DOCSLIB.ORG

Study Plan to Assess Shasta River Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Needs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Study Plan to Assess Shasta River Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Needs STUDY PLAN TO ASSESS SHASTA RIVER SALMON AND STEELHEAD RECOVERY NEEDS Prepared by: Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District 215 Executive Court, Suite A Yreka, CA 96097 and McBain & Trush, Inc. 980 7th Street Arcata, CA 95521 Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 September 19, 2013 Study Plan to Assess Shasta River Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Needs September 19, 2013 This page intentionally blank -ii- Study Plan to Assess Shasta River Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Needs September 19, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... - 1 - 1.1. STUDY PLAN PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................. - 4 - 1.2. A FRAMEWORK FOR STUDY PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... - 4 - 2. FACTORS THAT LIKELY SUSTAINED HISTORICAL SALMONID POPULATIONS ................... - 5 - 2.1. UNIQUE GEOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC SETTINGS .................................................................................... - 5 - 2.2. THE UNIMPAIRED ANNUAL HYDROGRAPH .............................................................................................. - 7 - 2.2.1. Zone 1: A Rainfall and Snowmelt Hydrograph ............................................................................ - 12 - 2.2.2. Zone 2: A Spring-Fed Hydrograph .............................................................................................. - 15 - 2.2.3. Zone 3: A Snowmelt and Spring Hydrograph ............................................................................... - 15 - 2.2.4. Zone 4: A Rainfall Hydrograph .................................................................................................... - 15 - 2.2.5. Cumulative Daily Average Hydrographs ..................................................................................... - 16 - 2.2.6. Water Year 2000 Unimpaired Model Simulation for Flow and Water Temperature ................... - 18 - 2.3. DIVERSE SALMONID LIFE HISTORY TACTICS ......................................................................................... - 18 - 2.3.1. Historical Shasta River Life History Tactics ................................................................................ - 19 - 3. CONTEMPORARY STREAMFLOW AND HABITAT CONDITIONS IN THE SHASTA BASIN .. - 22 - 3.1. WATER DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................... - 22 - 3.2. IMPAIRED ANNUAL HYDROGRAPHS ....................................................................................................... - 23 - 3.3. WATER TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... - 27 - 3.3.1. Shasta River Temperature Profile ................................................................................................ - 27 - 3.4. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ............................................................................................................... - 28 - 3.4.1. Beneficial Uses ............................................................................................................................. - 30 - 3.4.2. Water Quality Objectives ............................................................................................................. - 30 - 3.5. FISH HEALTH IN THE KLAMATH AND SHASTA RIVERS ........................................................................... - 31 - 3.6. CONTEMPORARY SALMONID HABITAT STUDIES .................................................................................... - 31 - 3.6.1. Instream Flow Needs (IFNs) Studies ............................................................................................ - 31 - 3.6.2. Spawning Habitat Evaluations ..................................................................................................... - 32 - 3.6.3. Livestock Exclusion Fencing from Riparian Zone ........................................................................ - 33 - 3.6.4. Priority Actions for Restoration of the Shasta River: Deas et al. (2004) Technical Report ......... - 34 - 3.6.5. Studies on Nelson Ranch and Shasta Big Springs Ranch ............................................................. - 35 - 4. GENERAL STUDY PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. - 40 - 4.1. RECOMMENDATION #1. FORM A TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP ............................................................ - 40 - 4.2. RECOMMENDATION #2. INSTREAM FLOW NEED RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... - 40 - 4.3. RECOMMENDATION #3. EVALUATE THE FEASIBILITY OF RECOVERY WITH AND WITHOUT DWINNELL DAM .................................................................................................................................... - 41 - 4.4. RECOMMENDATION #4. SUPPORT ACTIONS FOR IMPROVED KLAMATH RIVER, ESTUARY, AND STOCK HARVEST MANAGEMENT. ..................................................................................................................... - 42 - 5. STUDY PLAN ELEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... - 43 - 5.1. STUDY PLAN ELEMENT #1: WATER BALANCE MODELING .................................................................... - 43 - 5.2. STUDY PLAN ELEMENT #2: PHYSICAL HABITAT ASSESSMENT FOR HIGH PRIORITY LHTS .................... - 44 - 5.3. STUDY PLAN ELEMENT #3: WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS ................................................................ - 48 - 5.4. STUDY PLAN ELEMENT #4: RIPARIAN VEGETATION STUDIES ................................................................ - 52 - 5.5. STUDY PLAN ELEMENT #5: JUVENILE AND ADULT MIGRATION ............................................................ - 58 - 5.6. STUDY PLAN ELEMENT #6: GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ - 61 - 5.7. STUDY PLAN ELEMENT #7: SPAWNING GRAVEL ASSESSMENT .............................................................. - 64 - 5.8. STUDY PLAN ELEMENT #8: SALMONID POPULATION STUDIES ............................................................... - 67 - 5.9. STUDY PLAN ELEMENT #9. DEVELOP POPULATION MODEL .................................................................. - 71 - 6. