DOCSLIB.ORG

Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Eureka Area Humboldt County, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Eureka Area Humboldt County, California Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Eureka Area Humboldt County, California By R, E. EVENSON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1470 Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1959 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. S EATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U. S. Geological Survey Library has cataloged this publication as follows: Evenson, Robert Edward, 1924- Geology and ground-water features of the Eureka area, Humboldt County, California. Prepared in cooperation with the California Dept. of Water Eesources. Washing­ ton, U. S. Govt. Print. Off., 1959 iv, 80 p. maps, diagrs., tables. 25 cm. (U. S. Geological Survey Water-supply paper 1470) Part of illustrative matter fold. col. in pocket. Bibliography: p. 77. 1. Water-supply California Humboldt Co. 2. Water, Under­ ground California Humboldt Co. i. Title: Eureka area, Hum­ boldt County, California. (Series) TC801.U2 no. 1470 551.490979412 GS 59-169 copy 2. GB1025.C2E9 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. CONTENTS Page Abstract___-_____-__--_--_-_-_________-__--_--_-_-______ ___ 1 Introduction._____________________________________________________ 2 Purpose and scope of the work________ _________________________ 2 Location and extent of the area_______________-_-__-__--________ 3 Previous work_______________________________________________ 3 Well-numbering system________________________________________ 3 Acknowledgments. ________________________________________ __ 5 Geographic features..»______________________________________________ 6 Physiography and drainage._____________________________________ 6 Vegetation and culture_________________________________________ 7 Climate-________________________________ _ 7 Use of ground water__________________-_____-______________-___ 8 Geology in relation to ground water-_______-__---_____----_--__------ 11 Principles of ground-water occurrence____________________________ 11 Summary of stratigraphy.______________________________________ 12 Consolidated rocks___________________________________________ 14 Pre-Tertiary formations_______________________________ ___ 14 Pullen, Eel River, Rio Dell, and Scotia Bluffs formations of Ogle (1953), undifferentiated.__________________________ 14 Principal deposits that yield water to wells _______________________ 15 Carlotta formation of Ogle (1953) (Pliocene and Pleistocene)____ 15 Hookton formation of Ogle (1953) (Pleistocene)_______________ 17 Terrace deposits (Pleistocene)__________-____________________ 18 Alluvium (Recent)_______________________________________ 19 River-channel deposits (Recent)____________________________ 21 Dune sand (Recent)_______________________________________ 22 Structural features___________________________________________ 22 Ground-water features______________________________________________ 23 Ground-water bodies____________________________________________ 23 Recharge and movement of ground water_________________________ 26 Discharge of ground water______________________________________ 28 Natural discharge___________________-_________________-__- 28 Pumping from wells______________________________________ 28 Fluctuations of water level____________________________________ 31 Ground-water storage capacity._________________________________ 35 Subdivision of area into storage units._______________________ 35 Computation of storage capacity_______-----_-_---___---___- 38 Net change of ground water in storage.______________________ 39 Quality of the water________________________---___-__________.__ 39 Water-quality criteria______________________________________ 40 Relation between specific conductance and dissolved solids in waters of the area___________________________________ __ 41 Chemical character of water.________________________________ 41 Relation to the geology___________________________________ 46 Tables of basic data_______________________________________________ 51 Selected bibliography.___________________________________________ 77 Index______.__ ________________________________________ 79 IV CONTENTS ILLUSTKATIONS [All plates in pocket] PLATB 1. Map of Eureka area showing generalized geology and hydro- logic features. 2. Geologic sections of Eureka area. Page FIGURE 1. Index map showing report area_________________________ 4 2. Well-numbering system._______________________________ 5 3. Comparison of annual precipitation at Eureka and Scotia.