DOCSLIB.ORG

Mattole River Cumulative Effects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mattole River Cumulative Effects Mattole River Watershed Analysis Cumulative Watershed Effects Public Review Draft September 2011 Cumulative Watershed Effects TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................................ vi LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ vii LIST OF MAPS ........................................................................................................................ viii LIST OF ATTACHMENTS .......................................................................................................... x LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................... xi 1.0 ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 OVERVIEW OF WATERSHED ANALYSIS PROCESS .................................................................. 6 2.2 PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT ........................................................................ 11 2.3 ISSUES IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................................................... 11 2.4 DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 16 3.0 WATERSHED SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 17 3.1 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING AND STUDY AREA DELINEATION ..................................................... 17 3.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMIC REGIME ........................................................................................ 22 3.3 SOILS ............................................................................................................................... 24 3.4 TOPOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 24 3.5 STREAM CLASS ................................................................................................................. 28 3.6 CLIMATE ........................................................................................................................... 29 3.7 STREAMFLOW RECORDS AND FLOOD HISTORY .................................................................. 29 3.8 HYDROLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 34 3.8.1 North Fork Mattole Area ......................................................................................... 37 3.8.2 Upper North Fork Mattole Area .............................................................................. 40 3.8.3 McGinnis/Pritchard Creeks .................................................................................... 45 3.9 FOREST ECOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 47 3.9.1 Riparian Forest ....................................................................................................... 47 3.9.2 The Role of Fire ..................................................................................................... 48 3.10 FISH SPECIES COMPOSITION AND DISTRIBUTION .............................................................. 49 3.11 AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE SPECIES COMPOSITION AND DISTRIBUTION ................................ 51 4.0 LAND USE .......................................................................................................................... 52 4.1 PREHISTORIC LAND USE .................................................................................................... 52 4.2 HARVEST HISTORY (1900-1988) ....................................................................................... 56 4.3 HARVEST HISTORY (1988-2003) ....................................................................................... 57 Mattole River Watershed Analysis Page i Cumulative Watershed Effects 5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF TIMBER OPERATIONS AND WATERSHED PROCESSES ON AQUATIC HABITAT CONDITIONS.............................................................................. 65 5.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 65 5.2 SALMONID DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................. 67 5.3 HABITAT CONDITIONS FOR STREAMS ON HRC PROPERTY .................................................. 68 5.3.1 Spawning Habitat ................................................................................................... 70 5.3.2 Rearing Habitat – Pools ......................................................................................... 73 5.3.3 Rearing Habitat – Temperature .............................................................................. 82 5.4 RIPARIAN CONDITIONS AND FUTURE MANAGEMENT ............................................................ 85 5.5 HILLSLOPE CONDITIONS AND FUTURE MANAGEMENT ......................................................... 92 5.5.1 Overview of Mass Wasting Sediment Input Analysis ............................................. 93 5.5.2 Sediment Budget – 1988-2003 .............................................................................. 98 5.5.3 Channel and Fish Habitat Condition Trends ........................................................ 103 5.6 AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE HABITAT ................................................................................... 107 6.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 109 6.1 HILLSLOPE ...................................................................................................................... 109 6.2 RIPARIAN ........................................................................................................................ 111 6.3 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 112 7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 115 Mattole River Watershed Analysis Page ii Cumulative Watershed Effects LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Analysis and data collection for the Mattole River watershed analysis. .................................... 9 Table 3-1. Watershed areas for the Mattole River basin. ........................................................................... 17 Table 3-2. HRC ownership and non-HRC ownership by sub-basin. ......................................................... 20 Table 3-3. Distribution of lithologic units in HCP area. ............................................................................ 