Sacramento River Portal
Sacramento River Project Reports
 


Management and Monitoring Recommendations for Floodplain Habitats of the Chico Landing Subreach(RM 178-206), Sacramento River, CA. February 28, 2003.
We recommend Acrobat Reader 5, some documents do not display properly in earlier versions.

Report Text (1.14 M)

Appendix 1- Property Information Forms
Appendix 2- Standardized Maps
Figure 1A Gunnhill 1999 aerial photograph displaying property boundaries and topography (648 k)
Figure 1B Gunnhill soils profiles (33 k)
Figure 1C Gunnhill flood frequencies (51 k)
Figure 1D Gunnhill aerial photography displaying agricultural and riparian landcover classifications (673 k)
Figure 1E Gunnhill aerial photography displaying 25 and 50 year erosion predictions (664 k)
Figure 2A RX Ranch and Capay 1999 aerial photograph displaying property boundaries and topography (1.13 mb)
Figure 2B RX Ranch and Capay soil profiles (105 k)
Figure 2C RX Ranch and Capay flood frequencies (85 k)
Figure 2D RX Ranch and Capay aerial photography displaying agricultural and riparian landcover classifications (793 k)
Figure 2E RX Ranch and Capay aerial photography displaying 25 and 50 year erosion predictions (694 k)
Figure 3A Deadman's Reach 1999 aerial photograph displaying property boundaries and topography (968 k)
Figure 3B Deadman's Reach soils profiles (65 k)
Figure 3C Deadman's Reach flood frequencies (35 k)
Figure 3D Deadman's Reach aerial photography displaying agricultural and riparian landcover classifications (695 k)
Figure 3E Deadman's Reach aerial photography displaying 25 and 50 year erosion predictions (619 k)
Figure 4A Ward 1999 aerial photograph displaying property boundaries and topography (591 k)
Figure 4B Ward soils profiles (82 k)
Figure 4C Ward flood frequencies (62 k)
Figure 4D Ward aerial photography displaying agricultural and riparian landcover classifications (709 k)
Figure 4E Ward aerial photography displaying 25 and 50 year erosion predictions (589 k)
Appendix 3- Short-term Management and Restoration Plans
Summary (205 k)
Appendix 4- J Levee Foundation Investigation

Report Text (466K) An Investigation determining the feasibilty and preliminary construction cost of relocating the "J" Levee on the Sacramento river adjacent to Hamilton City, California.

Figures
Figure 1  (967K) Hypothetical Setback Levee Alignment
Figure 2  (950K) Regional Geology Map
Figure 3  (448K) Boring Location Map
Figure 4  (246K) Photographs of Geotechnical Drilling
Figure 5   (101K) Conceptual Design Configuration

Appendix 1

Figure 6  (114K)
Figure 7  (121K)
Figure 8  (132K) 
Figure 9  (126K)

Appendix 2

J Levee Boring Log (227K)

Appendix 4 (231k)
Full Flow-Steady Seepage
Low Flow-Steady Seepage
Rapid Drawdown
Landslide

Appendix 5

Figure 10 (73K)
Appendix 5- Geomorphic Modeling of Meander Migration

The controls on and evolution of channel morphology of the Sacramento River: A case study of River Miles 201-185

Eric Larsen, Emily Anderson, Ellen Avery, Krishna Dole
Geology Department University of California Davis - Report to the Nature Conservancy

Note: Divisions between sections are not exact because sections do not begin on new pages.
For best results, download all sections and view them sequentially.