__ 9 4. Summary of monthly precipitation at Eureka______________ 10 5. Water-level contour map of the Eel River valley, August 1952_ 24 6. Fluctuations of water levels in five wells in the Eel River valley________________________'_________ 33 7. Fluctuations of water levels in four wells near Arcata_______ 33 8. Fluctuations of water level in well 3N/1W-34J1_________ 34 9. Ground-water storage units in the Eel River valley _________ 36 10. Ground-water storage units in the Mad River valley________ 37 11. Relation of specific conductance to sum of determined con­ stituents. ___________________________________________ 42 12. Composition of representative ground waters from wellr in the Eureka area, 1952_______________________ 43 13. Distribution of chloride and iron concentrations in the Eel River valley, 1952_________________________ 44 14. Comparison of chloride concentrations in selected wells in the Eel River valley in August 1952 and August 1953________ 45 15. Partial log and chemical character of ground water during drilling of well 3N/1W-18K1___________________________ 48 TABLES TABLE 1. Stratigraphic units of the Eureka area. ___ ______________ 13 2. Estimated pumpage, in acre-feet, for irrigation in the Eureka area in 1952______________________.___ 30 3. Metered water consumption, in thousands of gallons, for the cities of Arcata and Fortuna, 1947-52__ _________________ 30 4. Estimated ground-water storage capacity of the alluvium, river- channel deposits, and lower terrace deposits of major ground- water basins in the Eureka area____________-______----__- 38 5. Range in chemical character of ground water in the Eureka area, 1951-53______________________________ 46 6. Descriptions of water wells in the Eureka area _______________ 52 7. Periodic water-level measurements in wells in the Eureka area__ 63 8. Chemical analyses of ground water in the Eureka area________ 69 9. Partial chemical analyses of ground water in the Eureka rrea___ 72 10. Chemical analyses of surface water in the Eureka area._______ 73 11. Selected drillers' logs of wells in the Eureka area____________ 74 GEOLOGY AND GROUND-WATER FEATURES OF THE EUREKA AREA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFOFNIA By K. E. EVENSON ABSTRACT The U. S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources, made a reconnaissance investigation of the majci" ground- water basins in Humboldt County. The two principal basins are t^e coastal plain of the Eel River valley a triangular-shaped area, which is about 8 miles wide along the coast and extends inland for about 12 miles and tve Arcata plain, which is about 5 miles wide and lies betweeen the Mad Rive' and the north end of Humboldt Bay. The area investigated extends for about 34 miles along the coast and about 20 miles inland. The two principal streams in the area are the Eel River, near the south end of the area, and the Mad River, near the north end. Both discharpi directly into the Pacific Ocean. Minor streams that discharge into Humbold^ Bay are the Elk River and Jacoby, Freshwater, and Salmon Creeks. The average annual precipitation is about 40 inches. The mean arnual tem­ perature is 52° F, and the annual range in the mean monthly temperature Is about 10° F. Unconsolidated clay, silt, sand, and gravel 3,000 to 4,000 feet in total thick­ ness make up the dune sand, alluvium, terrace deposits, and Ho?kton and Carlotta formations of Ogle (1953). These deposits range in age fror* Pliocene to Recent and contain most of the ground water. Water-table conditions exist in the dune sand, alluvium, terrace deposits, and Pleistocene deposits throughout the area; confined conditions exist in the deposits of Pliocene to Pleisv<>cene age in the Eel River valley and in the Pleistocene deposits around the northern end of Humboldt Bay. Most of the water pumped is derived from unconflned alluvial deposits the alluvium of Recent age and the terrace deposits of Pleistocene age. Periodic water-level measurements, which were made in observation wells in the Eel River valley, on the Arcata plain, and in the area north of the Mad River, indicated an average decline of about 5 feet in water level" in each basin during the .irrigation season of 1952. These seasonal decl'nes were balanced by recoveries of water levels during the next winter, as in the other years of record; no appreciable difference was noted between water levels in observation wells in the spring of 1951 and the spring of 1955. Most of the ground water is used for irrigation and is distributed principally through various types of sprinkler systems. About 250 irrigation wcUs supply water to nearly 12,000 acres, which is used almost entirely as permanent pas­ ture. In 1952 the estimated pumpage of ground water for irrigation, industry, public supply, and domestic use totaled about 15,000 acre-feet. The tot^l ground- water discharge, both natural and pumped, from alluvial deposits in 1952 was 2 GEOLOGY AND GROUND WATER, EUREKA AREA, CALIF. about 25,000 acre-feet.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Right Thing to Do: Returning Land to the Wiyot Tribe