22 Table 3-4. Properties of soils for HCP lands in the Mattole River Watershed Analysis Unit. .................. 25 Table 3-5. Summary of acres in major slope gradient classes in HCP area. .............................................. 26 Table 3-6. Summary of stream channel lengths in HCP area. ................................................................... 28 Table 3-7. Existing and discontinued long-term precipitation gauges located within or near the Mattole River basin. ......................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 3-8. Life history patterns of salmon and steelhead in the Mattole River. ........................................ 50 Table 4-1. Timber stand acres by type and age (2011 data) for HCP area of the Mattole River WAU. ... 53 Table 4-2. First harvest entry acres in HCP area (2006 data). ................................................................... 55 Table 4-3. Roads by sub-basin in HCP area (based on 2006 GIS data). .................................................... 63 Table 5-1. LWD recruitment potential categories (H = High; M = Moderate; L = Low) as defined by RCU stand type, tree size class, and canopy closure. ......................................................................... 89 Table 5-2. Number of Class I and Class II stream RCU acres by LWD recruitment potential category, Mattole River HCP lands. ................................................................................................................... 91 Table 5-3. Landslides in project area by time period. ................................................................................ 94 Table 5-4. Landslide delivery (cubic yards) in project area by geomorphic association. .......................... 95 Table 5-5. Sediment sources included in each land use association category. ........................................... 99 Mattole River Watershed Analysis Page iii Cumulative Watershed Effects LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1. Schematic illustration of the role of surface processes on shaping habitat characteristics and variability and the potential for ecological systems to influence surface processes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Drought and Equity in California
    Drought and Equity in California Laura Feinstein, Rapichan Phurisamban, Amanda Ford, Christine Tyler, Ayana Crawford January 2017 Drought and Equity in California January 2017 Lead Authors Laura Feinstein, Senior Research Associate, Pacific Institute Rapichan Phurisamban, Research Associate, Pacific Institute Amanda Ford, Coalition Coordinator, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Christine Tyler, Water Policy Leadership Intern, Pacific Institute Ayana Crawford, Water Policy Leadership Intern, Pacific Institute Drought and Equity Advisory Committee and Contributing Authors The Drought and Equity Advisory Committee members acted as contributing authors, but all final editorial decisions were made by lead authors. Sara Aminzadeh, Executive Director, California Coastkeeper Alliance Colin Bailey, Executive Director, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Carolina Balazs, Visiting Scholar, University of California, Berkeley Wendy Broley, Staff Engineer, California Urban Water Agencies Amanda Fencl, PhD Student, University of California, Davis Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior Kelsey Hinton, Program Associate, Community Water Center Gita Kapahi, Director, Office of Public Participation, State Water Resources Control Board Brittani Orona, Environmental Justice and Tribal Affairs Specialist and Native American Studies Doctoral Student, University of California, Davis Brian Pompeii, Lecturer, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Tim Sloane, Executive Director, Institute for Fisheries Resources ISBN-978-1-893790-76-6 © 2017 Pacific Institute. All rights reserved. Pacific Institute 654 13th Street, Preservation Park Oakland, California 94612 Phone: 510.251.1600 | Facsimile: 510.251.2203 www.pacinst.org Cover Photos: Clockwise from top left: NNehring, Debargh, Yykkaa, Marilyn Nieves Designer: Bryan Kring, Kring Design Studio Drought and Equity in California I ABOUT THE PACIFIC INSTITUTE The Pacific Institute envisions a world in which society, the economy, and the environment have the water they need to thrive now and in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Ritual Management of Salmonid Fish Resources in California
    UC Merced The Journal of California Anthropology Title Ritual Management of Salmonid Fish Resources in California Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0rg7c5vf Journal The Journal of California Anthropology, 4(1) Authors Swezey, Sean L Heizer, Robert F Publication Date 1977-07-01 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Scaffold for A-frame net fbhing. Karok man pladn( net Into water. Ca. 1900. After Krocber and Barrett (1962:Plate 2). Courtesy of the Lowie Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. Ritual Management of Salmonid Fish Resources in California SEAN L. SWEZEY ROBERT F. HEIZER THNOGRAPHERS at times are more nets, toggle harpoons, and application of bo­ Econcerned with reporting data than tanical fish poisons. interpreting them. As a result, ethnographies Whereas the material aspects of fishery often have the appearance of being little more technology form a basic and informative part than collections of facts organized by a gener­ of the ethnographic record, the potential im­ ally standardized topical outline. Synoptic portance of specialized ritual procedures surveys may result from an effort to synthesize undertaken at the inception of anadromous a particular trait, custom, or complex, and fish runs has generally been overlooked. from these there often results a deeper insight Through much of Northern California, ritual into the function and purpose of what, in injunctions and social control mechanisms unanalyzed form, seem to be cultural prac­ were instituted by specific "ritual specialists" tices which are illogical or meaningless. We (formulists, shamans, and moiety chiefs) at the attempt here to review native ritual, belief, and outset of the first major seasonal migrations of ceremony connected with anadromous fish in salmon.