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Background (1 Meg)
   2.1 Geologic Setting
   2.2 Hydrologic Setting
   2.3 Environmental Setting
   2.4 Historic Changes in Channel Location
      River Miles 201-198 (Zone 1)
      River Miles 198-193 (Zone 2)
      River Miles 193-189 (Zone 3)
      River Miles 189-185 (Zone 4)
3.0 Methodology (539 k)
   3.1 Historical Years of Record
   3.2 Modeling of Future Meander Migration
      Hydraulic Modeling of Flow
      Model Calibration and Validation
4.0 Results (558 k)
   4.1 Historical Years of Record
      Wavelength
      Sinuosity
      Area Reworked and Rate of Migration
   4.2 Modeling of Future Meander Migration
      Wavelength (Distance Between
       Inflection Points)
      Sinuosity
      Area Reworked and Rate of Migration
5.0 References (130 k)
Appendix 6- Spatial Analysis Study Maps
Figure 1 Erodable Geology within the Chico Landing Subreach and Ward Property (200 k)
Figure 2 Frequent flooding among the Chico Landing Subreach and Ward Property (2.5 year return interval flood) (177 k)
Figure 3 Less productive soils among the Chico Landing Subreach and Ward Property (406 k)
Figure 4 Predicted erosion among the Chico Landing Subreach and Ward Property (168 k)
Figure 5 Area guidelines from GIS analysis (232 k) 
Figure 6a Vereschagin lot line adjustment (918 k)
Figure 6b Avrit lot line adjustment (904 k)
Appendix 7- Modeling Plant Community Types as a Function of Physical Site Characteristics

Modeling Plant Community Types as a Function of Physical Site Characteristics
The Nature Conservancy Sacramento River Project, 2003

Report Text (192k)

Tables 1 and 2 (192k)
Table 1: Description of riparian restoration units on the Sacramento River where soil
cores were sampled and vegetation response was studies. RM stands for river
mile, and L and R refer to left and right bank (looking downstream) respectively.
Table 2. Partial list of physical and biotic parameters that should be assessed (independent
variables that may be used in statistical analyses and modeling). Landscape parameters
can be calculated for study sites from GIS coverages.

Figure 1. (146k) Locations from which soil cores were taken at Sacramento River restoration sites
Figure 2. (173k) Standard texture by feel method for classifying soil type from NASA’s
Goddard Space Flight Center (http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/globe/tbf/tbfguide.htm)
Figures 3&4. (644k) Forest cover example 1, River Unit restoration site.
Figures 3&4.(204k) Forest cover example 2, River Unit restoration site.
Figures 5&6. (366k) Grassland cover type example, River Vista restoration unit.
Figures 5&6. (121k) Savanna cover type example 1, River Vista restoration site.
Figure 7. (165k) Savanna cover type example 2, River Vista restoration site.
Figure 8. (69k) Frequency of vegetation cover types and soil core refusal condition.
Figure 9. (39k) Frequency of vegetation cover types by soil depth
Figure 10. (232k) Preliminary Plant design model showing effects of soil stratigraphy and flooding frequency on vegetation community type.
Figure 11. (232k) Glenn County Soils map
Appendix 8- Two-dimensional Hydraulic Modeling: Hamilton City Area
Two-Dimensional Hydraulic Modeling of the Upper Sacramento River, RM 194.0 to RM 202.0
Including Riparian Restoration, Setback Levee, and East Levee Removal.
Glenn and Butte Counties, California
Prepared for The Natural Conservancy Sacramento River Project, by Ayres Associates
Chico, May 31, 2002

Report Text (340k)  Table 1: Manning's Roughness Coefficients (n Values), on page 10
                             Table 2: High Water Marks (HWM) Surveyed During the 1995 Flood Event, on page 10
                             Table 3: Comparison of the Predicted Water Surface Elevations From the Model with the
                                          Surveyed High Water Marks for the Calibration Run, on page 14

Figures
Figure 1  (122k) Location Map - Project Site Delineation
Figure 2  (1.05M) Land Ownership within Project Area: Sacramento River Project Hamilton City Implementation Area
Figure 3  (228k) Stakeholder preferred Setback Levee Alignment: Hamilton City Implementation Area
Figure 4  (1.60M) Location of East Overbank Levee Removal
Figure 5  (59k) Frequency-Discharge Plot for Sacramento River at Hamilton City
Figure 6  (460k) Plan View of the Finite Element Mesh
Figure 7  (129k) Local Levee Configuration and Stationing
Figure 8  (63k) J-Levee Profiles
Figure 9  (63k) Modeled Water Surface Profiles and Surveyed High Water Marks