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................. - 73 - iii Study Plan to Assess Shasta River Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Needs September 19, 2013 7. APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................................. - 84 - 7.1. APPENDIX A: PRIMARY DOCUMENTS REVIEWED DURING PREPARATION OF THIS STUDY PLAN. ............. - 84 - 7.2. APPENDIX B. GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF SALMONID LIFE HISTORIES ................................................. - 85 - 7.2.1. Fall-run Chinook Salmon ............................................................................................................. - 85 - 7.2.2. Coho Salmon ................................................................................................................................ - 86 - 7.2.3. Steelhead ...................................................................................................................................... - 88 - 7.2.4. Spring-run Chinook Salmon ......................................................................................................... - 88 - 7.3. APPENDIX C: SALMONID HABITAT REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... - 90 - 7.3.1. Physical Habitat Requirements for Salmonids ............................................................................. - 90 - 7.3.2. Water Temperature Requirements for Salmonids ......................................................................... - 90 - 7.4. APPENDIX D: SHASTA BASIN HIGH PRIORITY LIFE HISTORY TACTICS IMPORTANT FOR SALMONID RECOVERY ............................................................................................................................................ - 94 - 7.4.1. Tactic 1: Fall-run Chinook Salmon Canyon 0+ Tactic ................................................................ - 96 - 7.4.2. Tactic 2: Fall-run Chinook Salmon Big Springs Complex 0+ Tactic .......................................... - 98 - 7.4.3. Tactic 3: Coho Salmon Big Springs Complex 1+ Tactic ............................................................ - 100 - 7.4.4. Tactic 4: Coho Salmon 0+ Big Springs Complex LHT .............................................................. - 104 - 7.4.5. Tactic 5: Steelhead 1+ and 2+ Big Springs Complex LHT ........................................................ - 106 - 7.4.6. Tactic 6: Steelhead Little Shasta River Headwaters 1+ Tactic .................................................. - 108 - 7.4.7. Tactic 7: Steelhead 2+ Little Shasta River LHT ......................................................................... - 110 - 7.4.8. Tactic 8: Coho Salmon Parks Creek Headwaters Tactic ........................................................... - 114 - 7.4.9. Tactic 9: Coho Salmon Parks
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mainstem Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Redd Survey 2012
    1,839U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arcata Fisheries Data Series Report DS 2014-39 Mainstem Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Redd Survey 2012 Mark Magneson and Philip Colombano U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 882-7201 November 2014 Disclaimers Funding for this study was provided by the Klamath River Habitat Assessment Study administered by the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office. Disclaimer: The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal government. The Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Program reports its study findings through two publication series. The Arcata Fisheries Data Series was established to provide timely dissemination of data to local managers and for inclusion in agency databases. The Arcata Fisheries Technical Reports publishes scientific findings from single and multi-year studies that have undergone more extensive peer review and statistical testing. Additionally, some study results are published in a variety of professional fisheries journals. Key words: Chinook salmon, Klamath River, redd, escapement, spawning survey. The correct citation for this report is: Magneson, M.D., and P. Colombano. 2014. Mainstem Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Redd Survey 2012. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata Fisheries Data Series Report Number DS 2014-39, Arcata, California. ii Table of Contents page Introduction ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UKTR Chinook Biological Review Team
    Upper Klamath and Trinity River Chinook Salmon Biological Review Team Report Williams1, T. H., J. C. Garza1, N. Hetrick2, S. T. Lindley1, M. S. Mohr1, J. M. Myers3, M. R. O’Farrell1, R. M. Quiñones4, and D. J. Teel3 1 National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, California. 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California. 3 National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington. 4 U.S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California. December 2011 ii Table of Contents List of Figures.................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v 1. Background..................................................................................................................... 1 2. ESU Configuration.......................................................................................................... 2 3. Biological Status of Upper Klamath and Trinity River Chinook Salmon ESU............ 11 4. Conclusions................................................................................................................... 25 5. References..................................................................................................................... 27 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Two generalized patterns of evolution of life-history
    [Show full text]
  • Estimation of Stream Conditions in Tributaries of the Klamath River, Northern California
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arcata Fisheries Technical Report TR 2018-32 Estimation of Stream Conditions in Tributaries of the Klamath River, Northern California Christopher V. Manhard, Nicholas A. Som, Edward C. Jones, Russell W. Perry U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-7201 January 2018 Funding for this study was provided by a variety of sources including the Klamath River Fish Habitat Assessment Program administered by the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls Area Office. Disclaimer: The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Program reports its study findings through two publication series. The Arcata Fisheries Data Series was established to provide timely dissemination of data to local managers and for inclusion in agency databases. Arcata Fisheries Technical Reports publish scientific findings from single and multi- year studies that have undergone more extensive peer review and statistical testing. Additionally, some study results are published in a variety of professional fisheries aquatic habitat conservation journals. To ensure consistency with Service policy relating to its online peer-reviewed journals, Arcata Fisheries Data Series and Technical Reports are distributed electronically and made available in the public domain. Paper copies are no longer circulated.