    [Show full text]
  • Federally Recognized Indian Tribes
    Appendix C: Federally Recognized Indian Tribes The following tribal entities within the contiguous 48 states are recognized and eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. For further information contact Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Tribal Government Services, 1849 C Street N.W., Washington, DC 20240; Telephone number (202) 208-7445.1 Figure C.1 shows the location of the Federally Recognized Tribes. 1. Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma 2. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California 3. Ak Chin Indian Community of Papago Indians of the Maricopa, Ak Chin Reservation, Arizona 4. Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Texas 5. Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town of the Creek Nation of Oklahoma 6. Alturas Rancheria of Pit River Indians of California 7. Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 8. Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming 9. Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians of Maine 10. Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana 11. Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Augustine Reservation, California 12. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin 13. Bay Mills Indian Community of the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians Bay Mills. Reservation, Michigan 14. Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California 15. Big Lagoon Rancheria of Smith River Indians of California 1Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 220, November 13, 1996. C–1 Figure C.1.—Locations of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. C–2 16.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Census CPH-T-6. American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes in the United States and Puerto Rico: 2010
    2010 Census CPH-T-6. American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes in the United States and Puerto Rico: 2010 Description of Table 1. This table shows data for American Indian and Alaska Native tribes alone and alone or in combination for the United States. Those respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native only and one tribe are shown in Column 1. Respondents who reported two or more American Indian or Alaska Native tribes, but no other race, are shown in Column 2. Those respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native and at least one other race and one tribe are shown in Column 3. Respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native and at least one other race and two or more tribes are shown in Column 4. Those respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native in any combination of race(s) or tribe(s) are shown in Column 5, and is the sum of the numbers in Columns 1 through 4. For a detailed explanation of the alone and alone or in combination concepts used in this table, see the 2010 Census Brief, “The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010” at <www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.pdf>. Table 1. American Indian and Alaska Native Population by Tribe1 for the United States: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, special tabulation. Internet release date: December 2013 Note: Respondents who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native were asked to report their enrolled or principal tribe. Therefore, tribal data in this data product reflect the written tribal entries reported on the questionnaire.
    [Show full text]
  • California-Nevada Region
    Research Guides for both historic and modern Native Communities relating to records held at the National Archives California Nevada Introduction Page Introduction Page Historic Native Communities Historic Native Communities Modern Native Communities Modern Native Communities Sample Document Beginning of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the U.S. Government and the Kahwea, San Luis Rey, and Cocomcahra Indians. Signed at the Village of Temecula, California, 1/5/1852. National Archives. https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55030733 National Archives Native Communities Research Guides. https://www.archives.gov/education/native-communities California Native Communities To perform a search of more general records of California’s Native People in the National Archives Online Catalog, use Advanced Search. Enter California in the search box and 75 in the Record Group box (Bureau of Indian Affairs). There are several great resources available for general information and material for kids about the Native People of California, such as the Native Languages and National Museum of the American Indian websites. Type California into the main search box for both. Related state agencies and universities may also hold records or information about these communities. Examples might include the California State Archives, the Online Archive of California, and the University of California Santa Barbara Native American Collections. Historic California Native Communities Federally Recognized Native Communities in California (2018) Sample Document Map of Selected Site for Indian Reservation in Mendocino County, California, 7/30/1856. National Archives: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/50926106 National Archives Native Communities Research Guides. https://www.archives.gov/education/native-communities Historic California Native Communities For a map of historic language areas in California, see Native Languages.