Appendices
Figure 10  (504k) Land Use/Material Types - Existing Conditions, January 1995 High Flow
Figure 11  (491k) Land Use/Material Types - Restoration Conditions, January 1995 High Flow
Figure 12  (464k) Land Use/Material Types - Setback Levee Conditions, January 1995 High Flow
Figure 13  (467k) Land Use/Material Types - East Levee Removal Conditions, January 1995 High Flow
Figure 14  (355k) Velocity Contours and Vectors - Existing Conditions Hydraulic Model
Figure 15  (368k) Velocity Contours and Vectors - Riparian Restoration Hydraulic Model
Figure 16  (380k) Velocity Contours and Vectors - Hamilton City Setback Levee Hyd. Model
Figure 17  (349k) Velocity Contours and Vectors - East Levee Removal Hydraulic Model
Figure 18  (238k) Velocity Differential - Existing to Riparian Restoration
Figure 19  (252k) Velocity Differential - Existing to Setback Levee
Figure 20  (238k) Velocity Differential - Existing to East Levee Removal
Figure 21  (250k) Water Dept - Existing Conditions
Figure 22  (251k) Water Dept - Setback Levee Conditions
Figure 23  (246k) Water Dept - East Levee Removal Conditions
Figure 24  (258k) Water Surface Elevation Differential - Existing to Riparian Restoration
Figure 25  (263k) Water Surface Elevation Differential - Existing to Setback Levee
Figure 26  (268k) Water Surface Elevation Differential - Existing to East Levee Removal
Figure 27  (78k) Levee Profile at RM 193 and Computed Water Surface Elevations
Figure 28  (70k) Plan View of East Levee Showing Data Point Locations
Figure 29  (164k) Water Surface Elevations Upstream of Highway 32
Appendix 9- Two-dimensional Hydraulic Modeling: County Road 29 Area
Hydraulic Modeling and Geomorhpic Analysis of Sacramento River, RM 184-194,
Glenn and Butte Counties, California
Prepared for The Natural Conservancy Sacramento River Project, by Ayres Associates
Chico, April 26, 2002

Report Text (178k)  Table 1: Manning's Roughness Coefficients (n Values), on page 7
                             Table 2: Model Scenarios and Associated Flows, on page 7
                             Table 3: Butte Basin Flow Splits by Modeled Scenario, on page 26
                             Figure 27: Sketch of Chute and Neck Cutoffs, on page 37
Photographs
Photograph 1  (116k) Looking Downstream along the Sacramento River with the Road 29 Embankment along the Right Side (TM 188.0)
Photographs 2 & 3  (271k) 2. Looking South from Road 29 at Modeled Cutoff Location
                                       3. Looking North at the Modeled Re-entry Point for Cutoff Channel

