DOCSLIB.ORG

Humboldt Bay and Eel River Estuary Benthic Habitat Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Humboldt Bay and Eel River Estuary Benthic Habitat Project Humboldt Bay and Eel River Estuary Benthic Habitat Project Susan Schlosser and Annie Eicher Published by California Sea Grant College Program Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive #0231 La Jolla CA 92093-0231 (858) 534-4446 www.csgc.ucsd.edu Publication No. T-075 This document was supported in part by the National Sea Grant College Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and produced under NOAA grant number NA10OAR4170060, project number C/P-1 through the California Sea Grant College Program. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of any of those organizations. Sea Grant is a unique partnership of public and private sectors, combining research, education, and outreach for public service. It is a national network of universities meeting changing environmental and economic needs of people in our coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes regions. Photographs: All photographs taken by S. Schlosser, A. Eicher or D. Marshall unless otherwise noted. Suggested citation: Schlosser, S., and A. Eicher. 2012. The Humboldt Bay and Eel River Estuary Benthic Habitat Project. California Sea Grant Publication T-075. 246 p. This document and individual maps can be downloaded from: http://ca-sgep.ucsd.edu/ humboldthabitats Humboldt Bay and Eel River Estuary Benthic Habitat Project Final Report to the California State Coastal Conservancy Agreement Number 06-085 August 2012 Susan Schlosser1 and Annie Eicher2 1 California Sea Grant, 2 Commercial Street Suite 4, Eureka, CA 95501 2 HT Harvey & Associates, Arcata, CA Acknowledgements The co-authors of the Humboldt Bay and Eel River Estuary Benthic Habitat Report have many people to thank who were involved in this project. Project funds were procured from the California Coastal Conservancy and the NOAA Coastal Services Center. This report and the associated habitat classifications were developed through a collaborative effort of the Habitat Project Advisory Committee, NOAA Coastal Service Center, Photo Science, The Nature Conservancy, the University of California Sea Grant Extension Program, and the California Coastal Conservancy. Rebecca Lunde and Christina Hoffman, NOAA Coastal Service Center, mentored and advised the project in early stages with valuable insights from their work on the San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Project. Mark Finkbeiner and Nancy Cofer-Shabica, NOAA Coastal Services Center, lead the imagery collection and habitat mapping processes. Richard Eastlake and Mark Meade, Photo Science, drafted the habitat maps under the guidance of Mark Finkbeiner, Chris Robinson, and Rebecca Love, NOAA Coastal Services Center. Mark Finkbeiner also provided essential expertise on the Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard. Margaret Spring, The Nature Conservancy, got us started on the Conservation Action Planning process and provided us with web resources. The Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District provided a boat and the services of their excellent bar pilots John Powell and Tim Petrusha to accomplish groundtruthing for the habitat mapping. Bruce Slocum provided invaluable logistics in the Eel River Estuary. The imagery could not have been acquired without the assistance of the Eureka National Weather Service Office. Nancy Dean, Meteorologist-in-Charge, and her many expert colleagues provided precise weather updates when conditions were correct to ensure a successful imagery data set. Our Project Manager, Joel Gerwein, California Coastal Conservancy, contributed above and beyond his responsibilities, providing written materials and innovative approaches to addressing management considerations. The University of California Sea Grant Extension Program provided funds for the Habitat Project Advisory Committee chair and staff who wrote the report, prepared the EndNote library, verified intertidal habitats and identified algal specimens. We also thanks Joann Furse, California Sea Grant Communications, for thoroughly editing this document. We are especially thankful to Debbie Marshall, Administrative Assistant in the Eureka Sea Grant Office, for her tireless work to compile references, format, edit, and design this publication. The Habitat Project Advisory Committee contributed countless hours at meetings, reviewing draft documents, and providing their expertise and knowledge. We are thankful to have worked with a group of dedicated professional scientists and managers. Habitat Project Advisory Committee Affiliation Diane Ashton National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region Steve Cannata California Department of Fish and Game Annie Eicher H.T. Harvey & Associates Mark Finkbeiner NOAA Coastal Services Center Vicki Frey California Department of Fish and Game Joel Gerwein State Coastal Conservancy Andrea Pickart U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bill Pinnix U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kirsten Ramey California Department of Fish and Game Susan Schlosser University of California Sea Grant Extension Program Adam Wagschal H.T. Harvey & Associates i Contents Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................................................i Table of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xv Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................xvi Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1 Need for the Project .................................................................................................................... 2 Relationship to the Humboldt Bay Initiative .............................................................................. 4 Humboldt Bay Ecosystem – Geospatial Extent .......................................................................... 6 The Study Area ........................................................................................................................... 6 Regional Setting .......................................................................................................................... 9 Humboldt Bay ........................................................................................................................ 9 History ............................................................................................................................. 