    [Show full text]
  • A Genocidal Legacy: a Case Study of Cultural Survival
    A GENOCIDAL LEGACY: A CASE STUDY OF CULTURAL SURVIVAL IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA ____________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Chico ____________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Anthropology ____________ by Aimee L. VanHavermaat-Snyder Fall 2017 A GENOCIDAL LEGACY: A CASE STUDY OF CULTURAL SURVIVAL IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA A Thesis by Aimee L. VanHavermaat-Snyder Fall 2017 APPROVED BY THE INTERIM DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES: _________________________________ Sharon Barrios, Ph.D. APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: ______________________________ _________________________________ Guy Q. King, Ph.D. Antoinette Martinez, Ph.D., Chair Graduate Coordinator _________________________________ Frank Bayham, Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to begin by thanking the Bear River Band at Rohnerville Rancheria for their support of the Benbow Archaeological Project and this thesis. I would also like to thank Erika Cooper, THPO for the Bear River Band at Rohnerville Rancheria, Rick Fitzgerald of California State Parks, Kevin Dalton, and everyone involved with the Benbow Archaeological Project. A huge thanks goes to Greg Collins of California State Parks for leading this archaeological endeavor and for supporting this thesis work. Thank you to my thesis committee, Antoinette Martinez and Frank Bayham. Nette, your guidance and influence as an archaeologist, anthropologist, teacher, and friend have meant so much to me. The profound impact of your teaching career is immeasurable, and I count myself lucky to have studied and grown under your guidance. You have changed me and will forever be my example of a strong, brilliant, kind, and powerful woman. Frank, I have had so much fun working with you as your ISA, having you on my crew at Benbow, in class, on this thesis, and beyond! Dad, Mom (Lisa Pizza), and brother, I know how truly lucky I am to have such an amazing family.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Census CPH-T-6. American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes in the United States and Puerto Rico: 2010
    2010 Census CPH-T-6. American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes in the United States and Puerto Rico: 2010 Description of Table 66. This table shows data for American Indian and Alaska Native tribes alone and alone or in combination for Puerto Rico. Those respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native only and one tribe are shown in Column 1. Respondents who reported two or more American Indian or Alaska Native tribes, but no other race, are shown in Column 2. Those respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native and at least one other race and one tribe are shown in Column 3. Respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native and at least one other race and two or more tribes are shown in Column 4. Those respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native in any combination of race(s) or tribe(s) are shown in Column 5, and is the sum of the numbers in Columns 1 through 4. For a detailed explanation of the alone and alone or in combination concepts used in this table, see the 2010 Census Brief, “The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010” at <www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.pdf>. Table 66. American Indian and Alaska Native Population by Tribe1 for Puerto Rico: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, special tabulation. Internet release date: December 2013 Note: Respondents who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native were asked to report their enrolled or principal tribe. Therefore, tribal data in this data product reflect the written tribal entries reported on the questionnaire.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 Cultural Resources
    6 Cultural Resources Cultural resources are remains and sites associated with human activities, including Native American archaeological sites (both prehistoric remains and sites occupied after European arrival), historic buildings and archaeological sites, and natural landscape elements with traditional cultural significance (including areas of economic and religious significance).1 This chapter provides background on Native American settlements in Humboldt County and summarizes both historic and prehistoric cultural resources in the county. It also includes a summary of existing General Plan policies. Because no planning issues for cultural resources were identified in Phase I, no policy options are presented; however, as part of the Phase II community workshops, suggestions for modifications of existing policies may emerge. 6.1 NATIVE AMERICAN AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES Before European settlement, the Humboldt County area was one of the most culturally diverse regions of California, being home to nearly a dozen distinct peoples. In large part, Native American tribes occupied distinct areas conforming largely to the natural watershed basins (see Table 6-1). The majority of tribes were Athabascan speakers and hill people who built permanent homes along rivers; the Yurok and Wiyot spoke Algonquian languages and settled along both coasts and rivers; the Karok were Hokan-speaking and lived in mountainous territory. Table 6-1: Native American Tribes and Areas of Settlement in Humboldt County Population at First Tribe Linguistic Affiliation Watershed and Principal Settlements European Contact Yurok Algonquian Lower Redwood, lower Klamath 3,100 Karok Hokan Upper Klamath 2,700 Hoopa Athabascan Trinity (including Hoopa Valley) 1,000 Chilula Athabascan Middle Redwood 600 Whilkut Athabascan Upper Redwood, lower Mad 2,600 Wiyot Algonquian Humboldt Bay coast 3,200 Nongatl Athabascan Van Duzen, upper Mad No data Lassik Athabascan Eel No data Sinkyone Athabascan South Fork Eel 2,100 Mattole Athabascan Mattole 1,200 Sources: Sonia Tamez, 1978; Winzler and Kelly, 1977.