Figures
Figure 1  (165k) Location Map
Figure 2  (1.17M) Site Map
Figure 3  (290k) Finite Element Mesh
Figure 4  (369k) Land Use/Material Types - Existing Conditions
Figure 5  (384k) Land Use/Material Types - Restoration and Cutoff Conditions
Figure 6  (369k) Land Use/Material Types - Cutoff Conditions
Figure 7  (424k) Water Depth - Existing Conditions - 195,000 cfs
Figure 8  (423k) Water Depth - Existing Conditions - 370,000 cfs
Figure 9  (389k) Velocity Contours - Existing Conditions - 195,000 cfs
Figure 10  (445k) Velocity Contours - Existing Conditions - 370,000 cfs
Figure 11  (396k) Velocity Contours - Restoration Conditions - 195,000 cfs
Figure 12  (435k) Velocity Contours - Restoration Conditions - 370,000 cfs
Figure 13  (271k) Velocity Differential - Existing to Restoration Conditions - 195,000 cfs
Figure 14  (285k) Velocity Differential - Existing to Restoration Conditions - 370,000 cfs
Figure 15  (265k) Water Surface Elevation Differential - Existing to Restoration Conditions, 195,000 cfs
Figure 16  (289k) Water Surface Elevation Differential - Existing to Restoration Conditions, 195,000 cfs
Figure 17  (392k) Velocity Contours - Road 29 Cutoff Conditions - 195,000 cfs
Figure 18  (462k) Velocity Contours - Road 29 Cutoff Conditions - 370,000 cfs
Figure 19  (324k) Velocity Differential - Existing to Cutoff Conditions - 195,000 cfs
Figure 20  (329k) Velocity Differential - Existing to Cutoff Conditions - 370,000 cfs
Figure 21  (282k) Velocity Differential - Restoration to Cutoff Conditions - 195,000 cfs
Figure 22  (303k) Velocity Differential - Restoration to Cutoff Conditions - 370,000 cfs
Figure 23  (342k) Water Surface Elevation Differential - Existing to Cutoff Conditions - 195,000 cfs
Figure 24  (330k) Water Surface Elevation Differential - Existing to Cutoff Conditions - 370,000 cfs
Figure 25  (313k) Water Surface Elevation Differential - Restoration to Cutoff Conditions - 195,000 cfs
Figure 26  (312k) Water Surface Elevation Differential - Restoration to Cutoff Conditions - 370,000 cfs
Figure 27  Sketch of Chute and Neck Cutoffs (within report text, on page 37)
Figure 28  (735k) Location Map of Historic and 1998 Reach Conditions
Figure 29  (739k) Potential Channel Alignment under Scenario 1
Figure 30  (739k) Potential Channel Alignment under Scenario 2
Figure 31  (733k) Potential Channel Alignment under Scenario 3
Appendix 10- Methods for Evaluating Ecosystem Integrity and Monitoring Ecosystem Response

Methods for Evaluating Ecosystem Integrity and Monitoring Ecosystem Response
The Nature Conservancy, Sacramento River Project, February 12, 2003

Report (448 kb)

Appendix 11- Ecological Indicators Study

Report Text (728 k)

