of the gaging stations maintained in the San Joaquin River basin from 1888 to July 1, 1912, is presented on pages 100-102. 2 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS IN SAN JOAQUIN RIYER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. By B. D. WOOD. INTRODUCTION. This gazetteer is the second of a series of reports on the* surf ace waters of California prepared by the United States Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the State of California as repre­ sented by the State Conservation Commission, George C. Pardee, chairman; Francis Cuttle; and J. P. Baumgartner, and by the State Water Commission, Hiram W. Johnson, governor; Charles D. Marx, chairman; S. C. Graham; Harold T. Powers; and W. F. McClure. Louis R. Glavis is secretary of both commissions. The reports are to be published as Water-Supply Papers 295 to 300 and will bear the fol­ lowing titles: 295. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part I, Sacramento River basin. 296. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part II, San Joaquin River basin. 297. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part III, Great Basin and Pacific coast streams. 298. Water resources of California, Part I, Stream measurements in the Sacramento River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project Ferc No. 2299
    DON PEDRO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 2299 AMENDMENT OF APPLICATION EXHIBIT A – DON PEDRO PROJECT DESCRIPTION Prepared by: Turlock Irrigation District P.O. Box 949 Turlock, CA 95381 and Modesto Irrigation District P.O. Box 4060 Modesto, CA 95352 September 2017 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Table of Contents Section No. Description Page No. EXHIBIT A – DON PEDRO PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................... V PREFACE .................................................................................................................................. VII 1.0 DON PEDRO PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................... 1-1 2.0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DON PEDRO PROJECT FACILITIES ................. 2-1 2.1 Existing Project Facilities .................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Don Pedro Dam........................................................................................ 2-3 2.1.2 Don Pedro Reservoir ................................................................................ 2-4 2.1.3 Don Pedro Spillway ................................................................................. 2-4 2.1.4 Outlet Works ............................................................................................ 2-5 2.1.5 Power Intake and Tunnel ......................................................................... 2-7 2.1.6 Don Pedro Powerhouse, Turbines, and Generators ................................. 2-7 2.1.7 Tailrace
    [Show full text]
  • List of Fish and Game Commission Designated Wild Trout Waters
    The following waters are designated by the Commission as "wild trout waters": 1. American River, North Fork, from Palisade Creek downstream to Iowa Hill Bridge (Placer County). 2. Carson River, East Fork, upstream from confluence with Wolf Creek excluding tributaries (Alpine County). 3. Clavey River, upstream from confluence with Tuolumne River excluding tributaries (Tuolumne County). 4. Fall River, from Pit No. 1 powerhouse intake upstream to origin at Thousand Springs including Spring Creek, but excluding all other tributaries (Shasta County). 5. Feather River, Middle Fork, from Oroville Reservoir upstream to Sloat vehicle bridge, excluding tributaries (Butte and Plumas counties). 6. Hat Creek, from Lake Britton upstream to Hat No. 2 powerhouse (Shasta County). 7. Hot Creek, from Hot Springs upstream to west property line of Hot Creek Ranch (Mono County). 8. Kings River, from Pine Flat Lake upstream to confluence with South and Middle forks excluding tributaries (Fresno County). 9. Kings River, South Fork, from confluence with Middle Fork upstream to western boundary of Kings Canyon National Park excluding tributaries (Fresno County). 10. Merced River, South Fork, from confluence with mainstem Merced River upstream to western boundary of Yosemite National Park excluding tributaries (Mariposa County). 11. Nelson Creek, upstream from confluence with Middle Fork Feather River excluding tributaries (Plumas County). 12. Owens River, from Five Bridges crossing upstream to Pleasant Valley Dam excluding tributaries (Inyo County). 13. Rubicon River, from confluence with Middle Fork American River upstream to Hell Hole Dam excluding tributaries (Placer County). 14. Yellow Creek, from Big Springs downstream to confluence with the North Fork of the Feather River (Plumas County).
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT 1St Session HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES 105–190 "!
    105TH CONGRESS REPORT 1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 105±190 "! ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1998 JULY 21, 1997.ÐCommitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. MCDADE, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 2203] The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for en- ergy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT Page Number Bill Report Introduction ................................................................................................ ........ 4 I. Department of DefenseÐCivil: Corps of EngineersÐCivil: Corps of Engineers civil works mission ..................................... 2 7 General investigations ................................................................. 2 8 Construction, general .................................................................. 4 32 Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, Arkansas, Il- linois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee .................................................................................. 8 48 Operation and maintenance, general ......................................... 8 51 Regulatory program ..................................................................... 9 65 Flood control and coastal emergencies ....................................... 9 65 Formerly Utilized
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento River and San Joaquin River) San Joaquin River Or Proposed San Luis Drain Extension, Sacramento River
    FIGURES Selenium source Organic carbon-enriched sediment deposits Depositional environments Freshwater Seawater Geologic sources Coal Soils and Alluvium Oil Phosphorite Anthropogenic Power Generation Irrigation Refining Mining activity Pollutants Ash, Flue Gas Scrubbing Subsurface drainage Wastewater Tailings, runoff Kesterson NWR, San Francisco Blackfoot San Joaquin River, Receiving waters Belews Lake, Bay-Delta River watershed, (examples) North Carolina Tulare Basin, California Estuary, California Idaho scoter, scaup, coot, duck, grebe Species of bluegill, sunfish, sturgeon, splittail, trout, coot, horse, concern bass, bullhead avocet, stilt, sculpin, splittail, salmon flounder, salmon, sheep, elk, cow Dungeness crab Figure 1. Conceptual model of Se pollution with examples of source deposits, anthropogenic activities, receiving water bodies, and biota at risk. Bay-Delta Selenium Model Composite Source Load ¸ Composite Volume (oil refinery discharges, agricultural drainage via (Sacramento River and San Joaquin River) San Joaquin River or proposed San Luis Drain extension, Sacramento River Composite Freshwater Endmember Concentration (head of estuary) Transformation Phytoplankton, algae, bacteria Dissolved species Partitioning (Kd) suspended particulate material and bed sediment (selenate, selenite, organo-Se) (elemental Se, particulate organo-Se, adsorbed selenite/selenate) bioaccumulation prey clams zooplankton amphipods trophic transfer sturgeon splittail striped bass predators diving ducks flounder splittail effects Impaired reproduction, teratogenesis, selenosis Figure 2. Conceptual model describing linked factors that determine the effects of selenium on ecosystems. The sequence of relations links environmental concentrations to biological effects. The general term “bioaccumulation” can be applied to all of the biological levels of selenium transfer through the food web, but in this report we use the term explicitly in reference to particulate/invertebrate bioaccumulation. 122°30' 122°00' .