    [Show full text]
  • 33 Federally Recognized Tribes
    COUNTY TRIBAL NAME (CULTURE) 1. DEL NORTE ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA (ATHABASCAN, TOLOWA) 2. DEL NORTE RESIGHINI RANCHERIA (YUROK) 3. DEL NORTE SMITH RIVER RANCHERIA (TOLOWA) 4. DEL NORTE YUROK TRIBE OF THE YUROK RESERVATION (YUROK) 5. HUMBOLDT BEAR RIVER BAND OF THE ROHNERVILLE RANCHERIA (MATTOLE, WIYOT) 6. HUMBOLDT BIG LAGOON RANCHERIA (TOLOWA, YUROK) 7. HUMBOLDT BLUE LAKE RANCHERIA (TOLOWA, WIYOT, YUROK) 8. HUMBOLDT CHER-AE HEIGHTS INDIAN COMMUNITY OF THE TRINIDAD RANCHERIA (MIWOK, TOLOWA, YUROK) 9. HUMBOLDT HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL (HOOPA, HUPA) 10. HUMBOLDT / SISKIYOU (SHARED COUNTY KARUK TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA BORDER) (KARUK) 11. HUMBOLDT WIYOT TRIBE (WIYOT) 12. LAKE BIG VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS OF THE BIG VALLEY RANCHERIA (POMO) 13. LAKE ELEM INDIAN COLONY OF POMO INDIANS OF THE SULPHUR BANK RANCHERIA (POMO) 14. LAKE UPPER LAKE BAND OF POMO INDIANS (HABEMATOLEL) (POMO) 15. LAKE MIDDLETOWN RANCHERIA OF LAKE MIWOK/POMO INDIANS (MIWOK, POMO and MIWOK-LAKE MIWOK) 16. LAKE ROBINSON RANCHERIA TRIBE OF POMO INDIANS (POMO) 17. LAKE SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS (POMO, WAILAKI) 18. MENDOCINO CAHTO TRIBE OF THE LAYTONVILLE RANCHERIA (CAHTO, POMO) 19. MENDOCINO COYOTE VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS (POMO) 20. MENDOCINO DRY CREEK RANCHERIA OF POMO INDIANS (MAHILAKAWNA, POMO) 21. MENDOCINO GUIDIVILLE RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA (POMO) 22. MENDOCINO HOPLAND BAND OF POMO INDIANS OF THE HOPLAND RANCHERIA (POMO, and SHANEL, SHO-KA-WAH) 23. MENDOCINO MANCHESTER-POINT ARENA BAND OF POMO INDIANS (POMO) 24. MENDOCINO PINOLEVILLE BAND OF POMO INDIANS (POMO) 25. MENDOCINO POTTER VALLEY RANCHERIA (POMO) 26. MENDOCINO REDWOOD VALLEY LITTLE RIVER BAND OF POMO INDIANS (POMO) 27.
    [Show full text]
  • California Indian Warfare
    47 CALIFORNIA INDIAN WARFARE Steven R. James Suzanne Graziani 49 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBES CENTRAL COAST TRIBES CENTRAL INTERIOR TRIBES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBES COLORADO RIVER TRIBES DISCUSSION APPENDIX 1 A List of Warfare Encounters Between Tribes ILLUSTRATION Map Showing Names and Territories of California Tribes BIBLIOGRAPHY 51 INTRODUCTION With the exception of the Mohave and the Yuma Indians along the Colorado River, the tribes of California were considered to be peaceful, yet peaceful is an ambiguous word. While there was no large-scale or organized warfare outside the Colorado River area, all tribes seemed to be, at one time or another, engaged in fighting with their neighbors. There was a great deal of feuding between groups (tribelets or villages) within the individual tribes, also. The basic cause for warfare was economic competition, which included trespassing, and poaching, as well as murder. The Mohave and the Yuma, on the other hand, glorified war for itself. The ambiguity of the word "peaceful" is increased by the accounts in the ethnographies. For example, a tribe may be described as being "peaceful;" yet, warfare with certain neighbors was said to be "common." At times, there were actual contradictions in the information concerning tribal warfare and intertribal relationships. Apparently, each California tribe had contact with most of its neighbors, but for the purposes of this paper, we have divided the state into the following five areas of interaction: the Northern tribes, the Central Coast tribes, the Southern tribes, the Central Interior tribes, and tie Colorado River tribes. Within each area, we have attempted to ascertain which tribes were in agreement and which tribes were in conflict, and if the conflicts were chronic.