Figure 2-1. Project study area along Sacramento River.
Figure 2-2. Hydrology of the Sacramento River at Red Bluff (USGS gauge 11377100) from water year 2002 to December 16, 2002.
Figure 2-3. Predicted form and function of large meandering alluvial rivers.
Figure 2-4. Secondary flow patterns in rivers.
Figure 3-1. Bat sampling locations at the Koehnan orchard site.
Figure 3-2. Bat sampling locations at the La Barranca orchard site.
Figure 3-3. Bat sampling locations at the Phelan mature forest site, and the 1991 and 2002 restoration sites.
Figure 3-4. Bat sampling locations at the Woodson mature forest site.
Figure 3-5. Detector deployment and setup example. (a) The Koehnan mainstem Sacramento River site setup. (b) Close up of detector components.
Figure 3-6. Number of acoustic files for western mastiff bat at study sites in core, river, and backwater sampling locations.
Figure 3-7. Number of acoustic files for hoary bat at study sites in core, river, and backwater sampling locations.
Figure 3-8. Number of acoustic files for 40-kHz Myotis at study sites in core, river, and backwater sampling locations.
Figure 3-9. Total number of acoustic files by taxonomic category at the Koehnan backwater sampling location.
Figure 3-10. Total number of acoustic files per night of all bats at core sampling locations.
Figure 3-11. File counts per night of silver-haired bat at core sampling locations.
Figure 3-12. File counts per night of big brown bat at core sampling locations.
Figure 3-13. File counts per night of Mexican free-tailed bat at core sampling locations.
Figure 3-14. File counts per night of 25-kHz bat phonotype at core sampling locations.
Figure 3-15. File counts per night of red bat at core sampling locations.
Figure 3-16. File counts per night of hoary bat at core sampling locations.
Figure 3-17. File counts per night of 40-kHz Myotis phonotype at core sampling locations.
Figure 3-18. File counts per night of 50-kHz Myotis phonotype at core sampling locations.
Figure 3-19. File counts per night of mastiff bat at core sampling locations.
Figure 3-20. Total number of acoustic files per night of all bats at study sites and sampling locations.
Figure 3-21. Total number of acoustic files per night of hoary bat at study sites and sampling locations.
Figure 3-22. Total number of acoustic files per night of 50-kHz Myotis phonotype at study sites and
sampling locations.
Figure 3-23. Records of 50-kHz Myotis phonotype at La Barranca sampling locations during the first
two weeks of sampling (September 14-27).
Figure 3-24. Records of 40-kHz Myotis phonotype at La Barranca sampling locations during the first
two weeks of sampling (September 14-27).
Figure 3-25. Total number of acoustic files per night of mastiff bat at study sites and sampling locations.
Figure 3-26. Percentage of nights with detections of mastiff bat.
Figure 3-27a. Distribution of estimated time since emergence of mastiff bats at Koehnan and La Barranca sampling locations (orchard sites).
Figure 3-27b. Distribution of estimated time since emergence of mastiff bats at Phelan and Woodson sampling locations (forest sites).
Figure 3-28. Mean number of acoustic files per sampling period of all bats for two sampling periods at the 1991 and 2002 restoration sites.
Figure 3-29. Number of acoustic files of all bats at the 2002 and 1991 restoration sites and at the Phelan core sampling location.
Figure 3-30. Number of acoustic files by species at the 2002 and 1991 restoration sites.
Figure 3-31. Mean number of acoustic files during first 45 minutes after sunset for all species at study sites and sampling locations.
Figure 3-32. Distribution of acoustic files since sunset for red bats at the 2002 and 1991 restoration sites and Phelan core sampling location.
Figure 4-1. (a) Substrate composition and (b) facies mapping data along the five transects at the La Barranca point bar.
Figure 4-2. (a) Substrate composition and (b) facies mapping data along the five transects at the Phelan point bar.
Figure 4-3. (a) Substrate composition and (b) facies mapping data along the five transects at the Koehnan point bar.
Figure 4-4. La Barranca site map with velocity and depth profiles for the five transects along the point bar.
Figure 4-5. Phelan site map with velocity and depth profiles for the five transects along the point bar.
Figure 4-6. Koehnan site map with velocity and depth profiles for the five transects along the point bar.
Figure 4-7. Invertebrate abundance (all taxa) captured at study sites (A is the upstream-most transect, E is downstream-most transect).
Figure 4-8. Invertebrate abundance (all taxa) captured at study sites (corrected for volume of flow sampled) and velocity at sampling locations (A is the upstream-most transect, E is
downstream-most transect).
Figure 4-9. Invertebrate abundance (all taxa) captured at study sites, with La Barranca Transect E (no flow) removed.
Figure 4-10. Dominant taxa captured at study sites.
Figure 4-11. First- and second-most dominant taxa of invertebrates (excluding those taxa not expected
in the drift, such as Oligochaeta, Hemiptera, Nematoda, and Collembola) collected at each transect from each site.
Figure 4-12. Ephemeroptera abundance at study sites without La Barranca Transect E (no flow).
Figure 4-13. Diptera abundance at study sites without La Barranca Transect E (no flow).
Figure 4-14. Invertebrate abundance (all taxa) at Cove Net 1 (SC1) and neighboring transects at the La Barranca site.
Figure 4-15. Invertebrate abundance (all taxa) at Cove Nets 2 and 3 (SC2 and SC3) and neighboring transects at the La Barranca site.
Figure 4-16. Invertebrate abundance (specific taxa) at Cove Net 1 (SC1) and neighboring transects at the La Barranca site.
Figure 4-17. Invertebrate abundance (specific taxa) at Cove Nets 2 and 3 (SC2 and SC3) and neighboring transects at the La Barranca site.
Figure 4-18. Cove habitat sampling locations at the La Barranca point bar.
Figure 4-19. Invertebrate abundance (all taxa) at Cove Nets 1 and 2 (SC1 and SC2) and neighboring transects at the Phelan point bar.
Figure 4-20. Invertebrate abundance (specific taxa) at Cove Nets 1 and 2 (SC1 and SC2) and neighboring transects at the Phelan point bar.
Figure 4-21. Cove habitat sampling locations at the Phelan point bar.
Figure 4-22. Cove habitat sampling location at the Koehnan point bar.
Figure 4-23. Invertebrate abundance (all taxa) at Cove Net 8 (SC8) and neighboring transects at the Koehnan point bar.
Figure 4-24. Invertebrate abundance (specific taxa) at Cove Net 8 (SC8) and neighboring transects at the Koehnan point bar.
Figure 4-25. Invertebrate abundance (specific taxa) at the Phelan secondary channel sampling location, most productive mainstem transect, and closest neighboring transect.
Figure 4-26. Invertebrate abundance (specfic taxa) at the Koehnan secondary channel sampling site and most productive mainstem transect.
Figure 4-27. Invertebrate abundance (specific taxa) at the Koehnan secondary channel and main channel sampling sites.
Figure 4-28. Locations of secondary channel and main channel sampling sites at the Koehnan point bar.
Figure 5-1. Stable isotope signatures for filter-feeders (hydropsychids and blackflies) for (a) nitrogen and (b) carbon.
Figure 5-2. Dual isotope diagram for filter-feeders (hydropsychids and blackflies).
Figure 5-3. Stable isotope signatures for grazers (mayflies) for (a) nitrogen and (b) carbon.
Figure 5-4. Dual isotope diagram for grazers (mayflies).
Figure 5-5. Stable isotope signatures for chironomids for (a) nitrogen and (b) carbon.
Figure 5-6. Stable isotope signatures for willow for (a) nitrogen and (b) carbon.
Figure 5-7. Stable isotope signatures for aquatic vegetation and algae for (a) nitrogen and (b) carbon.