    THE RIGHT THING TO DO: RETURNING LAND TO THE WIYOT TRIBE by Karen Elizabeth Nelson A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts In Sociology May, 2008 THE RIGHT THING TO DO: RETURNING LAND TO THE WIYOT TRIBE by Karen Elizabeth Nelson Approved by the Master’s Thesis Committee: Jennifer Eichstedt, Committee Chair Date Elizabeth Watson, Committee Member Date Judith Little, Committee Member Date Jennifer Eichstedt, Graduate Coordinator Date Chris Hopper, Interim Dean for Research and Graduate Studies Date ABSTRACT THE RIGHT THING TO DO: RETURNING LAND TO THE WIYOT TRIBE Karen Elizabeth Nelson In 2004, the Eureka City Council legally returned forty acres of Indian Island to the Wiyot tribe. This return occurred one hundred and forty four years after the Indian Island massacre. This research explores the returning of sacred tribal land in the context of collective apologies and reconciliations after generations of Native genocide. The significance of this case study includes a detailed narration of how the land transfer occurred and more importantly why it was labeled “the right thing to do” by Eureka City Council members and staff. This case study was examined with a grounded theory methodology. Using no hypotheses, the research and the research methodology unfolded in a non-linear process, letting the research speak for itself. Detailed interviews and a review of documents were used to qualify and quantify this unique community based social act. The results of this case study include how and why the Eureka City Council returned forty acres of Indian Island to the Wiyot people.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus Kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report
    Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission in partnership with the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Humboldt Redwood Company Summary Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Restoration Grant Program Grantee Agreement: P1210516 Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report Prepared by: David Lam and Sharon Powers December 2016 Abstract Monitoring of coho salmon population spatial structure was conducted, as a component of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Coastal Salmonid Monitoring Program, in the lower Eel River and its tributaries, inclusive of the Van Duzen River, in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Potential coho salmon habitat within the lower Eel River and Van Duzen River study areas was segmented into a sample frame of 204 one-to-three kilometer stream survey reaches. Annually, a randomly selected subset of sample frame stream reaches was monitored by direct observation. Using mask and snorkel, surveyors conducted two independent pass dive observations to estimate fish species presence and numbers. A total of 211 surveys were conducted on 163 reaches, with 2,755 pools surveyed during the summers of 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Coho salmon were observed in 13.5% of reaches and 7.5% of pools surveyed, and the percent of the study area occupied by coho salmon juveniles was estimated at 7% in 2013 and 2014, 3% in 2015, and 4% in 2016. i Table of Contents Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Main Eel (PDF)
    12 3° 55'0 "W 123 ° 52'30 "W 123 ° 50'0" W 123 °4 7'30 "W 123 °4 5'0" W 123 °4 2'30 "W 123°40'0"W 1 23° 3 7'30" W 1 23° 35 '0" W 1 23° 32 '30" W B 2 a Lar lc a b k o ee Cr e e 5 1 m S e 5 4 re 2 S C k l l C 3 w k r co i 4 Da ry e i i M M e t h f C re e t c t y a ns Can on 3 2 k C n a C C Bro w r x r h ee w a r A f th e k k B r e v e o e l e u G A l e e en D l e s ounta e l M k i r C r in a a n d n u o re C d R p l e l i t d l o s k i h C M a 7 M in eek d y r Cr C e is 11 S v re e a 12 e k c k D 10 8 o t 9 t v Pea C i n r e h Roa e d k e c P a n R e k 10 n th e a e o r 7 C R r a C l len 11 12 r d A e r 8 l 7 k e ek ig e k b e d r 12 Middle Main Eel Planninge 10 Watershed 89 10 n C re 9 i 11 12 e ek C s Cre l l W r 11 s 25 4 i k !( o M oo H reek r r C C 15 Dee k e 13 r e 18 14 C r C e 17 nack re ek b 16 K o st We 15 18 Fr Cree k 40°22'30"N Cre 17 s ek 14 15 tth ew 16 14 13 Ma 13 17 18 16 L 13 k i 14 e t k Existing Land Use e t Martin Cr e le re C 01S 03E V 15 a s 40 °2 2'30 "N n e r k D o ee u l r ze o in C n D 01Srt 04E T R 20 Ma ive h r k u 01S 05E N e e r wm r e m k a n C e 24 a 21 n e 19 r 22 C C 23 r n e r 23 e a k B k k 19 ee Perr e 24 21 k t C r ott Cre 20 n e 22 19 la k rth Cre k 24 B 24 k o e 23 k e e s w 20 23 e e e o r B e r 22 r C C 21 C e an l n p o m p s w p e a Ca N K m bi o n Cre h ek 26 T V i F la ek n r t Cre n e u k Boul d m 25 29 27 e R 28 e o r E 30 d a a South Fork Bar n C o d e 26 R C le l Poison Oak Creek Watersh ed tto 25 a Ma R m e i r 30 25 29 v o 29 28 27 25 n 26 28 e r Paci fi c Lu mber Co mpa ny C 26 k r 27