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal California Burial and Cremation Practices
    149 ABORIGINAL CALIFORNIA BURIAL AND CREMATION PRACTICES Richard A. Gould INTRODUCTION . * 151 SOME THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS . * 152 Distribution of Cremation and Burial as Mapped by Kroeber * 153 Revision Based upon Additional Information * 153 Northern Paiute .. * 153 Sinkyone . * 154 Huchnom . * 154 Northern Pomo . * 154 Costanoans . * 154 Panamint . a . a. * 154 Chemehuevi * 154 Vanyume * 155 Kitanemuk 0 * 155 Disposal of the Dead: Mixed Practices * 155 Modoc . 0 * 156 Chimariko . * 157 Wintu . * 157 Atsugewi * 157 Mattole . * 157 Northern Pomo * 158 Miwok . * 158 Salinans . * 158 Mono . * 158 Kawaiisu . * 158 BURIAL IN THE HOME VILLAGE * 158 GAPS IN THE RECORD . * 160 CONCLUSIONS: THE THEORY REVIEWED * 161 BIBLIOGRAPHY . *. * 163 MAPS Kroeber's (1925) Map of Native Tribes, Groups, Dialects and Families in California in 1770 * .* frontispiece Map 1: Distribution of Cremation and Burial * * as Mapped by Kroeber a . *0 166 Map 2: Revision of Kroeber's Map Based upon Additional Information . * * * 167 Map 3: Mixed Practices . 168 151 INTRODUCTION Information gathered by various investigators in the past has indicated that among California Indian tribes the manner of disposing of the dead differed according to region. In his Handbook of the Indians of California, Kroeber (1925:842) published a map showing the distribution of the practices of cremation and burial in aboriginal California. Three years later Spier presented a further synthesis of California data concerning the disposal of the dead in his monograph, Havasupai Ethnography. Since 1928, however, there have been no more over-all attempts to summarize the information about burial and crema- tion practices in California, despite the fact that considerable new data on the subject has become available.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliographies of Northern and Central California Indians. Volume 3--General Bibliography
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 370 605 IR 055 088 AUTHOR Brandt, Randal S.; Davis-Kimball, Jeannine TITLE Bibliographies of Northern and Central California Indians. Volume 3--General Bibliography. INSTITUTION California State Library, Sacramento.; California Univ., Berkeley. California Indian Library Collections. St'ONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. Office of Library Programs. REPORT NO ISBN-0-929722-78-7 PUB DATE 94 NOTE 251p.; For related documents, see ED 368 353-355 and IR 055 086-087. AVAILABLE FROMCalifornia State Library Foundation, 1225 8th Street, Suite 345, Sacramento, CA 95814 (softcover, ISBN-0-929722-79-5: $35 per volume, $95 for set of 3 volumes; hardcover, ISBN-0-929722-78-7: $140 for set of 3 volumes). PUB TYPE Reference Materials Bibliographies (131) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC11 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS American Indian History; *American Indians; Annotated Bibliographies; Films; *Library Collections; Maps; Photographs; Public Libraries; *Resource Materials; State Libraries; State Programs IDENTIFIERS *California; Unpublished Materials ABSTRACT This document is the third of a three-volume set made up of bibliographic citations to published texts, unpublished manuscripts, photographs, sound recordings, motion pictures, and maps concerning Native American tribal groups that inhabit, or have traditionally inhabited, northern and central California. This volume comprises the general bibliography, which contains over 3,600 entries encompassing all materials in the tribal bibliographies which make up the first two volumes, materials not specific to any one tribal group, and supplemental materials concerning southern California native peoples. (MES) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** U.S.
    [Show full text]