Appendix 12- Pilot Study of Factors Influencing Riparian Forest Regeneration

A Pilot Investigation of Cottonwood Recruitment On The Sacramento River
M. D. Roberts, D. R. Peterson, D. E. Jukkola, V. L. Snowden, 2001
The Nature Conservancy, Sacramento River Project

Report (1.05 Meg)
Appendix 13- Public Recreation Access Study

Sacramento River Public Recreation Access Study: Red Bluff to Colusa
EDAW Consulting for The Nature Conservancy's Sacramento River Project
Ron Unger, Project Manager - January 28, 2003

Executive Summary ES-1 (97K)

1 Introduction 1-1 (145K)
1.1 Study Purpose and Overview 1-1
1.2 Related Studies 1-2
1.3 Approach 1-4
1.4 Regional Setting 1-7

2 Recreation Facilities, Infrastructure, and Usage Assessment 2-1 (202K)
2.1 Geographic Distribution of Recreation Facilities, Infrastructure, and Usage 2-1
2.2 Recreation Facilities Site, Infrastructure, and Usage Assessment for Federally Owned Sites 2-27
2.3 Recreation Facilities Site, Infrastructure, and Usage Assessment for State-Owned Sites 2-29
2.4 Recreation Facilities Site, Infrastructure, and Usage Assessment for Local Agency Owned Sites 2-36
2.5 Recreation Facilities Site, Infrastructure, and Usage Assessment for Privately Owned Sites 2-41
2.6 Recreation Facilities Site, Infrastructure, and Usage Assessment for Focus Sites 2-46

3 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis 3-1 (175K)
3.1 General Study Area Public Recreation Opportunities and Constraints 3-1
3.2 Public Recreation Opportunities and Constraints on Federally Owned Sites 3-12
3.3 Public Recreation Opportunities and Constraints on State-Owned Land 3-13
3.4 Public Recreation Opportunities and Constraints on Local Agency-Owned Sites 3-16
3.5 Public Recreation Opportunities and Constraints on Privately Owned Sites 3-18
3.6 Public Recreation Opportunities and Constraints on Focus Sites 3-1

4 Recreational Needs Analysis 4-1 (691K)
4.1 Local and Regional Demographic Analysis 4-1
4.2 Recreation Use and Trend Information 4-10
4.3 Land and Facility Manager Interviews 4-25
4.4 Interest Group Interviews 4-34
4.5 Information from Public Meetings 4-40
4.6 Recreation Needs Analysis 4-44

5 Management Coordination Analysis 5-1 (115K)
5.1 Existing Management Coordination Efforts 5-1
5.2 Opportunities and Constraints for Management Coordination 5-2