17 Eel River Estuary ................................................................................................................. 19 History ............................................................................................................................. 22 Chapter 2. Methods for Compiling the Habitat Profiles ................................................................ 25 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 25 Habitat Profile Themes .............................................................................................................. 25 General Description ................................................................................................................. 26 Distribution and Location ......................................................................................................... 26 Physical Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 26 Biotic Communities .................................................................................................................. 27 Ecosystem Services ................................................................................................................... 27 Management Recommendations ............................................................................................... 28 Chapter 3. Benthic Habitat Imagery Acquisition and Classification Methods .............................. 30 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 30 Geographic Information System (GIS) Data Source Inventory ................................................ 30 Aerial Imagery Acquisition ....................................................................................................... 32 Determination of Imagery Criteria ....................................................................................... 32 National Hydrographic Database ......................................................................................... 35 Signature Development ........................................................................................................ 35 Benthic Habitat Delineation ...................................................................................................... 48 Photointerpretation ............................................................................................................... 48 Imagery Interpretation Guidelines ................................................................................... 49 Classification Conventions .............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ctenophore Relationships and Their Placement As the Sister Group to All Other Animals
    ARTICLES DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0331-3 Ctenophore relationships and their placement as the sister group to all other animals Nathan V. Whelan 1,2*, Kevin M. Kocot3, Tatiana P. Moroz4, Krishanu Mukherjee4, Peter Williams4, Gustav Paulay5, Leonid L. Moroz 4,6* and Kenneth M. Halanych 1* Ctenophora, comprising approximately 200 described species, is an important lineage for understanding metazoan evolution and is of great ecological and economic importance. Ctenophore diversity includes species with unique colloblasts used for prey capture, smooth and striated muscles, benthic and pelagic lifestyles, and locomotion with ciliated paddles or muscular propul- sion. However, the ancestral states of traits are debated and relationships among many lineages are unresolved. Here, using 27 newly sequenced ctenophore transcriptomes, publicly available data and methods to control systematic error, we establish the placement of Ctenophora as the sister group to all other animals and refine the phylogenetic relationships within ctenophores. Molecular clock analyses suggest modern ctenophore diversity originated approximately 350 million years ago ± 88 million years, conflicting with previous hypotheses, which suggest it originated approximately 65 million years ago. We recover Euplokamis dunlapae—a species with striated muscles—as the sister lineage to other sampled ctenophores. Ancestral state reconstruction shows that the most recent common ancestor of extant ctenophores was pelagic, possessed tentacles, was bio- luminescent and did not have separate sexes. Our results imply at least two transitions from a pelagic to benthic lifestyle within Ctenophora, suggesting that such transitions were more common in animal diversification than previously thought. tenophores, or comb jellies, have successfully colonized from species across most of the known phylogenetic diversity of nearly every marine environment and can be key species in Ctenophora.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Ecotoxicology of Estuarine Amphipod Paracorophium Excavatum
    E icolo fEstua ·ne Amphipod Paracorophium excavatum A thesis Submitted in partial fulfilment the requirements for Degree of Master of Science in Environmental Science at The University of Canterbury by Carol Wong Hee Ting University of Canterbury 1999 ABSTRACT The estuarine tube dwelling amphipod Paracorophium excavatum was investigated for its suitability as a bio-indicator and bio-monitor. Distribution patterns of P. excavatum were determined at 13 sites in the Canterbury region that differed in particle size distribution ranging from sandy to muddy sediment, with overall10w organic content. Low tide salinity ranged from 5 to 33 0/00 between sites and sediment moisture content ranged between 23 to 41 % moisture. Amphipods were absent from most sites within the Avon-Heathcote Estuary. The availability, life history and fecundity of P. excavatum were compared from intertidal mudflat sites in Brooklands Lagoon and Kairaki over a period of thirteen months. Four sediment core samples were collected at monthly intervals and P. excavatum IS population structure and life history pattern studied. The life history til· <: of P. excavatum can be characterised bY fast-growing, annual, iteroporous, bivoltine, females ovigerous throughout the year and thelygenous (female biased) population. P. excavatum showed relative consistency in abundance throughout the year with monthly densities ranging from 875.79 per 0.1 m-2 (July) to 1754.77 per 0.1 m-2 (December) at Brooklands Lagoon and 1031.83 per 0.1 m2 (November) to 1780.24 per 0.1 m2 (December) at Kairaki. There was a linear relationship between numbers of eggs per female and female length.