    [Show full text]
  • Applicant-Prepared Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Don Pedro Project Ferc No
    APPLICANT-PREPARED ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT DON PEDRO PROJECT FERC NO. 2299 Prepared for: Turlock Irrigation District – Turlock, California Modesto Irrigation District – Modesto, California Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. September 2017 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section No. Description Page No. PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. XIII 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Essential Fish Habitat Regulatory Framework .................................................... 1-1 1.2 EFH Action Area ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Public Review and Consultation during Relicensing........................................... 1-2 1.3.1 Notice of Intent and Pre-Application Document ..................................... 1-2 1.3.2 Scoping and Study Plan Development ..................................................... 1-4 1.3.3 Pre-Filing Consultation Workshop Process ............................................. 1-5 1.3.4 Initial and Updated Study Reports ........................................................... 1-6 1.3.5 Draft License Application ........................................................................ 1-6 1.3.6 Post-Filing Consultation and Alternatives Analysis ................................ 1-7 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Floods in Northern California, January 1997
    science for a changing world &2CV FLOODS IN NORTHERN fl' CALIFORNIA, JANUARY 1997 Photo by John Trotter, Jan.4, 1997/Sacramento Bee Photo: The community of Olivehurst was inundated with water after a levee failed on the Feather River INTRODUCTION Flooding in California in recent years has been increased evaporation from the warmer surface water. attributed mostly to climate conditions referred to as the The result is an increase in the number and intensity of "El Nino" effect. However, floods in California also have storms. La Nina, characterized by colder than average been associated with other climate conditions (table 1). ocean temperatures, does not entirely prevent storms of The flood of January 1997 occurred during a weak "La sufficient precipitation to cause flooding in California. Nina" or near-normal (average) climate condition (U.S. Precipitation in the Sierra Nevada mountain range Department of Commerce, 1997). These climate produced an above-normal snowpack and saturated conditions are based on sea-surface water temperatures soils during November and December 1996. A series of and trade-wind velocities in the Pacific Ocean. storms from December 29, 1996, through January 4, Precipitation from storms during any climate condition 1997. brought heavy and relatively warm precipitation generally increases with orographic uplift as the storms across much of California. Precipitation totals of up to move easterly across the mountains of California. 24 inches were recorded for the week. Virtually all of During El Nino, trade winds diminish, and upwelling of this precipitation was rain because temperatures were colder water in the ocean is inhibited along the Pacific above freezing at elevations as high as about 9,000 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild and Scenic Rivers: Status of Evaluations and Comprehensive River Management Plans C-1
    National Forests in the Sierra Nevada: A Conservation Strategy Appendix C: Wild and Scenic Rivers: Status of Evaluations and Comprehensive River Management Plans C-1 APPENDIX C WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS: STATUS OF EVALUATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE RIVER MANAGEMENT PLANS Eldorado National Forest The planning record shows that a comprehensive eligibility evaluation was part of the 1988 Eldorado Forest Plan, although suitability studies and recommendations were not completed for several eligible streams. The Plan/ROD recommended a segment of the Rubicon River for designation, found eligible but did not recommend the North and Middle Forks of the Cosumnes River, and deferred the suitability determination of the eligible segments of the North Fork Mokelumne upstream of Salt Springs Reservoir to the Stanislaus Forest Plan (which subsequently recommended the upper segment). The North Fork Mokelumne below Salt Springs was studied in a separate EIS. This separate study/EIS was published in 1994, recommending 6.5 miles of the North Fork for designation, but not recommending another 10.5 miles further downstream due to a perceived conflict with the potential Devil’s Nose dam project. In response to appeals (see decision for appeals #89-13-00-0008 and 0016, dated 7/16/91), the Forest Service agreed to consider eligibility of additional rivers. In a letter dated 3/3/98, the Forest found 11 additional streams to be eligible. In addition, the appeals decision remanded the Forest Plan decision not to recommend segments of the North and Middle Forks of the Cosumnes River and the Forest was directed to reevaluate the suitability of the river segments in either a plan amendment or project level NEPA analysis.
    [Show full text]