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15
    Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15: Final 2019 Water Quality Monitoring Study Plan Prepared: January 16, 2019 KHSA IM15 2019 STUDY PLAN Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................. 1 2. Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 3 3. Monitoring Components ................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 4 3.2 Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ....................................... 4 4. Quality Assurance, Data Management, and Dissemination ............................................ 5 4.1 KHSA Program Quality Assurance Strategy for 2019 ............................................. 5 5. Sampling Constituents and Frequency............................................................................ 7 5.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 7 5.2 Comprehensive Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ............. 9 6.0 References ................................................................................................................... 13 List of Figures Figure 1. 2019 KHSA IM 15 monitoring stations .............................................................. 2 List of Tables
    [Show full text]
  • Little Shasta River 2017-2019: Pre-Project Assessment of the Proposition 1 Ecosystem Restoration Grant Activities
    Little Shasta River 2017-2019: Pre-Project Assessment of the Proposition 1 Ecosystem Restoration Grant Activities Authors: Amber Lukk, Priscilla Vasquez-Housley, Robert Lusardi, Ann Willis Report prepared for: California Trout and California Wildlife Conservation Board December 2019 Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods........................................................................................................................................... 4 Hydrologic Year Type ................................................................................................................. 4 Discharge ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Water Temperature ...................................................................................................................... 5 Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 5 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates ........................................................................................................ 6 Fish Presence/Absence ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Age-Specific Escapement, River Harvest, and Run Size Estimates, 2020 Run
    1 Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Age-Specific Escapement, River Harvest, and Run Size Estimates, 2020 Run Klamath River Technical Team 15 February 2021 Summary The number of Klamath River fall Chinook Salmon returning to the Klamath River Basin (Basin) in 2020 was estimated to be: Run Size Age Number Proportion 2 9,077 0.17 3 37,820 0.69 4 7,579 0.14 5 8 0.00 Total 54,484 1.00 Preseason forecasts of the number of fall Chinook Salmon adults returning to the Basin and the corresponding post-season estimates are: Adults Preseason Postseason Sector Forecast Estimate Pre / Post Run Size 59,100 45,400 1.30 Fishery Mortality Tribal Harvest 8,600 5,200 1.65 Recreational Harvest 1,300 5,100 0.25 Drop-off Mortality 800 600 1.33 10,700 10,900 0.98 Escapement Hatchery Spawners 12,200 8,300 1.47 Natural Area Spawners 36,200 26,200 1.38 48,400 34,500 1.40 2 Introduction This report describes the data and methods used by the Klamath River Technical Team (KRTT) to estimate age-specific numbers of fall Chinook Salmon returning to the Basin in 2020. The estimates provided in this report are consistent with the Klamath Basin Megatable (CDFW 2021) and with the 2021 forecast of ocean stock abundance (KRTT 2021). Age-specific escapement estimates for 2020 and previous years, coupled with the coded-wire tag (CWT) recovery data from Basin hatchery stocks, allow for a cohort reconstruction of the hatchery and natural components of Klamath River fall Chinook Salmon (Goldwasser et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nelson Ranch Located Along the Shasta River Has Two Flow Gaging