    [Show full text]
  • 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Opens a New Window
    3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section provides information regarding impacts of the proposed project on hydrology and water quality. The information used in this analysis is taken from: ► Water Supply Assessment for the Humboldt Wind Energy Project (Stantec 2019) (Appendix T); ► Humboldt County General Plan (Humboldt County 2017); ► North Coast Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (North Coast IRWMP) (North Coast Resource Partnership 2018); ► Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan) (North Coast RWQCB 2018); ► the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Mapping Program (2018); ► National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data; and ► California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater (DWR 2003). 3.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CLIMATE AND PRECIPITATION Weather in the project area is characterized by temperate, dry summers and cool, wet winters. In winter, precipitation is heavy. Average annual rainfall can be up to 47 inches in Scotia (WRCC 2019). The rainy season, which generally begins in October and lasts through April, includes most of the precipitation (e.g., 90 percent of the mean annual runoff of the Eel River occurs during winter). Precipitation data from water years 1981–2010 for Eureka, approximately 20 miles north of the project area, show a mean annual precipitation of 40 inches (NOAA and CNRFC 2019). Mean annual precipitation in the project area is lowest in the coastal zone area (40 inches per year) and highest in the upper elevations of the Upper Cape Mendocino and Eel River hydrologic units to the east (85 inches per year) (Cal-Atlas 1996). The dry season, generally May through September, is usually defined by morning fog and overcast conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Bay Water Trails
    Aldergrove Marsh HBNWR To Trinidad 299 Arcata Ja ne s C Humboldt Bay reek National Wildlife Refuge ARCATA HIKING BY APPOINTMENT ONLY Arcata Community Bottoms 101 Forest Mad River k Slough e e r C Boat Ramp 255 s e n a BLM Manila J Dunes Mad River Arcata Marsh Slough Wildlife Area and Wildlife Manila Sanctuary h g ou Community l S l ie n Park Mc Da BAYSIDE MANILA Humboldt Bay National Manila Dunes Jac ob Recreation Area Wildlife y C r e e Refuge k a Arcata Bay l u s 255 n Bracut Ocean i n Marsh e P SAMOA Indian Island HBNWR Fay Slough Wildlife Area INDIANOLA see inset at left Murray Eureka Field a Slough Airport Slough Eurek Eureka a Boat Ramp o Pacific Marina m a S Eureka Marsh EUREKA FAIRHAVEN Samoa Boat Ramp 3 Corners County Park Sequoia h g Park u o l S n a Samoa Dunes Hilfiker y R N o r Recreation Area th Je Elk Beach tty River S o City ut h Jetty Wildlife Area DANGEROUS CURRENTS h g u o South Jetty l S i n Mar t Humboldt Bay t i Water Trails Map p Elk River State S Wildlife Area King Salmon Always yield to swimmers, motorized vessels and other watercraft. th u o S Water Trail Access Wildlife Viewing Area E l k Field's Landing R i Low Tide Water Trails v e County Park r Camping To High Tide Water Trails Headwaters Forest Reserve Public Lands FIELDS Interpretive Center LANDING Mud Flats HUMBOLDT Pedestrian Access HILL Parking Interpretive Trail Boat Launch 101 Wheelchair Accessible South Bay Marina Table Bluff County Park Restrooms Pets on Leash HBNWR Picnic Area Fishing Humboldt Bay National SCALE Wildlife Refuge KILOMETERS 0.5 1.5 2.5 KILOMETERS Table Bluff 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 N MILES 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 MILES 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 Hookton Slough Base map layer courtesy Natural Resources Services Boat Dock To Loleta Headwaters S:\Maps\Humboldt Bay Water Trails Map_2 sided.pdf (print 11x17 in color using HP ProB9180 printer) Forest Reserve S:\Maps\Humboldt Bay Water Trails Map_2 sided.pdf (print 11x17 in color using HP ProB9180 printer).