6 Law Enforcement Needs Analysis 6-1 (126K)
6.1 Methods 6-1
6.2 Current Duties Related to Recreation Use of the Study Area 6-2
6.3 Access Issues 6-4
6.4 Trends in Recreation Use and Law Enforcement Activities 6-4
6.5 Coordination Efforts 6-5
6.6 Law Enforcement Needs 6-6
6.7 Law Enforcement Budget Needs 6-7
6.8 Conclusions 6-7

7 Recommendations, Priorities, Regulatory Requirements, and Conclusions 7-1 (191K)
7.1 Public Recreation Access Recommendations Setting 7-2
7.2 General Recommendations for Recreation Access Facilities and Amenities 7-4
7.3 Focus Site Recommendations 7-14
7.4 General Recommendations for Programs 7-20
7.5 Permits and Regulatory Requirements 7-28
7.6 Further Evaluate the Potential for New Recreation Opportunities for the Region 7-30
7.7 Conclusions 7-30

8 References 8-1 (71K)

9 List of Preparers 9-1 (43K)

EXHIBITS
1-1 Study Area (226K) 1-5
1-2 Structure and Habitat Diversity (334K)1-10

2-1 (648K), 2-2 (516K), 2-2A (531K), 2-2B (488K), 2-2C (559K), 2-2D (498K), and 2-2E (479K) Ownership Map Overview: Public and Conservation Lands and Private Recreation Lands (Red Bluff to Colusa) 2-3
2-3 Boat Launch Facilities (418K)2-22
2-4 River Access Camping Sites (173K)2-24
2-5 Picnic Facilities (335K)2-25

4-1 Recreation Uses (235K)4-11
4-2 Tubing on the Sacramento River 4-28

7-1 Proposed Pine Creek Preserve Area Concept Plan 7-17 (689K)
7-2 Proposed Ward Tract Concept Plan 7-21 (699K)

TABLES
2-1 Facilities Amenities Matrix by River Mile 2-17
2-2 Facilities Amenities Matrix by Agency/Owner 2-19 (261K Excel)

4.1-1 Study Area Counties 4-2
4.1-2 Demographic Profile of the Study Area Residents 4-4
4.1-3 Age Characteristics of Outdoor Recreators in the Study Area 4-7
4.1-4 Education Level Characteristics of Outdoor Recreators in the Study Area 4-7
4.1-5 Race/Ethnic Background of Outdoor Recreators in the Study Area 4-8
4.1-6 Household Income Characteristics of Outdoor Recreators in the Study Area 4-8
4.1-7 Population Projections for the Study Area Counties 4-9
4.2-1 1980 Study Participants Activity Participation Reports 4-14
4.2-2 1980 DWR Study Participants' Trip Characteristics 4-15
4.2-3 DWR Study - Overnight vs. Day Use 4-16
4.2-4 1980 DWR Study Participants' Reports of Length of Stay in Sacramento River Area 4-16
4.2-5 Priority Public Uses in DPR 1997 Study 4-17
4.2-6 Level of Participation in Recreation Activities During the Previous 12 Months 4-19
4.2-7 Comparison of Outdoor Recreators' Participation in Recreation Activities Across Geographic Sub-Areas 4-20
4.2-8 Study Area Survey Respondents Use of Outdoor Recreation Setting Types 4-21
4.2-9 Factors Influencing Enjoyment of Most Important Activity 4-22
4.2-10 Changes in Time Spent on Outdoor Activities by Study Area Residents 4-23
4.2-11 Estimates of Participation and Projected Indexes of Change for Wildlife Related Activities, 1995-2040 4-24
4.3-1 Management Interview Categories 4-27
4.4-1 Recreation Interest Group Interview Categories 4-35

7-1 Applicable Regulations/Permits by Proposed Activity 7-29

APPENDICES
A Sensitive Biological Resources (153K)
B Environmental Regulations and Permit Requirements (79K)
C Land and Facility Manager Interview Questions (62K)
D Interest Group Interview Questions (49K)
E Law Enforcement Interview Questions (61K)
Appendix 14- Cultural Resources Study