    [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]
  • Greater Amphipod Diversity Associated with Environmental Heterogeneity in Deep-Sea Habitats……………………………………………………………
    http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/ Research Commons at the University of Waikato Copyright Statement: The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). The thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: Any use you make of these documents or images must be for research or private study purposes only, and you may not make them available to any other person. Authors control the copyright of their thesis. You will recognise the author’s right to be identified as the author of the thesis, and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate. You will obtain the author’s permission before publishing any material from the thesis. Diversity of New Zealand Deep-sea Amphipoda A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Waikato by MATTHEW ANDREW KNOX 2012 i ABSTRACT Biodiversity and the ecological and evolutionary processes which influence faunal distributions are poorly understood in deep-sea habitats. This thesis assesses diversity of deep-sea amphipod crustaceans at three taxonomic levels (family, species, genetic) on continental margins of New Zealand relative to environmental variables. Sampling was undertaken at 20 stations located on Chatham Rise and Challenger Plateau, two major geomorphic features with contrasting environmental conditions. In Chapter 1, total diversity of the >12,500 amphipods assessed at the family-level revealed high abundance (range: 44 – 2074 individuals 1000 m-2) and taxonomic richness (27 families). Amphipod assemblages at all stations were largely dominated by the same families.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Population Genetic Structure of New Zealand's Endemic Corophiid
    Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKBIJBiological Journal of the Linnean Society0024-4066The Linnean Society of London, 2003? 2003 811 119133 Original Article POPULATION GENETIC STRUCTURE OF NEW ZEALAND AQUATIC AMPHIPODS M. I. STEVENS and I. D. HOGG Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2004, 81, 119–133. With 3 figures Population genetic structure of New Zealand’s endemic corophiid amphipods: evidence for allopatric speciation MARK I. STEVENS* and IAN D. HOGG Centre for Biodiversity and Ecology Research, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand Received 2 January 2003; accepted for publication 28 July 2003 Allozyme electrophoresis was used to examine population genetic structure at inter- and intraspecific levels for the New Zealand endemic corophiid amphipods, Paracorophium lucasi and P. excavatum. Individuals were collected from estuarine and freshwater habitats from North, South and Chatham Islands. Analyses of genetic structure among interspecific populations indicated clear allelic differentiation between the two Paracorophium species (Nei’s genetic distance, D = 1.62), as well as considerable intraspecific substructuring (D = 0.15–0.65). These levels of diver- gence are similar to interspecific levels for other amphipods and it is proposed that at least two groups from the P. lucasi complex and three from the P. excavatum complex correspond to sibling species. In most cases allopatry can account for the differentiation among the putative sibling species. For populations that share a common coastline we found low levels of differentiation and little or no correlation with geographical distance, suggesting that gene flow is adequate to maintain homogeneous population genetic structure. By contrast, populations on separate coastlines (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Ectosymbiotic Behavior of Cancer Gracilis and Its Trophic Relationships with Its Host Phacellophora Camtschatica and the Parasitoid Hyperia Medusarum
    MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 315: 221–236, 2006 Published June 13 Mar Ecol Prog Ser Ectosymbiotic behavior of Cancer gracilis and its trophic relationships with its host Phacellophora camtschatica and the parasitoid Hyperia medusarum Trisha Towanda*, Erik V. Thuesen Laboratory I, Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington 98505, USA ABSTRACT: In southern Puget Sound, large numbers of megalopae and juveniles of the brachyuran crab Cancer gracilis and the hyperiid amphipod Hyperia medusarum were found riding the scypho- zoan Phacellophora camtschatica. C. gracilis megalopae numbered up to 326 individuals per medusa, instars reached 13 individuals per host and H. medusarum numbered up to 446 amphipods per host. Although C. gracilis megalopae and instars are not seen riding Aurelia labiata in the field, instars readily clung to A. labiata, as well as an artificial medusa, when confined in a planktonkreisel. In the laboratory, C. gracilis was observed to consume H. medusarum, P. camtschatica, Artemia franciscana and A. labiata. Crab fecal pellets contained mixed crustacean exoskeletons (70%), nematocysts (20%), and diatom frustules (8%). Nematocysts predominated in the fecal pellets of all stages and sexes of H. medusarum. In stable isotope studies, the δ13C and δ15N values for the megalopae (–19.9 and 11.4, respectively) fell closely in the range of those for H. medusarum (–19.6 and 12.5, respec- tively) and indicate a similar trophic reliance on the host. The broad range of δ13C (–25.2 to –19.6) and δ15N (10.9 to 17.5) values among crab instars reflects an increased diversity of diet as crabs develop. The association between C.
    [Show 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________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • VH Flora Complete Rev 18-19
    Flora of Vinalhaven Island, Maine Macrolichens, Liverworts, Mosses and Vascular Plants Javier Peñalosa Version 1.4 Spring 2019 1. General introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------1.1 2. The Setting: Landscape, Geology, Soils and Climate ----------------------------------2.1 3. Vegetation of Vinalhaven Vegetation: classification or description? --------------------------------------------------3.1 The trees and shrubs --------------------------------------------------------------------------3.1 The Forest --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.3 Upland spruce-fir forest -----------------------------------------------------------------3.3 Deciduous woodlands -------------------------------------------------------------------3.6 Pitch pine woodland ---------------------------------------------------------------------3.6 The shore ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.7 Rocky headlands and beaches ----------------------------------------------------------3.7 Salt marshes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.8 Shrub-dominated shoreline communities --------------------------------------------3.10 Freshwater wetlands -------------------------------------------------------------------------3.11 Streams -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.11 Ponds -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.11
    [Show full text]