    [Show full text]
  • 4.8 Humboldt Bay Area, Humboldt County CWPP Final
    HUMBOLDT COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN, 2019 HUMBOLDT BAY AREA PLANNING UNIT ACTION PLAN Humboldt Bay. Photo: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Digital Visual Library. Chapter 4.8: Humboldt Bay Area Planning Unit Action Plan HUMBOLDT COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN, 2019 Table of Contents — Humboldt Bay Area 4.8 Humboldt Bay Area Planning Unit Action Plan ........................................................................... 4.8-1 4.8.1 Humboldt Bay Area Planning Unit Description ................................................................... 4.8-1 4.8.2 Humboldt Bay Area Assets and Values at Risk .................................................................... 4.8-2 4.8.3 Humboldt Bay Area Wildfire Environment ......................................................................... 4.8-3 4.8.4 Humboldt Bay Area Fire Protection Capabilities ................................................................ 4.8-7 4.8.5 Humboldt Bay Area Evacuation ........................................................................................ 4.8-10 4.8.6 Humboldt Bay Area Community Preparedness ................................................................ 4.8-11 4.8.7 Humboldt Bay Area Local Wildfire Prevention Plans ........................................................ 4.8-13 4.8.8 Humboldt Bay Area Community Identified Projects ......................................................... 4.8-14 4.8.9 Humboldt Bay Area Action Plan .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads For· Temperature and Sediment
    ., U.s. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Lower Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads for· Temperature and Sediment Approved by: l~ltl(Jl Alexis Strauss, Date Director, Water Division TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 1.1. OVERVIEW OF THE TMDL PROGRAM ................................................................... 1 1.2. WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................... 2 1.3. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CONSULTATION.................................................... 4 1.4. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION .................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 2: PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................. 7 2.1. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS............................................................................... 7 2.2. FISH POPULATION AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CONCERNS......................... 9 2.3. STREAM TEMPERATURE PROBLEMS .................................................................. 14 2.4. SEDIMENT PROBLEMS ............................................................................................ 26 CHAPTER 3: TEMPERATURE TMDLS ............................................................................... 30 3.1. INTERPRETING THE EXISTING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR TEMPERATURE ........................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Humboldt Bay Dredged Materials Reuse Feasibility Study
    COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation January 19, 2012 HUMBOLDT BAY DREDGED MATERIALS REUSE FEASIBILITY STUDY Project No. 11-065-01 Project Manager: Joel Gerwein RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $85,000 to the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District to study the feasibility of reusing dredged materials for tidal marsh restoration and climate change adaptation in Humboldt Bay. LOCATION: Humboldt Bay, Humboldt County PROGRAM CATEGORY: Integrated Coastal and Marine Resources Protection EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location and Site Map Exhibit 2: Project Letters RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Sections 31111 and 31220 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes disbursement of up to eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000.00) to the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District (“Harbor District”) to study the feasibility of utilizing dredged materials for tidal marsh restoration and climate change adaptation projects in Humboldt Bay, subject to the condition that prior to disbursement of Conservancy funds, the Harbor District shall submit for the review and written approval of the Executive Officer of the Conservancy a final work program, including budget and schedule, and the names of any contractors to be employed.” Staff further recommends that the Conservancy adopt the following findings: “Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal
    [Show full text]
  • California North Coast Offshore Wind Studies
    California North Coast Offshore Wind Studies Overview of Geological Hazards This report was prepared by Mark A. Hemphill-Haley, Eileen Hemphill-Haley, and Wyeth Wunderlich of the Humboldt State University Department of Geology. It is part of the California North Coast Offshore Wind Studies collection, edited by Mark Severy, Zachary Alva, Gregory Chapman, Maia Cheli, Tanya Garcia, Christina Ortega, Nicole Salas, Amin Younes, James Zoellick, & Arne Jacobson, and published by the Schatz Energy Research Center in September 2020. The series is available online at schatzcenter.org/wind/ Schatz Energy Research Center Humboldt State University Arcata, CA 95521 | (707) 826-4345 California North Coast Offshore Wind Studies Disclaimer This study was prepared under contract with Humboldt State University Sponsored Programs Foundation with financial support from the Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment. The content reflects the views of the Humboldt State University Sponsored Programs Foundation and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment. This report was created under Grant Agreement Number: OPR19100 About the Schatz Energy Research Center The Schatz Energy Research Center at Humboldt State University advances clean and renewable energy. Our projects aim to reduce climate change and pollution while increasing energy access and resilience. Our work is collaborative and multidisciplinary, and we are grateful to the many partners who together make our efforts possible. Learn more about our work at schatzcenter.org Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Please cite as follows: Hemphill-Haley, M.A., Hemphill-Haley, E. and Wunderlich, W. (2020).