    Baseline Assessment of Salmonid Habitat and Aquatic Ecology of the Nelson Ranch, Shasta River, California Water Year 2007 Jeffrey Mount, Peter Moyle, and Michael Deas, Principal Investigators Report prepared by: Carson Jeffres (Project lead), Evan Buckland, Bruce Hammock, Joseph Kiernan, Aaron King, Nickilou Krigbaum, Andrew Nichols, Sarah Null Report prepared for: United States Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Area Office Center for Watershed Sciences University of California, Davis • One Shields Avenue • Davis, CA 95616-8527 Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................2 2. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................6 3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................6 4. SITE DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................................................................7 5. HYDROLOGY.....................................................................................................................................................8 5.1. STAGE-DISCHARGE RATING CURVES .......................................................................................................9 5.2. PRECIPITATION........................................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Groom Dac-Gab
    Iredell County, N. C. Marriage Register - Groom Index A - K (1854-1964) Surname Given Name Surname Given Name Age R Date Official Witnesses G/B Dacons J. F. William Laura 35/21 W 11/12/1893 J. G. Weatherman (Min) W. C. Weatherman, W. M. New Hope Tns. Pratt Dacons Jonah Anderson Roxie 21/22 W 10/27/1917 J. E. Prevett (Min) B. M. Myers, A. L. Wilson, Iredell Co. Iredell Co. New Hope Tns. M. A. Souther Dacons Preston Martin Julia 29/26 C 2/22/1906 W. A. Jordan (JP) John D. Williams, Houston Iredell Co. Iredell Co. New Hope Tns. Jordan Dacons Thomas Tidline Octa 31/21 C 2/4/1897 E. Parker (Min) B. E. Felts, J. A. Souther, L. Iredell Co. Iredell Co. New Hope Tns. C. Felts Dacons William Dewey Linney Florence 22/22 C 6/19/1921 E. D. Duboes (Min) Laura Dubose, Emma Parks, Iredell Co. Alexander Co. Eagle Mills Tns. JimDalton Dagenhardt Jacob Fulbright Catherine - - 4/3/1867 J. M. Smith (Min) none Dagenhart Adam Sylvester Massey Beulah 23/19 W 12/10/1905 E. F. Griffith (Min) R. L. Bradford, James A. Alexander Co. Iredell Co. Shiloh Tns. Price, D. L. Morrow Dagenhart Albert Cephus Harris Grace Lucille 21/24 W 11/30/1933 N. Q. Harris (Min) Troy Sloan, Parley Goforth, Statesville #2 Statesville #2 Sharpsburg Tns. Hattie Harris Dagenhart Amos M. Massey Mary Jane 26/20 W 10/29/1905 T. E. Weaver (Min) M. N. Watt, O. S. Dagenhart, Alexander Co. Iredell Co. Iredell Co. Anthe Dagenhart Dagenhart Andrew W.
    [Show full text]
  • Yurok Final Brief
    Case 3:16-cv-06863-WHO Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 22 JEFFREY H. WOOD, Acting Assistant Attorney General 1 Environment & Natural Resources Division 2 SETH M. BARSKY, Chief S. JAY GOVINDAN, Assistant Chief 3 ROBERT P. WILLIAMS, Sr. Trial Attorney KAITLYN POIRIER, Trial Attorney 4 U.S. Department of Justice 5 Environment & Natural Resources Division Wildlife & Marine Resources Section 6 Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7611 7 Washington, D.C. 20044-7611 Tel: 202-307-6623; Fax: 202-305-0275 8 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 9 10 Attorneys for Federal Defendants 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 YUROK TRIBE, et al., ) 15 Case No. 3:16-cv-06863-WHO ) 16 Plaintiff, ) ) 17 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE v. ) TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ 18 ) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, et al., ) JUDGMENT AND/OR STAY OF 19 ) ENFORCEMENT (ECF No. 101) Defendants, ) 20 ) 21 and ) ) 22 KLAMATH WATER USERS ) ASSOCIATION, et al., ) 23 ) 24 Defendant-Intervenors. ) 25 26 27 28 1 Federal Defendants’ Response to Intervenors’ Motion for Relief 3:16-cv-6863-WHO Case 3:16-cv-06863-WHO Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 22 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5 4 A. Hydrologic Conditions In Water Year 2018 5 5 B. 2013 Biological Opinion Requirements for Suckers 5 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 7 A. Given Hydrologic Conditions, Guidance Measures 1 8 and 4 Cannot Both Be Implemented As They Were Designed Without Impermissibly Interfering With 9 Conditions Necessary to Protect Endangered Suckers 7 10 1.