    [Show full text]
  • Thirsty Eel Oct. 11-Corrections
    1 THE THIRSTY EEL: SUMMER AND WINTER FLOW THRESHOLDS THAT TILT THE EEL 2 RIVER OF NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA FROM SALMON-SUPPORTING TO 3 CYANOBACTERIALLY-DEGRADED STATES 4 5 In press, Special Volume, Copeia: Fish out of Water Symposium 6 Mary E. Power1, 7 Keith Bouma-Gregson 2,3 8 Patrick Higgins3, 9 Stephanie M. Carlson4 10 11 12 13 14 1. Department of Integrative Biology, Univ. California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720; Email: 15 [email protected] 16 17 2. Department of Integrative Biology, Univ. California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720; Email: 18 [email protected]> 19 20 3. Eel River Recovery Project, Garberville CA 95542 www.eelriverrecovery.org; Email: 21 [email protected] 22 23 4. Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 24 94720; Email: [email protected] 25 26 27 Running head: Discharge-mediated food web states 28 29 Key words: cyanobacteria, discharge extremes, drought, food webs, salmonids, tipping points 30 31 Although it flows through regions of Northwestern California that are thought to be relatively well- 32 watered, the Eel River is increasingly stressed by drought and water withdrawals. We discuss how critical 33 threshold changes in summer discharge can potentially tilt the Eel from a recovering salmon-supporting 34 ecosystem toward a cyanobacterially-degraded one. To maintain food webs and habitats that support 35 salmonids and suppress harmful cyanobacteria, summer discharge must be sufficient to connect mainstem 36 pools hydrologically with gently moving, cool base flow. Rearing salmon and steelhead can survive even 37 in pools that become isolated during summer low flows if hyporheic exchange is sufficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Bay Fishes
    Humboldt Bay Fishes ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> ·´¯`·._.·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> Acknowledgements The Humboldt Bay Harbor District would like to offer our sincere thanks and appreciation to the authors and photographers who have allowed us to use their work in this report. Photography and Illustrations We would like to thank the photographers and illustrators who have so graciously donated the use of their images for this publication. Andrey Dolgor Dan Gotshall Polar Research Institute of Marine Sea Challengers, Inc. Fisheries And Oceanography [email protected] [email protected] Michael Lanboeuf Milton Love [email protected] Marine Science Institute [email protected] Stephen Metherell Jacques Moreau [email protected] [email protected] Bernd Ueberschaer Clinton Bauder [email protected] [email protected] Fish descriptions contained in this report are from: Froese, R. and Pauly, D. Editors. 2003 FishBase. Worldwide Web electronic publication. http://www.fishbase.org/ 13 August 2003 Photographer Fish Photographer Bauder, Clinton wolf-eel Gotshall, Daniel W scalyhead sculpin Bauder, Clinton blackeye goby Gotshall, Daniel W speckled sanddab Bauder, Clinton spotted cusk-eel Gotshall, Daniel W. bocaccio Bauder, Clinton tube-snout Gotshall, Daniel W. brown rockfish Gotshall, Daniel W. yellowtail rockfish Flescher, Don american shad Gotshall, Daniel W. dover sole Flescher, Don stripped bass Gotshall, Daniel W. pacific sanddab Gotshall, Daniel W. kelp greenling Garcia-Franco, Mauricio louvar
    [Show full text]