    [Show full text]
  • SHASTA REPORT Final Cannon
    Removal of Dwinnell Dam and Alternatives Draft Concepts Report Prepared by Thomas Cannon Prepared for Karuk Tribe December 2011 1 Abstract Passage of salmon and steelhead to the upper Shasta River was blocked by the construction of Dwinnell Dam in 1928. Approximately 22 percent of the salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing habitat of the Shasta River was lost with the construction of the dam and reservoir. Spring run Chinook salmon that depended more on the upper watershed became extinct, while fall run Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead suffered severe declines in numbers from the loss of the upper watershed and long-term degradation of lower watershed habitats. Passage to the upper river could be restored by installing a fish ladder on the dam, trapping and hauling fish around the reservoir, dam removal, or providing a bypass route around the reservoir. These four alternatives are evaluated in this report. All four alternatives would require substantial habitat restoration including development of water supplies and improvements to spawning and rearing habitat and fish passage both above and below the Dam to achieve all the potential benefits. There are approximately 12 miles of accessible habitats to salmon and steelhead above Dwinnell Dam in the mainstem Shasta River, plus a similar amount in tributary creeks. There are approximately 16 miles of accessible habitat in Parks Creek. Dam removal would allow access to all of these habitats, including 4 miles in the reservoir reach, plus improve access and habitat to the six miles of Shasta River below the Dam. Ladder and Trap-and-Haul alternatives would allow access to only 8 additional miles of the upper Shasta River.
    [Show full text]
  • Shasta River Chinook and Coho Salmon Observations in 2013 Siskiyou County, CA
    California Department of Fish and Wildlife Final Report Klamath River Project August 14, 2014 Shasta River Chinook and Coho Salmon Observations in 2013 Siskiyou County, CA Prepared by: Diana Chesney and Morgan Knechtle California Department of Fish and Wildlife Klamath River Project 1625 S. Main Street Yreka, CA 96097 (530) 841-1176 1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Final Report Klamath River Project August 14, 2014 Shasta River Fish Counting Facility, Chinook and Coho Salmon Observations in 2013 Siskiyou County, CA ABSTRACT A total of 8,021 fall run Chinook salmon (Chinook, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) were estimated to have entered the Shasta River during the 2013 spawning season. An underwater video camera was operated in the flume of the Shasta River Fish Counting Facility (SRFCF) twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, from August 28, 2013 until December 9, 2013, when the weir sustained structural damage from ice build-up and was removed. The first Chinook was observed on September 9, 2013 and the last Chinook on December 3, 2013. KRP staff also processed a total of 512 Chinook carcasses during spawning ground surveys (of which 469 were used in fork length histograms), 65 Chinook carcasses as wash backs against the SRFCF weir (a systematic 1:10 sample), and 45 live Chinook in a trap immediately upstream of the video flume during the season. Chinook carcasses sampled in the spawning ground surveys ranged in fork length (FL) from 43 cm to 100 cm and grilse were determined to be < 59 cm in FL. Males ranged in FL from 43 to100 cm.
    [Show full text]
  • Center's New Exhibit Shares Details About Jewish Merchant Life
    Clarendon Hall takes different approach to practice B1 LOCAL Center’s new exhibit shares details about Jewish merchant life SERVING SOUTH CAROLINA SINCE OCTOBER 15, 1894 A2 SUNDAY, JULY 7, 2019 $1.75 A lover of life BRUCE MILLS / THE SUMTER ITEM Bob’s Appliance Sales and Service co-owner John Dollard displays a KitchenAid five-door configuration French door refrigerator last week at the store. Still local after 50 years in Sumter Bob’s Appliance Sales and Service surpasses 5 decades in business PHOTO PROVIDED BY BRUCE MILLS [email protected] Joey Geddings doesn’t sell many avocado green refrigerators these days or microwave ovens built “like a monster and weighing a ton,” but he and John Dollard are still going strong with Bob’s Appliance Sales and Ser- vice. The local, independent sales-and-service appliance store recently passed the 50-year mark in busi- ness, and the BOB’S APPLIANCE two co-owners SALES AND SERVICE discussed last PHOTO PROVIDED PHOTOS BY MICAH GREEN / THE SUMTER ITEM Address: 1152 Pocalla Road, week how they Clockwise from top right: Dorothy Louise Evans Elliott, known as “Mrs. Dot,” was recently honored by Pinewood Baptist Sumter have stayed Church for her service as the church’s organist for six decades. competitive in Hours: 8:30 to 5 p.m. Elliott is seen at the church organ in the 1970s. The Hammond Organ in the photo was the church’s first organ, which was pur- Monday-Friday and the ever-chang- appointments made for ing appliance chased in 1957. Elliott bought the organ from the church in 1990 and continues to use it to practice weekly in her home.
    [Show full text]